Source: http://sc.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20191108_0003019.DSC.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-08-11 20:01:07
Document Index: 609166297

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 404', '§ 404', 'art 404', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404']

FindACase™ | Clinkscales v. Saul
Clinkscales v. Saul
Adriane Deshaun Clinkscales, Plaintiff,
The plaintiff filed an application for disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) on December 11, 2014, alleging that she became unable to work on May 9, 2014. The application was denied initially and on reconsideration by the Social Security Administration. On October 23, 2015, the plaintiff requested a hearing. On October 18, 2017, an administrative hearing was held at which the plaintiff and Benson Hecker, an impartial vocational expert, appeared and testified in Greenville, South Carolina. On December 20, 2017, the ALJ considered the case de novo and found that the plaintiff was not under a disability as defined in the Social Security Act, as amended (Tr. 17-25). The ALJ's finding became the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security when the Appeals Council denied the plaintiff's request for review on December 19, 2018 (Tr. 1-6). The plaintiff then filed this action for judicial review.
(1) The claimant meets the insured status requirements of the Social Security Act through December 31, 2019.
(2) The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since May 9, 2014, the alleged onset date (20 C.F.R. § 404.1571 et seq).
(3) The claimant has the following severe impairment: spine disorders (20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (c)).
(4) The claimant does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of one of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 404.1525, 404.1526).
(5) After careful consideration of the entire record, the undersigned finds that the claimant had the residual functional capacity to perform light work as defined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(b) except she may need to change position up to once an hour without leaving the workstation. She can occasionally climb ladders, stoop, and crawl, frequently push and/or pull with the right lower extremity, climb steps, balance, crouch, and kneel. She should avoid concentrated exposure to hazards.
(6) The claimant is capable of performing past relevant work as a cashier. This work does not require the performance of work-related activities precluded by the claimant's residual functional capacity (20 C.F.R. § 404.1565).
(7) The claimant has not been under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, from May 9, 2014, through the date of this decision (20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f)).
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. &sect; 405(g), the court may review the Commissioner&#39;s denial of benefits. However, this review is limited to considering whether the Commissioner&#39;s findings &ldquo;are supported by substantial evidence and were reached through application of the correct legal standard.&rdquo; Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 589 (4th Cir. 1996). &ldquo;Substantial evidence&rdquo; means &ldquo;such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion; it consists of more than a mere scintilla of evidence but may be somewhat less than a preponderance.&rdquo; Id. In reviewing the evidence, the court may not “undertake to re-weigh conflicting evidence, make credibility determinations, or substitute [its] judgment for that of the ...