United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Statesville Division
CAROL L. MORRISON, Plaintiff,
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff's
“Motion for Summary Judgment” (document #13) and
Defendant's “Motion for Summary Judgment”
(document #14), as well as the parties' briefs and
parties have consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and these Motions are
ripe for disposition.
considered the written arguments, administrative record, and
applicable authority, the Court finds that Defendant's
decision to deny Plaintiff Social Security benefits is
supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the Court
will deny Plaintiff's Motion for Summary
Judgment; grant Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment; and affirm the Commissioner's
Court adopts the procedural history as stated in the
filed the present action on September 26, 2018. She assigns
error to the Administrative Law Judge's evaluation of her
Residual Functional Capacity and specifically to her
evaluation of Plaintiff's credibility. See
Plaintiff's “Memorandum ...” at 3-9 (document
also argues that the ALJ's decision must be vacated
because her appointment was made in violation of the
Appointments Clause. See Lucia v. SEC, 138 S.Ct.
2044 (2018) (ALJs of the Securities and Exchange Commission
are inferior officers subject to the Appointments Clause and
must be appointed by the President, Courts of Law, or Head of
Department). See Plaintiff's “Memorandum
...” at 3, 9-13 (document #12). Plaintiff failed to
raise this issue during the administrative process and it is
now waived. Garrison v. Berryhill, No. 1:17-cv-
00302-FDW, 2018 WL 4924554, at *2 (W.D. N.C. Oct. 10, 2018)
(“To the extent Lucia applies to Social
Security ALJs, Plaintiff has forfeited the issue by failing
to raise it during her administrative proceedings”).
See also Burgin v. Berryhill, No. 1:17-cv-00346-FDW,
2019 WL 1139500, at *6 (W.D. N.C. Mar. 12, 2019) (same);
Shipman v. Berryhill, No. 1:17-cv-00309-MR, 2019 WL
281313, at *3 (W.D. N.C. Jan. 22, 2019) (same); Britt v.
Berryhill, No. 1:18-cv-00030-FDW, 2018 WL 6268211, at *2
(W.D. N.C. Nov. 30, 2018) (same). Accordingly, that
assignment of error is overruled.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and §
1383(c)(3), limits this Court's review of a final
decision of the Commissioner to: (1) whether substantial
evidence supports the Commissioner's decision,
Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 390, 401
(1971); and (2) whether the Commissioner applied the correct
legal standards. Hays v. Sullivan, 907 F.2d 1453,
1456 (4th Cir. 1990); see also Hunter v. Sullivan,
993 F.2d 31, 34 (4th Cir. 1992) (per curiam). The
District Court does not review a final decision of the
Commissioner de novo. Smith v. Schweiker,
795 F.2d 343, 345 (4th Cir. 1986); King v. Califano,
599 F.2d 597, 599 (4th Cir. 1979); Blalock v.
Richardson, 483 F.2d 773, 775 (4th Cir. 1972).
Social Security Act provides, “[t]he findings of the
[Commissioner] as to any fact, if supported by substantial
evidence, shall be conclusive.” 42 U.S.C. §
405(g). In Smith v. Heckler, 782 F.2d 1176, 1179
(4th Cir. 1986), quoting Richardson v. Perales, 402
U.S. 389, 401 (1971), the Fourth Circuit defined
“substantial evidence” thus:
Substantial evidence has been defined as being “more
than a scintilla and do[ing] more than creat[ing] a suspicion
of the existence of a fact to be established. It means such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion.”
See also Seacrist v. Weinberger, 538 F.2d 1054,
1056-57 (4th Cir. 1976) (“We note that it is the
responsibility of the [Commissioner] and not the courts to
reconcile inconsistencies in the medical evidence”).
Fourth Circuit has long emphasized that it is not for a
reviewing court to weigh the evidence again, nor to
substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner,
assuming the Commissioner's final decision is supported
by substantial evidence. Hays v. Sullivan, 907 F.2d
at 1456 (4th Cir. 1990); see also Smith v.
Schweiker, 795 F.2d at 345; and Blalock v.
Richardson, 483 F.2d at 775. Indeed, this is true even
if the reviewing court disagrees with the outcome - so long
as there is “substantial evidence” in the record
to support the final decision below. Lester v.
Schweiker, 683 F.2d 838, 841 (4th Cir. 1982).