United States District Court, M.D. North Carolina
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED
STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Patrick Auld United States Magistrate Judge.
Cynthia Diane McNeill, brought this action pursuant to the
Social Security Act (the “Act”) to obtain
judicial review of a final decision of Defendant, the Acting
Commissioner of Social Security, denying Plaintiff's
claims for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”)
and Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”). (Docket
Entry 2.) Defendant has filed the certified administrative
record (Docket Entry 9 (cited herein as “Tr. ”)),
and both parties have moved for judgment (Docket Entries 11,
13; see also Docket Entry 12 (Plaintiff's
Brief); Docket Entry 14 (Defendant's Memorandum)). For
the reasons that follow, the Court should enter judgment for
applied for DIB and SSI, alleging an onset date of June 1,
2008. (Tr. 253-67, 282-88.) Upon denial of those applications
initially (Tr. 94-111, 144-60) and on reconsideration (Tr.
112-35, 162-69), Plaintiff requested a hearing de novo before
an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) (Tr. 180-81).
Plaintiff, her attorney, and a vocational expert
(“VE”) attended the hearing. (Tr. 39-84.) The ALJ
subsequently ruled that Plaintiff did not qualify as disabled
under the Act. (Tr. 15-30.) The Appeals Council thereafter
denied Plaintiff's request for review (Tr. 1-4, 12-14),
thereby making the ALJ's ruling the Commissioner's
final decision for purposes of judicial review.
rendering that disability determination, the ALJ made the
following findings later adopted by the Commissioner:
1. [Plaintiff] meets the insured status requirements of the
 Act through March 31, 2014.
2. [Plaintiff] has not engaged in substantial gainful
activity since June 1, 2008, the alleged onset date.
3. [Plaintiff] has the following severe impairments:
acromegaly; degenerative disc disease of the lumbar
spine; non-malignant spinal lesion; obesity; tobacco abuse.
4. [Plaintiff] does not have an impairment or combination of
impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of
one of the listed impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P,
5. . . . [Plaintiff] has the residual functional capacity to
perform light work . . . except [Plaintiff] is able to
occasionally balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, crawl and climb
ramps and stairs but never ladders, ropes or scaffolds; must
avoid more than occasional exposure to extreme cold and
vibrations; must avoid all exposure to hazardous machinery
and unprotected heights; is able to frequently handle,
finger, and feel bilaterally; is able to perform tasks that
do not require stringent production or fast pace for example
as required by fast pace assembly line work, piece rate work,
or quota based work; [Plaintiff] is able to stand for 30
minutes to 1 hour and sit for 30 minutes to 1 hour and thus
must be permitted to alternate between sitting and standing
every 30 minutes to 1 hour as needed while remaining on task.
6. [Plaintiff] is capable of performing past relevant work as
an accounts payable clerk (DOT 216.482-010), SVP5, skilled,
sedentary work. This work does not require the performance of
work-related activities precluded by [Plaintiff's]
residual functional capacity.
In the alternative, considering [Plaintiff's] age,
education, work experience, and residual functional capacity,
there are other jobs that exist in significant numbers in the
national economy that [Plaintiff] can also perform.
7. [Plaintiff] has not been under a disability, as defined in
the  Act, from June 1, 2008, through the date of this
(Tr. 20-29 (bold font and internal parenthetical citations
law “authorizes judicial review of the Social Security
Commissioner's denial of social security benefits.”
Hines v. Barnhart, 453 F.3d 559, 561 (4th Cir.
2006). However, “the scope of [the Court's] review
of [such a] decision . . . is extremely limited.”
Frady v. Harris, 646 F.2d 143, 144 (4th Cir. 1981).
Plaintiff has not established entitlement to relief under the
extremely limited review standard.
Standard of Review
are not to try [a Social Security] case de novo.”
Oppenheim v. Finch, 495 F.2d 396, 397 (4th Cir.
1974). Instead, the Court “must uphold the factual
findings of the ALJ if they are supported by substantial
evidence and were reached through application of the correct
legal standard.” Hines, 453 F.3d at 561
(internal brackets and quotation marks omitted).
“Substantial evidence means ‘such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion.'” Hunter v.
