Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Moore v. Berryhill

United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Asheville Division

August 4, 2017

TREVYLAN FLOYD MOORE, Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

          ORDER

          Frank D. Whitney Chief United States District Judge.

         THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Trevylan Floyd Moore's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 9), filed on February 21, 2017, and Defendant Commissioner of Social Security Nancy A. Berryhill's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 10), filed on April 19, 2017. Plaintiff, through counsel, seeks judicial review of an unfavorable administrative decision on his application for disability insurance benefits.

         Having reviewed and considered the written arguments, administrative record, and applicable authority, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 9), GRANTS Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 10), and AFFIRMS the Commissioner's decision.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff filed an application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits on May 15, 2013, alleging a disability onset date of February 8, 2013. (Doc. No. 10 p. 134-35). After his application was denied initially and upon reconsideration (Tr. 69-72, 79-85), Plaintiff requested a hearing (Tr. 23). The hearing commenced on May 6, 2015, and on June 23, 2015, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) issued a decision denying Plaintiff's application. (Tr. 10-8).

         The ALJ determined that Plaintiff was not disabled. (Tr. 18). The ALJ found that Plaintiff had not engaged in any substantial gainful activity since February 8, 2013, and that he had the following severe impairments: atrial fibrillation, cerebrovascular accident, neuropathy, deep vein thrombosis, and sleep apnea. (Tr. 12). The ALJ reviewed the listed impairments and found none of the conditions, standing alone or in combination, met or medically equaled a per se disabled medical listing under 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. (Tr. 13). The ALJ then found that Plaintiff had the Residual Functional Capacity (“RFC”) to perform less than the full range of light work with the following limitations:

[T]he claimant can lift, carry, push and/or pull 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently. He can sit for 6 hours in an 8-hour day, and stand and/or walk for 6 hours in an 8-hour day, with normal breaks. The claimant can never climb ladders, ropes or scaffolds, and he can only frequently climb ramps and stairs. He must avoid concentrated exposure to unprotected heights, and he is limited to jobs requiring only occasional peripheral acuity.

(Tr. 14). Nevertheless, in response to a hypothetical that factored in the above limitations, a Vocational Expert (“VE”) testified Plaintiff was capable of performing his past relevant work as an office clerk. (Tr. 17-8). Accordingly, the ALJ concluded Plaintiff was not disabled. (Tr. 18).

         Plaintiff requested review of the ALJ's decision by the Appeals Council, and the Appeals Council denied the request for review on August 9, 2016. (Tr. 1-5). Plaintiff has exhausted all administrative remedies and now appeals pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Plaintiff claims that the ALJ's decision is not based on proper legal standards and is not supported by substantial evidence as 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) requires.

         II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         Pursuant to the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and § 1383(c)(3), this Court's review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is limited to: (1) whether substantial evidence supports the Commissioner's decision, Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 390, 401 (1971), and (2) whether the Commissioner applied the correct legal standards, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2006); Westmoreland Coal Co., Inc. v. Cochran, 718 F.3d 319, 322 (4th Cir. 2013). A reviewing court may not re-weigh conflicting evidence or make credibility determinations because “it is not within the province of a reviewing court to determine the weight of the evidence, nor is it the court's function to substitute its judgment for that of the Secretary if his decision is supported by substantial evidence.” Hays v. Sullivan, 907 F.2d 1453, 1456 (4th Cir. 1990).

         Substantial evidence is “more than a scintilla and [it] must do more than create a suspicion of the existence of a fact to be established. It means such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Smith v. Heckler, 782 F.2d 1176, 1179 (4th Cir. 1986) (quoting Richardson, 402 U.S. at 401). If this Court finds that the Commissioner applied the correct legal standards and that his decision is supported by substantial evidence, the Commissioner's determination may not be capriciously overturned.

         III. ANALYSIS

         The Social Security Administration has established a five-step sequential evaluation process for determining if a person is ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.