United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Statesville Division
J. Conrad, Jr. United States District Judge
MATTER comes before the Court on Carl Well's
(“Plaintiff's”) Motion for Summary Judgment,
(Doc. No. 11); his Memorandum in Support, (Doc. No. 12);
Nancy A. Berryhill's (“Defendant's” or
“Commissioner's”) Consent Motion for
Extension of Time, (Doc. No. 13); Defendant's Motion for
Summary Judgment, (Doc. No. 14); Memorandum in Support, (Doc.
No. 15); and Plaintiff's Response, (Doc. No. 16).
seeks judicial review of Defendant's denial of his social
security claim. (Doc. No. 1). On April 25, 2013, Plaintiff
filed his application for a period of disability insurance
benefits (“DIB”) and supplemental security income
(“SSI”) under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C.
§ 405 et seq. (Doc. Nos. 9 to 9-9:
Administrative Record (“Tr.”) at 181-90). In his
application, Plaintiff alleged an onset date of March 14,
2013. (Tr. 181). Plaintiff's application was denied
initially and upon consideration. (Tr. 10, 109-114, 117-124).
August 27, 2015, a hearing was held in front an
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). (Tr. 25-58). On
October 1, 2015, the ALJ issued a decision finding Plaintiff
not disabled. (Tr. 7-19). The Appeals Council denied review
of the ALJ's decision on December 9, 2016, making the
ALJ's opinion the final decision of Defendant. (Tr. 1-
3). Plaintiff now appeals the ALJ's decision, requesting
this Court to issue a remand pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
question before the ALJ was whether Plaintiff was under a
“disability” as that term of art is defined for
Social Security purposes from March 14, 2013, Plaintiff's
alleged onset date, through October 1, 2015, the date of the
ALJ's decision.(Tr. 10). 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 n.5 (1987). The
ALJ ultimately concluded that Plaintiff was not under a
disability at any point in the relevant timeframe. (Tr. 19).
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