Source: http://sc.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180322_0000712.DSC.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 08:08:04+00:00

Document:
Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration,  Defendant.
This matter is before the court upon review of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (“Report”) (ECF No. 28), recommending that the Commissioner's Decision be affirmed. For the reasons stated below, the court REJECTS the Magistrate Judge's Report (ECF No. 28).
“Although this court may review parts of the Magistrate Judge's [Report] de novo, judicial review of the Commissioner's final decision regarding disability benefits ‘is limited to determining whether the findings are supported by substantial evidence and whether the correct law was applied.'” Sherby v. Astrue, 767 F.Supp.2d 592, 594 (D.S.C. 2010) (citing Walls v. Barnhart, 296 F.3d 287, 290 (4th Cir. 2002)). Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 405(g), the court may affirm, modify, or reverse the decision the Commissioner's decision, with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing.
Pursuant to Walker v. Bowen, when a claimant has “both exertional and nonexertional limitations, the Grids are not conclusive, but may only serve as guidelines.” 889 F.2d 47, 49 (4th Cir. 1989) (citing Wilson v. Heckler, 743 F.2d 218, 222 (4th Cir. 1984)). “If [the plaintiff] demonstrates the presence of nonexertional impairments, the [Commissioner], in order to prevail, must be required to prove by expert vocational testimony that, despite [the plaintiff's] combination of nonexertional and exertional impairments, specific jobs exist in the national economy which he can perform.” Grant v. Schweiker, 699 F.2d 189, 192 (4th Cir. 1983). “The proper inquiry under Grant is whether the nonexertional condition affects an individual's residual functional capacity to perform work of which he is exertionally capable.” Walker, 889 F.2d at 49; see also Smith v. Schweiker, 719 F.2d 723, 725 (4th Cir. 1984).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.