United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Asheville Division
DEREK S. MAHON, Plaintiff,
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant.
J. CONRAD, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff's
Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support, (Doc.
Nos. 10, 11), and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment
and Memorandum in Support, (Doc. Nos. 12, 13).
Derek Mahon (“Plaintiff”) seeks judicial review
of Nancy A. Berryhill's (“Defendant” or
“Commissioner”) denial of his social security
claim. Plaintiff filed an application under Title II for a
period of disability and disability insurance benefits on
October 23, 2012 alleging an onset date of December 27, 2011.
(Doc. Nos. 8 to 8-8: Administrative Record
(“Tr.”) at 22, 338-46). (Doc. No. 8-3 at 22). The
Commissioner denied Plaintiff's application first on
January 25, 2013 and again on May 8, 2013 upon
reconsideration. (Id. at 22). On May 30, 2013, the
Plaintiff filed a written request for a hearing.
(Id. at 22). On September 15, 2014, Plaintiff,
represented by counsel, participated in and testified at a
video hearing before an Administrative Law Judge
(“ALJ”). (Id.). The ALJ issued a
decision on December 22, 2014, denying Plaintiff's
claims. (Id. at 19-44). Plaintiff filed a request
for review with the Appeals Council, which was subsequently
denied on May 20, 2016, rendering the ALJ's decision the
final decision of the Commissioner. (Tr. 1-5).
Complaint seeking judicial review and remand of his case was
filed in this Court on July 19, 2016. (Doc. No. 2).
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, (Doc. No. 10),
and Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support, (Doc. No. 11),
were filed on December 24, 2016; and Defendant's Motion
for Summary Judgment, (Doc. No. 12) and Memorandum in
Support, (Doc. No. 13), were filed on January 24, 2017.
Plaintiff did not file a response to the Defendant's
motion for Summary Judgment and the time for doing so has
passed. The pending motions are ripe for adjudication.
question before the ALJ was whether Plaintiff was disabled
under sections 216(i), 223(d) and 1614(a)(3)(A) of the Social
Security Act. (Tr. 22). To establish entitlement to benefits,
Plaintiff has the burden of proving that he was disabled
within the meaning of the Social Security Act. Bowen v.
Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146 n5 (1987). The ALJ concluded
that Plaintiff was not disabled from December 27, 2011
through the date of his decision, December 22, 2014. (Tr.
Social Security Administration has established a five-step
sequential evaluation process for determining if a person is
disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a). The five steps are:
(1) whether claimant is engaged in substantial gainful
activity-if yes, not disabled;
(2) whether claimant has a severe medically determinable
physical or mental impairment, or combination of impairments
that meet the duration requirement in § 404.1509-if no,
(3) whether claimant has an impairment or combination of
impairments that meets or medically equals one of the
listings in appendix 1 and meets the duration requirement-if
(4) whether claimant has the residual functional capacity
(“RFC”) to perform his or her past relevant
work-if yes, not disabled; and
(5) whether considering claimant's RFC, age, education,
and work experience he or she can make an adjustment to other