Source: http://md.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20191003_0001449.DMD.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-02-21 13:22:32
Document Index: 201140954

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 416', '§ 405', 'art, 434', '§ 405', '§ 423', '§ 404', '§ 423', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404']

FindACase™ | Elizabeth K. v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration
Elizabeth K. v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration
MARY ELIZABETH K., Plaintiff,
On September 20, 2018, Mary Elizabeth K. ("Plaintiff") petitioned this Court to review the Social Security Administration's ("SSA") final decision to deny her claims for Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB") and Supplemental Security Income ("SSI"). See ECF No. 1 ("the Complaint"). After consideration of the Complaint and the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment (ECF Nos. 12, 15), the Court finds that no hearing is necessary. See Loc.R. 105.6 (D.Md. 2018). In addition, for the reasons that follow, Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 12) and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 15) are DENIED, the decision of the SSA is REVERSED, and the case is REMANDED to the SSA' for further analysis in accordance with this opinion.
On October 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Title II application for DIB, alleging disability beginning on July 25, 2011. Plaintiff also filed a Title XVI application for SSI on October 20, 2015, alleging disability beginning on July 25, 2011. Her claims were denied initially and upon reconsideration on December 10, 2015 and March 24, 2016, respectively. Subsequently, on May 19, 2016, Plaintiff filed a written request for a hearing and, on May 30, 2017, an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") presided over a video hearing. On August 14, 2017, the ALJ rendered a decision ruling that Plaintiff "was not been under a disability within the meaning of the Social Security Act [(the "Act")], from July 25, 2011, through the date last insured." ECF No. 11 at 22. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed an appeal of the ALJ's disability determination and, on July 19, 2018, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiffs request for review. Thus, the decision rendered by the ALJ became the final decision of the SSA. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.1481 (2018); see also Sims v. Apfel, 530 U.S. 103, 106-07(2000).
On September 20, 2018, Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this Court seeking judicial review of the SSA's denial of her disability application. On April 12, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, and Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on July 25, 2019. Plaintiff filed a response to Defendant's Motion on August 22, 2019.[2] This matter is now fully briefed, and the Court has reviewed both parties' motions.
"This Court is authorized to review the [SSA]'s denial of benefits under 42 U.S.C.A. § 405(g)." Johnson v. Barnhart, 434 F.3d 650, 653 (4th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (citation omitted). The Court, however, does not conduct a de novo review of the evidence. Instead, the Court's review of an SSA decision is deferential, as "[t]he findings of the [SSA] as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive . . . ." 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); see Smith v. Chater, 99 F.3d 635, 638 (4th Cir. 1996) ("The duty to resolve conflicts in the evidence rests with the ALJ, not with a reviewing court."); Smith v. Schweiker, 795 F.2d 343, 345 (4th Cir. 1986) ("We do not conduct a de novo review of the evidence, and the [SSA]'s finding of non-disability is to be upheld, even if the court disagrees, so long as it is supported by substantial evidence." (citations omitted)). Therefore, the issue before the reviewing court is not whether the plaintiff is disabled, but whether the ALJ's finding that the plaintiff is not disabled is supported by substantial evidence and was reached based upon a correct application of the relevant law. Brown v. Comm V Soc. Sec. Admin., 873 F.3d251, 267 (4th Gir. 2017) ("[A] reviewing court must uphold the [disability] determination when an ALJ has applied correct legal standards and the ALJ's factual findings are supported by, substantial evidence." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
In order to be eligible for DIB and SSI, a claimant must establish that she is under disability within the meaning of the Act, The term "disability," for purposes of the Act, is defined as the "inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months." 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(A); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1505(a), 416.905(a). A claimant shall be determined to be under disability where "h[er] physical or mental impairment or impairments are of such severity that [s]he is not only unable to do h[er] previous work but cannot, considering h[er] age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy[.]" 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(2)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(B).
At step one, the ALJ considers the claimant's work activity to determine if the claimant is engaged in "substantial gainful activity." 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 (a)(4) (i), 416.920(a)(4)(i). If the claimant is engaged in "substantial gainful activity," then the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(i), 404.1520(b), 416.920(a)(4)(i), 416.920(b).
At step two, the ALJ considers whether the claimant has a "severe medically determinable physical or mental impairment [or combination of impairments] that meets the duration requirement[]" 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 416.920(a)(4)(ii). If the claimant does not have a severe impairment or combination of impairments meeting the durational requirement of twelve months, then the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(h), 404.1520(c), 416.909, 416.920(a)(4)(h), 416.920(c).