Source: http://nc.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190923_0002307.ENC.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-08-09 17:31:40
Document Index: 624459454

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 405', '§ 301', '§ 405', '§ 416', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§404', 'art 404']

FindACase™ | Bullock v. Saul
Bullock v. Saul
CAROL JOANN BULLOCK, Plaintiff/Claimant,
ROBERT B. JAMES, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
This matter is before the court on the parties' cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings [DE-24, -31] pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c). Claimant Carol Joann Bullock ("Claimant") filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3) seeking judicial review of the denial of her application for a period of disability and Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB"). The time for filing responsive briefs has expired, and the pending motions are ripe for adjudication. Having carefully reviewed the administrative record and the motions and memoranda submitted by the parties, Claimant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is denied, Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is allowed, and the final decision of the Commissioner is upheld.
Claimant protectively filed an application for a period of disability and DIB on June 12, 2014, alleging disability beginning January 31, 2013. (R. 17, 158-61). Her claim was denied initially and upon reconsideration. (R. 17, 54-83). A hearing before the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") was held on March 14, 2017, at which Claimant, represented by counsel, and a vocational expert ("VE") appeared and testified. (R. 17, 33-50). On August 8, 2017, the ALJ issued a decision denying Claimant's request for benefits. (R. 14-32). On August 8, 2018, the Appeals Council denied Claimant's request for review. (R. 3-8). Claimant then filed a complaint in this court seeking review of the now-final administrative decision.
The scope of judicial review of a final agency decision regarding disability benefits under the Social Security Act ("Act"), 42 U.S.C. § 301 et seq., is limited to determining whether substantial evidence supports the Commissioner's factual findings and whether the decision was reached through the application of the correct legal standards. See Coffman v. Bowen, 829 F.2d 514, 517 (4th Cir. 1987). "The findings of the Commissioner ... as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive . . . ." 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Substantial evidence is "evidence which a reasoning mind would accept as sufficient to support a particular conclusion." Laws v. Celebrezze, 368 F.2d 640, 642 (4th Cir. 1966). While substantial evidence is not a "large or considerable amount of evidence, " Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 565 (1988), it is "more than a mere scintilla . . . and somewhat less than a preponderance." Laws, 368 F.2d at 642. "In reviewing for substantial evidence, [the court should not] undertake to re-weigh conflicting evidence, make credibility determinations, or substitute [its] judgment for that of the [Commissioner]." Mastro v. Apfel, 270 F.3d 171, 176 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 589 (4th Cir. 1996), superseded by regulation on other grounds, 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(d)(2)). Rather, in conducting the "substantial evidence" inquiry, the court's review is limited to whether the ALJ analyzed the relevant evidence and sufficiently explained his or her findings and rationale in crediting the evidence. Sterling Smokeless Coal Co. v. Akers, 131 F.3d 438, 439-40 (4th Cir. 1997).
The disability determination is based on a five-step sequential evaluation process as set forth in 20 C.RR. § 404.1520 under which the ALJ is to evaluate a claim:
When assessing the severity of mental impairments, the ALJ must do so in accordance with the "special technique" described in 20 C.RR. § 404.1520a(b)-(c). This regulatory scheme identifies four broad functional areas in which the ALJ rates the degree of functional limitation resulting from a claimant's mental impairment(s): understanding, remembering, or applying information; interacting with others; concentrating, persisting, or maintaining pace; and adapting or managing oneself. Id. § 404.1520a(c)(3). The ALJ is required to incorporate into his written decision pertinent findings and conclusions based on the "special technique." Id. §404.1520a(e)(3).
In this case, Claimant alleges the following errors: (1) the ALJ failed to include a limitation for alternating between sitting and standing in the RFC, in accordance with a medical opinion from Dr. Robert Pyle, M.D.; and (2) the VE lacked necessary credentials, and the ALJ therefore improperly relied on her testimony. PL's Mem. [DE-25] at 6-9.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Applying the above-described sequential evaluation process, the ALJ found Claimant "not disabled" as defined in the Act. At step one, the ALJ found Claimant had not engaged in substantial gainful employment since January 31, 2013, the alleged onset date. (R. 19). Next, the ALJ determined Claimant had the following severe impairments: degenerative disc disease, lumbar spine; arthritis in the left knee; obesity; hernia; hypothyroidism; and depression. Id. The ALJ also found Claimant had nonsevere impairments of gastroesophageal reflux disease and hypertension. (R. 20). However, at step three, the ALJ concluded these impairments were not severe enough, either individually or in combination, to meet or medically equal one of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. (R. 20-22). Applying the technique prescribed by the regulations, the ALJ found that Claimant's ...