Source: http://md.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190306_0000292.DMD.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-02-21 07:15:38
Document Index: 394236562

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 405', '§ 405', '§ 216', '§ 405', '§ 405', '§ 416', '§ 404']

FindACase™ | Sunil M. v. Berryhill
Sunil M. v. Berryhill
Pending before this Court, by the parties' consent, are Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF Nos. 12, 13). The Court must uphold the Social Security Administration (“SSA”)'s decision if it is supported by substantial evidence and if the Agency employed proper legal standards. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c)(3) (2016); Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 589 (4th Cir. 1996). The substantial evidence rule “consists of more than a mere scintilla of evidence but may be somewhat less than a preponderance.” Craig, 76 F.3d at 589. This Court shall not “re-weigh conflicting evidence, make credibility determinations, or substitute [its] judgment” for that of the SSA. Id. Upon review of the pleadings and the record, the Court finds that no hearing is necessary. Local Rule (“L.R.”) 105.6. For the reasons set forth below, I will deny both parties' motions, reverse the SSA's decision in part, and remand for further consideration pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
Plaintiff filed a Title II Application for Disability Insurance Benefits on August 23, 2014, alleging an onset disability date of March 20, 2013.[2] (Tr. 22). This claim was initially denied on January 8, 2015, and upon reconsideration, denied again on April 29, 2015. (Id.). Plaintiff's request for a hearing was granted and the hearing was conducted on March 20, 2017, by an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). (Tr. 30). On June 21, 2017, the ALJ found that Plaintiff was not disabled under §§ 216(i) and 223(d) of the Social Security Act and denied Plaintiff's claims. (Tr. 30). On November 27, 2017, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review, and the ALJ's decision became the final and reviewable decision of the SSA. (Tr. 1-3). Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), Plaintiff has a right of further review after the ALJ's decision becomes final and thus, filed her claim in this Court. (ECF No. 1).
The issue before this Court is not whether the Plaintiff is disabled, but whether the ALJ's finding that Plaintiff is not disabled is supported by substantial evidence. Craig, 76 F.3d at 589; 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Plaintiff advances two arguments alleging that the ALJ erred. Plaintiff first avers that the ALJ failed to set forth sufficient narrative to support his conclusion. (ECF No. 12-1 at 3-7). Second, Plaintiff alleges that the ALJ failed to properly evaluate Plaintiff's subjective complaints. (Id. at 7-10). Defendant counters that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the SSA's final decision is supported by substantial evidence. (ECF No. 13).
Plaintiff contends that the ALJ erred in performing the “function-by-function assessment” in determining her RFC because the ALJ failed to “set forth a narrative discussion setting forth how the evidence supported each conclusion” including “citing to specific medical facts and nonmedical evidence.” (ECF No. 12-1, at 5-6).
When assessing a claimant's RFC, the law requires an ALJ to consider all of the claimant's medically determinable impairments, including any medically determinable impairments that are not “severe.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.925(a)(2). The ALJ considers any inconsistencies in the evidence and the extent to which there are any conflicts between a claimant's statements and the rest of the evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4). An ALJ will determine if a claimant's symptoms will diminish his or her capacity for basic work activities, subject to them being consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence. Id. An ALJ's RFC determination should include a “narrative discussion describing how the evidence supports each conclusion citing specific medical facts . . . and nonmedical evidence.” Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184, at *7 (July 2, 1996). The Fourth Circuit has recently held that a “proper RFC analysis has three components: (1) evidence, (2) logical explanation, and (3) conclusion. The second component, the ALJ's logical explanation, is just as important as the other two.” Thomas v. Berryhill, F.3d, 2019 WL 193948, at *3 (4th Cir. Feb. 22, 2019). See also Petry v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 16-464, 2017 WL 680379, at *2 (D. Md. Feb. 21, 2017) (ALJ should build “an accurate and logical bridge from the evidence to his conclusion.”).
Here, the ALJ found that Plaintiff suffered from the following severe impairments: sleep apnea, uncomplicated diabetes mellitus, mild osteoarthritis, valvular heart disease, lumbago and hypertension. (Tr. 24). Recognizing those ...