Sullivan, 993 F.2d 31, 34 (4th Cir. 1992) (quoting
Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971)).
“It consists of more than a mere scintilla of evidence
but may be somewhat less than a preponderance.”
Mastro v. Apfel, 270 F.3d 171, 176 (4th Cir. 2001)
(brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). “If
there is evidence to justify a refusal to direct a verdict
were the case before a jury, then there is substantial
evidence.” Hunter, 993 F.2d at 34 (internal
quotation marks omitted).
reviewing for substantial evidence, the [C]ourt should not
undertake to re-weigh conflicting evidence, make credibility
determinations, or substitute its judgment for that of the
[ALJ, as adopted by the Commissioner].”
Mastro, 270 F.3d at 176 (internal brackets and
quotation marks omitted). “Where conflicting evidence
allows reasonable minds to differ as to whether a claimant is
disabled, the responsibility for that decision falls on the
[Commissioner] (or the ALJ).” Id. at 179
(internal quotation marks omitted). “The issue before
[the Court], therefore, is not whether [the claimant] is
disabled, but whether the ALJ's finding that [the
claimant] is not disabled is supported by substantial
evidence and was reached based upon a correct application of
the relevant law.” Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d
585, 589 (4th Cir. 1996).
confronting that issue, the Court must take note that
“[a] claimant for disability benefits bears the burden
of proving a disability, ” Hall v. Harris, 658
F.2d 260, 264 (4th Cir. 1981), and that, in this context,
“disability” means 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, '” id. (quoting 42 U.S.C.
§ 423(d)(1)(A)). “To regularize the adjudicative
process, the Social Security Administration has . . .
detailed regulations incorporating longstanding
medical-vocational evaluation policies that take into account
a claimant's age, education, and work experience in
addition to [the claimant's] medical condition.”
Id. “These regulations establish a
‘sequential evaluation process' to determine
whether a claimant is disabled.” Id.
sequential evaluation process (“SEP”) has up to
five steps: “The claimant (1) must not be engaged in
‘substantial gainful activity, ' i.e.,
currently working; and (2) must have a ‘severe'
impairment that (3) meets or exceeds the ‘listings'
of specified impairments, or is otherwise incapacitating to
the extent that the claimant does not possess the residual
functional capacity to (4) perform [the claimant's] past
work or (5) any other work.” Albright v.
Commissioner of the Soc. Sec. Admin., 174 F.3d 473, 475
n.2 (4th Cir. 1999). A finding adverse to the claimant at any
of several points in the SEP forecloses an award and ends the
inquiry. For example, “[t]he first step determines
whether the claimant is engaged in ‘substantial gainful
activity.' If the claimant is working, benefits are
denied. The second step determines if the claimant is
‘severely' disabled. If not, benefits are
denied.” Bennett v. Sullivan, 917 F.2d 157,
159 (4th Cir. 1990).
other hand, if a claimant carries his or her burden at each
of the first three steps, “the claimant is
disabled.” Mastro, 270 F.3d at 177.
Alternatively, if a claimant clears steps one and two, but
falters at step three, i.e., “[i]f a claimant's
impairment is not sufficiently severe to equal or exceed a
listed impairment, the ALJ must assess the claimant's
residual functional capacity (‘RFC').”
Id. at 179. Step four then requires the ALJ to assess
whether, based on that RFC, the claimant can perform past
relevant work; if so, the claimant does not qualify as
disabled. See id. at 179-80. However, if the
claimant establishes an inability to return to prior work,
the analysis proceeds to the fifth step, whereupon the ALJ
must decide “whether the claimant is able to perform
other work considering both [the claimant's RFC] and [the
claimant's] vocational capabilities (age, education, and
past work experience) to adjust to a new job.”
Hall, 658 F.2d at 264-65. If, at this step, the
Commissioner cannot carry its “evidentiary burden of
proving that [the claimant] remains able to work other jobs
available in the community, ” the claimant qualifies as
disabled. Hines, 453 F.3d at 567.
Assignments of Error
contends that the Court should overturn the ALJ's finding
of no disability on these grounds:
(1) “[t]he ALJ's decision to afford little weight
to the opinions of the treating physicians was not supported
by substantial evidence, and her overall determination was
erroneously based on her own lay ...