Court Opinion

ID: 9838780
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-07 21:01:02.711749+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:42.571643
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1437      Doc: 17         Filed: 09/06/2023    Pg: 1 of 4

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-1437

        MONICA WOODY,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:20-cv-00918-WO-LPA)

        Submitted: August 28, 2023                                   Decided: September 6, 2023

        Before HARRIS and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Derrick Kyle Arrowood, ARROWOOD AND HALL, PLLC, Raleigh, North
        Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra J. Hairston, United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE
        UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina; Brian C. O’Donnell,
        Regional Chief Counsel, Taryn Jasner, Deputy Regional Chief Counsel, Maija
        DiDomenico, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Office of the General Counsel,
        SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1437      Doc: 17         Filed: 09/06/2023      Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Monica Woody appeals the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s

        recommendation and affirming the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) denial of Woody’s

        application for disability insurance benefits. Because the ALJ did not adequately explain

        his decision, we vacate the district court’s order and remand for further administrative

        proceedings.

               “We review an SSA decision only to determine if it is supported by substantial

        evidence and conforms to applicable and valid regulations.” Patterson v. Comm’r of Soc.

        Sec. Admin., 846 F.3d 656, 658 (4th Cir. 2017). Accordingly, “[w]e must uphold the ALJ’s

        decision if the ALJ applied correct legal standards and if the factual findings are supported

        by substantial evidence.” Dowling v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 986 F.3d 377, 382-83

        (4th Cir. 2021) (quotation marks omitted). Whether an ALJ adequately explained his

        decision is a legal question and is therefore subject to de novo review. See Thomas v.

        Berryhill, 916 F.3d 307, 311 (4th Cir. 2019).

               The Commissioner uses a five-step process to evaluate a disability claim. 20 C.F.R.

        § 404.1520(a)(4) (2023). “Steps 1 through 3 ask: (1) whether the claimant is working;

        (2) if not, whether she has a severe impairment; and (3) if she does, whether the impairment

        meets or equals a listed impairment.” Patterson, 846 F.3d at 659 (quotation marks

        omitted). “If the claimant fails at step [3], the ALJ must then determine the claimant’s

        residual functional capacity (‘RFC’),” which is the most a claimant can still do despite her

        physical and mental limitations. Brown v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 873 F.3d 251, 254

        (4th Cir. 2017). “After determining the claimant’s RFC, the ALJ proceeds to step [4]” and

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1437      Doc: 17          Filed: 09/06/2023     Pg: 3 of 4

        determines whether the claimant is “able to perform [her] past work.” Id. at 255 (quotation

        marks omitted). If the claimant is unable to perform her past work, “the ALJ finishes at

        step [5], where the burden shifts to the Commissioner.” Id. To withhold benefits, “the

        Commissioner must prove . . . that the claimant can perform other work that exists in

        significant numbers in the national economy, considering the claimant’s RFC, age,

        education, and work experience.” Id. (cleaned up).

               To enable meaningful judicial review, “[t]he record should include a discussion of

        which evidence the ALJ found credible and why, and specific application of the pertinent

        legal requirements to the record evidence.” Radford v. Colvin, 734 F.3d 288, 295 (4th Cir.

        2013); see also Thomas, 916 F.3d at 311 (“[M]eaningful review is frustrated when an ALJ

        goes straight from listing evidence to stating a conclusion.”).

               Woody contends the ALJ failed to adequately explain why the limitations included

        in the RFC sufficiently accounted for her headaches. Most significantly, she contends the

        ALJ erred by not making specific findings regarding how often she would be absent from

        work due to the frequency and severity of her headaches. We agree. The vocational expert

        testified a hypothetical person would be precluded from maintaining full time employment

        if she were absent more than once a month. The record shows that, even after receiving

        treatment that reduced the frequency of her headaches, Woody still reported getting

        headaches about once a week. And although Woody told her physicians the severity of her

        headaches had lessened with treatment, the record does not establish whether her headaches

        nevertheless remained severe enough to cause her to be absent from work when they

        occurred. The ALJ did not make specific factual findings on that point. The ALJ’s failure

                                                     3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1437      Doc: 17          Filed: 09/06/2023     Pg: 4 of 4

        to reach an “express conclusion in the first instance” on the potentially dispositive issue of

        whether the frequency and severity of Woody’s headaches would cause her to be absent

        from work more than once a month—or to explain how, despite any potential absences, the

        evidence supported his finding that the limitations included in the RFC sufficiently

        accounted for Woody’s impairments—is an error of law that necessitates remand.

        Dowling, 986 F.3d at 388; see Thomas, 916 F.3d at 311-12.

               We therefore vacate the district court’s order and remand with instructions to

        remand for such further administrative proceedings as may be appropriate. * We dispense

        with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

        materials before this Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                     VACATED AND REMANDED

               *
                 By this disposition, we express no opinion on the ultimate merits of Woody’s
        application for benefits. “We simply ask the ALJ to give us a clearer window into [his]
        reasoning.” Thomas, 916 F.3d at 313.

                                                      4