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.

Mullen v. Saul

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

July 22, 2019

SHELVA MULLEN, Plaintiff/Claimant,
v.
ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION

          ROBERT B. JONES, JR., UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         This matter is before the court on the parties' cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings [DE-21, -23] pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c). Claimant Shelva Mullen ("Claimant") filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3) seeking judicial review of the denial of her applications for a period of disability, Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB"), and Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") payments. The time for filing responsive briefs has expired, and the pending motions are ripe for adjudication. Having carefully reviewed the administrative record and the motions and memoranda submitted by the parties, it is recommended that Claimant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings be denied, Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings be allowed, and the final decision of the Commissioner be upheld.

         I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

         Claimant protectively filed an application for a period of disability and DIB on April 21, 2014, and she protectively filed an application for SSI on June 18, 2018, alleging disability beginning April 21, 2014 in both applications. (R. 11, 269-84). Both claims were denied initially and upon reconsideration. (R. 11, 108-74). A hearing before the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") was held on June 16, 2017, at which Claimant, represented by counsel, and a vocational expert ("VE") appeared and testified. (R. 11, 54-88). On August 25, 2017, the ALJ issued a decision denying Claimant's request for benefits. (R. 8-34). Claimant then requested a review of the ALJ's decision by the Appeals Council (R. 264-68), and she submitted additional evidence as part of her request (R. 45-53). The Appeals Council determined that the additional evidence did not relate to the period at issue, and therefore did not affect the disability determination. (R. 2). The Appeals Council denied Claimant's request for review on June 28, 2018. (R. 1-7). Claimant then filed a complaint in this court seeking review of the now-final administrative decision.

         II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         The scope of judicial review of a final agency decision regarding disability benefits under the Social Security Act ("Act"), 42 U.S.C. § 301 et seq., is limited to determining whether substantial evidence supports the Commissioner's factual findings and whether the decision was reached through the application of the correct legal standards. See Coffman v. Bowen, 829 F.2d 514, 517 (4th Cir. 1987). "The findings of the Commissioner ... as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive . . . ." 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Substantial evidence is "evidence which a reasoning mind would accept as sufficient to support a particular conclusion." Laws v. Celebrezze, 368 F.2d 640, 642 (4th Cir. 1966). While substantial evidence is not a "large or considerable amount of evidence," Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 565 (1988), it is "more than a mere scintilla . . . and somewhat less than a preponderance." Laws, 368 F.2d at 642. "In reviewing for substantial evidence, [the court should not] undertake to re-weigh conflicting evidence, make credibility determinations, or substitute [its] judgment for that of the [Commissioner]." Mastro v. Apfel, 270 F.3d 171, 176 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 589 (4th Cir. 1996), superseded by regulation on other grounds, 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(d)(2)). Rather, in conducting the "substantial evidence" inquiry, the court's review is limited to whether the ALJ analyzed the relevant evidence and sufficiently explained his or her findings and rationale in crediting the evidence. Sterling Smokeless Coal Co. v. Akers, 131 F.3d 438, 439-40 (4th Cir. 1997).

         III. DISABILITY EVALUATION PROCESS

         The disability determination is based on a five-step sequential evaluation process as set forth in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 and 416.920 under which the ALJ is to evaluate a claim:

The claimant (1) must not be engaged in "substantial gainful activity," i.e., currently working; and (2) must have a "severe" impairment that (3) meets or exceeds [in severity] the "listings" of specified impairments, or is otherwise incapacitating to the extent that the claimant does not possess the residual functional capacity to (4) perform ... past work or (5) any other work.

Albright v. Comm'r of the SSA, 174 F.3d 473, 475 n.2 (4th Cir. 1999). "If an applicant's claim fails at any step of the process, the ALJ need not advance to the subsequent steps." Pass v. Chater, 65 F.3d 1200, 1203 (4th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). The burden of proof and production during the first four steps of the inquiry rests on the claimant. Id. At the fifth step, the burden shifts to the ALJ to show that other work exists in the national economy which the claimant can perform. Id.

         When assessing the severity of mental impairments, the ALJ must do so in accordance with the "special technique" described in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520a(b)-(c) and 416.920a(b)-(c). This regulatory scheme identifies four broad functional areas in which the ALJ rates the degree of functional limitation resulting from a claimant's mental impairments): understanding, remembering, or applying information; interacting with others; concentrating, persisting, or maintaining pace; and adapting or managing oneself. Id. §§ 404.1520a(c)(3), 416.920a(c)(3). The ALJ is required to incorporate into his written decision pertinent findings and conclusions based on the "special technique." Id. §§ 404.1520a(e)(3), 416.920a(e)(3).

         In this case, Claimant alleges the ALJ erred in relying upon the testimony of the VE because there was an unresolved apparent conflict between the VE's testimony and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles ("DOT"). Pl.'s Mem. [DE-22] at 9-17.

         IV. ALJ'S FINDINGS

         Applying the above-described sequential evaluation process, the ALJ found Claimant "not disabled" as defined in the Act. At step one, the ALJ found Claimant had not engaged in substantial gainful employment since April 21, 2014, the alleged onset date. (R. 13). Next, the ALJ determined Claimant had the following severe impairments: degenerative disc disease, ischemic heart disease, essential hypertension, diabetes mellitus, asthma, obstructive sleep apnea, obesity, depression, and anxiety. (R. 14). The ALJ also found Claimant had nonsevere impairments of gallstones, lipoma, hyperlipidemia, herpes zoster, rash, irritable bowel syndrome ("IBS"), abdominal adhesions, gastritis, gastroesophageal reflux disease ("GERD"), urinary tract infection, syncopal episode, plantar fasciitis, lateral epicondylitis in the left elbow, septal deviation, turbinate hypertrophy, and headache. Id. However, at step three, the ALJ concluded these impairments were not severe enough, either individually or in combination, to meet or medically equal one of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. (R. 15-17). Applying the technique prescribed by the regulations, the ALJ found that Claimant's mental ...


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.