Court Opinion

ID: 9912631
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-22 21:00:41.687263+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:00:43.269319
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1600      Doc: 21         Filed: 12/21/2023     Pg: 1 of 4

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-1600

        MARTHA MAE JOHNSON,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

                             Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Statesville. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (5:21-cv-00004-RJC-DSC)

        Submitted: November 30, 2023                                Decided: December 21, 2023

        Before WILKINSON, HARRIS, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

        Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Samuel F. Furgiuele, Jr., Boone, North Carolina, for Appellant. Dena J. King,
        United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte,
        North Carolina; Wanda D. Mason, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Office of the
        General Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, Maryland, for
        Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1600      Doc: 21         Filed: 12/21/2023     Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Martha Mae Johnson appeals the district court’s order accepting the magistrate

        judge’s recommendation and affirming the administrative law judge’s (ALJ) denial of

        Johnson’s application for supplemental security income. On appeal, Johnson argues that

        the ALJ did not adequately explain her assessment of Johnson’s residual functional

        capacity (RFC), that the RFC is not supported by substantial evidence, and that the ALJ

        erred by relying on testimony from a vocational expert (VE). Because the ALJ did not

        provide an adequate explanation for her decision, we vacate the district court’s order and

        remand for further proceedings before the ALJ.

               “We review [a Social Security Administration (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) (internal quotation marks omitted). Whether

        an ALJ adequately explained her decision is a legal question subject to de novo review.

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

               The regulations prescribe “a two-step analysis when considering a claimant’s

        subjective statements about impairments and symptoms.” Lewis v. Berryhill, 858 F.3d 858,

        866 (4th Cir. 2017). The ALJ first “looks for objective medical evidence showing a

        condition that could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms.” Id. If the claimant has

        such a condition or impairment, then “the ALJ must evaluate the intensity, persistence, and

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1600       Doc: 21         Filed: 12/21/2023     Pg: 3 of 4

        limiting effects of the claimant’s symptoms to determine the extent to which they limit the

        claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities.” Id. The second step requires the ALJ

        to consider “the entire case record,” including both objective evidence and the claimant’s

        “statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms.” Shelley C.

        v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 61 F.4th 341, 360 (4th Cir. 2023) (internal quotation marks

        omitted). 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).

                 Importantly, the ALJ “must build an accurate and logical bridge from the evidence

        to [her] conclusions.” Arakas v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 983 F.3d 83, 95 (4th Cir. 2020)

        (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted). Our review of the record leads us to

        conclude that the ALJ did not do so here, specifically regarding her findings that Johnson

        could stand and walk for six hours out of an eight-hour workday and did not need to use

        an assistive device to do so. Although the ALJ cited evidence to support her findings, that

        evidence does not build an accurate and logical bridge to those findings. For example, the

        ALJ rejected Johnson’s allegations that she needed to use a rolling walker to ambulate

        because that device was not prescribed by a physician; a neurosurgeon could not identify

        a clear cause for all of Johnson’s subjective complaints and, thus, did not recommend her

        for surgery; and several exams showed Johnson had normal strength in her lower

        extremities. But the lack of a prescription is not determinative of a claimant’s need for an

        assistive device. Johnson’s use of a walker or other assistive device was substantially based

                                                     3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1600        Doc: 21        Filed: 12/21/2023     Pg: 4 of 4

        on her complaints of imbalance and leg and back pain, not solely on her perceived leg

        weakness. And the neurosurgeon’s decision not to recommend Johnson for spinal surgery

        has no clear bearing on whether she had difficulty walking or needed to use an assistive

        device to do so.      Moreover, although the ALJ called the neurosurgeon’s findings

        significant, she failed to explain how those findings supported the RFC—a connection that

        is not independently clear from the record. 1

               An ALJ’s obligation to provide a “logical explanation” for her findings “is just as

        important as” whether her conclusions are supported by substantial evidence. Thomas, 916

        F.3d at 311. The ALJ’s failure to do so here is reversible error. 2 We therefore vacate the

        district court’s order and remand with instructions to remand for such further

        administrative proceedings as may be appropriate. 3 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

               1
                 Finally, we note that because the ALJ did not question the VE regarding the effect
        needing to use an assistive device to ambulate would have on the jobs available to a person
        with Johnson’s RFC, it is not clear from the record whether the inclusion of such a
        limitation in the RFC would affect the ultimate finding of disability in this case.
               2
                   We therefore decline to address Johnson’s remaining arguments on appeal.
               3
                 By this disposition, we express no opinion on the ultimate merits of Johnson’s
        application for benefits.

                                                        4