United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Statesville Division
LAGENIA S. WOOD, Plaintiff,
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Defendant.
COGBURN JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
MATTER is before the court on plaintiff's (#9)
and defendant's (#11) opposing Motions for Summary
Judgment. The matter is ripe for review. Having carefully
considered each Motion for Summary Judgment, the court enters
the following findings and Order.
filed a Title II and Title XVI application for a period of
disability, disability insurance benefits, and supplemental
security income on July 14, 2011, alleging disability
beginning July 12, 2011. (Tr. 19, 186, 190). Plaintiff's
applications were initially denied on August 30, 2011, (Tr.
159), and again upon reconsideration on November 3, 2011.
(Tr. 167, 171). Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”)
Gregory M. Wilson conducted a hearing on April 25, 2013, at
which plaintiff, her attorney, and a vocational expert
appeared. (Tr. 67). On September 6, 2013, the ALJ denied
plaintiff's claim in a written decision. (Tr. 16).
Plaintiff requested a review of the hearing decision and on
September 16, 2013 (Tr. 13), the request was denied by the
Appeals Council on August 22, 2014, (Tr. 1), making the
ALJ's decision the final administrative determination on
court adopts and incorporates the ALJ's factual findings
herein as if fully set forth. Such findings are referenced in
the substantive discussion which follows.
Standard of Review
only issues on review are whether the Commissioner applied
the correct legal standards and whether the
Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial
evidence. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 390
(1971); Hays v. Sullivan, 907 F.2d 1453, 1456 (4th
Cir. 1990). Review by a federal court is not de
novo, Smith v. Schwieker, 795 F.2d 343, 345
(4th Cir. 1986); rather, inquiry is limited to whether there
was “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion, ”
Richardson v. Perales, supra. Even if the
undersigned were to find that a preponderance of the evidence
weighed against the Commissioner's decision, the
Commissioner's decision would have to be affirmed if
supported by substantial evidence. Hays v. Sullivan,
supra. The Fourth Circuit has explained substantial
evidence review as follows:
the district court reviews the record to ensure that the
ALJ's factual findings are supported by substantial
evidence and that its legal findings are free of error. If
the reviewing court decides that the ALJ's decision is
not supported by substantial evidence, it may affirm, modify,
or reverse the ALJ's ruling with or without remanding the
cause for a rehearing. A necessary predicate to engaging in
substantial evidence review is a record of the basis for the
ALJ's ruling. The 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. If the reviewing court has no way of evaluating the
basis for the ALJ's decision, then the proper course,
except in rare circumstances, is to remand to the agency for
additional investigation or explanation.
Radford v. Colvin, 734 F.3d 288, 295 (4th Cir. 2013)
(internal citations and quotations omitted).
court has read the transcript of plaintiff's
administrative hearing, closely read the decision of the ALJ,
and reviewed the relevant exhibits contained in the extensive
administrative record. The issue is not whether a court might
have reached a different conclusion had it been presented
with the same testimony and evidentiary materials, but
whether the decision of the administrative law judge is
supported by substantial evidence. The court finds that the
ALJ's decision was based on substantial evidence.
five-step process, known as “sequential” review,
is used by the Commissioner in determining whether a Social
Security claimant is disabled. The Commissioner evaluates a
disability claim ...