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.

Davis v. Berryhill

United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Western Division

September 29, 2017

JAMES O. DAVIS, Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

          ORDER

          LOUISE W. FLANAGAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This matter is before the court on cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings. (DE 17, 21). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), United States Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers, II, entered a memorandum and recommendation (“M&R”), wherein it is recommended that the court deny plaintiff's motion, grant defendant's motion, and affirm defendant's decision. (DE 23). Plaintiff timely objected to the M&R, (DE 24), and defendant made no response. Therefore, the issues raised are ripe for ruling. For the reasons that follow, the court adopts in part the M&R, rejects it in part, and remands to defendant for further proceedings.

         BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff protectively filed two applications for disability benefits July 12, 2013, alleging disability beginning April 16, 2012. Both applications were denied initially and upon reconsideration. Thereafter, plaintiff requested hearing before an administrative law judge (“ALJ”), who, after hearing held May 29, 2015, denied plaintiff's claims June 25, 2015. Following the ALJ's denial of his application, plaintiff timely requested review before the Appeals Council. The Appeals Council denied plaintiff's request for review August 11, 2016, leaving the ALJ's decision as defendant's final decision. Plaintiff then filed a complaint in this court seeking judicial review.

         DISCUSSION

         A. Standard of Review

         The court has jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to review defendant's final decision denying benefits. 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.” Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 589 (4th Cir. 1996). “Substantial evidence is . . . such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971) (quotations omitted). The standard is met by “more than a mere scintilla of evidence but . . . less than a preponderance.” Laws v. Celebrezze, 368 F.2d 640, 642 (4th Cir. 1966). In reviewing for substantial evidence, the court is not to “re-weigh conflicting evidence, make credibility determinations, or substitute [its] judgment” for defendant's. Craig, 76 F.3d at 589.

         “A necessary predicate to engaging in substantial evidence review is a record of the basis for the ALJ's ruling, ” including “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). An ALJ's decision must “include a narrative discussion describing how the evidence supports each conclusion, ” Monroe v. Colvin, 826 F.3d 176, 190 (4th Cir. 2016) (quoting Mascio v. Colvin, 780 F.3d 632, 636 (4th Cir. 2015)), and an ALJ “must build an accurate and logical bridge from the evidence to his conclusion.” Monroe, 826 F.3d at 189 (quoting Clifford v. Apfel, 227 F.3d 863, 872 (7th Cir. 2000)).

         To assist in its review of defendant's denial of benefits, the court may “designate a magistrate judge to conduct hearings . . . and to submit . . . proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition [of the motions for judgment on the pleadings].” See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The parties may object to the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations, and the court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id. § 636(b)(1). The court does not perform a de novo review where a party makes only “general and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate's proposed findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). Absent a specific and timely filed objection, the court reviews only for “clear error, ” and need not give any explanation for adopting the M&R. Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005); Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir.1983). Upon careful review of the record, “the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

         The ALJ's determination of eligibility for Social Security benefits involves a five-step sequential evaluation process, which asks whether:

(1) the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) the claimant has a medical impairment (or combination of impairments) that are severe; (3) the claimant's medical impairment meets or exceeds the severity of one of the impairments listed in [the regulations]; (4) the claimant can perform [his or her] past relevant work; and (5) the claimant can perform other specified types of work.

Johnson v. Barnhart, 434 F.3d 650, 654 n.1 (4th Cir. 2005) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520). The burden of proof is on the claimant during the first four steps of the inquiry, but shifts to the Commissioner at the fifth step. Pass v. Chater, 65 F.3d 1200, 1203 (4th Cir. 1995).

         In the instant matter, the ALJ performed the sequential evaluation. At step one, the ALJ found that plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since April 16, 2012. At step two, the ALJ found that plaintiff had the following severe impairments: degenerative disc disease of the cervical and lumbar spine; soft tissue injuries, status-post motor vehicle accident; history of right femur fracture; obesity; and an affective disorder. At step three, the ALJ determined that these impairments were not severe enough, either individually or in combination, to meet or medically equal one of the listed impairments in the regulations. See 20 C.F.R. § 404, Subpt. P, App.1.

         Before proceeding to step four, the ALJ determined that during the relevant time period plaintiff had the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform sedentary work, with the following limitations: has the capacity to lift and carry, push and pull up to ten pounds frequently and 20 pounds occasionally, and to stand and walk for up to two hours in an eight-hour workday, and to sit for six hours in an eight-hour workday; could never climb ladders, scaffolds, or ropes, occasionally climb ramps and would need to avoid concentrated exposure to hazards such as unprotected heights and dangerous machinery; would need the flexibility to use a hand held assistive device such as a cane while walking; could understand, remember, and carry out simple instructions, which is defined to mean activity that is consistent with a reasoning level of “two” or “three” as defined in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles; could sustain attention and concentration sufficient to carry out those simple instructions over the course of an eight-hour workday; could ...


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.