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.

Hall v. Berryhill

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

April 19, 2018

THOMAS HALL, Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant.

          ORDER

          ROBERT J. CONRAD, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, (Doc. No. 7), and Memorandum in Support, (Doc. No. 8), and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, (Doc. No. 11), and Memorandum in Support, (Doc. No. 12).

         Defendant also filed a Consent Motion for Extension of Time, (Doc. No. 10), which this Court has not considered until now. After noticing that Plaintiff consented to this Motion and that Defendant thereafter filed her Motion for Summary Judgment within the time period requested, the Court hereby GRANTS the extension of time and considers Defendant's Summary Judgment Motion timely. Defendant's prior Consent Motion for Extension of Time, (Doc. No, 9), is thereby DISMISSED as moot.

         I. BACKGROUND

         A. Procedural Background

         Plaintiff Thomas Hall (“Plaintiff”) seeks judicial review of Defendant's denial of his social security claim. (Doc. No. 1). On or about October 30, 2014, Plaintiff filed an application for disability insurance benefits, alleging an inability to work due to disabling conditions beginning on July 1, 2013. (Doc. Nos. 5 to 5-10: Administrative Record (“Tr.”) at 26, 103). Plaintiff's application was denied initially on May 4, 2015, and upon reconsideration on June 9, 2015. (Tr. 129, 140).

         On September 7, 2016, Plaintiff, represented by counsel, appeared and testified at a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). (Tr. 49-102). The ALJ issued a decision on November 2, 2016, denying Plaintiff's claim. (Tr. 23-42). Plaintiff filed a request for review of the ALJ's decision on or about December 9, 2016, (Tr. 22), which was denied by the Appeals Council on February 8, 2017, (Tr. at 8-13), and again on April 12, 2017, upon consideration of additional information, (Tr. 1-7). Therefore, ALJ's 2016 decision became the final decision of the Commissioner.

         B. Factual Background

         The question before the ALJ was whether Plaintiff was under a “disability” as that term of art is defined for Social Security purposes[1] from July 1, 2013 through the date of the ALJ's decision, November 2, 2016. (Tr. 26, 42). To establish entitlement to benefits, Plaintiff has the burden of proving that she was disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146 n.5 (1987).

         The ALJ concluded that Plaintiff was not under a disability during the relevant time period. (Tr. 42).

         The 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) (2012). 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, not disabled;
(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 ...

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.