United States District Court, M.D. North Carolina
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED
STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
PATRICK AULD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Ruth Isom Tucker, brought this action pursuant to the Social
Security Act (the “Act”) to obtain judicial
review of a final decision of Defendant, the Commissioner of
Social Security, denying Plaintiff's claim for Disability
Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) and Supplemental
Security Income (“SSI”). (Docket Entry 2.)
Defendant has filed the certified administrative record
(Docket Entry 8 (cited herein as “Tr.__ ”)), and
both parties have moved for judgment (Docket Entries 10, 12;
see also Docket Entry 11 (Plaintiff's Memorandum); Docket
Entry 13 (Defendant's Memorandum); Docket Entry 14
(Plaintiff's Reply)). For the reasons that follow, the
Court should remand this matter for further administrative
applied for DIB and SSI, alleging a disability onset date of
June 1, 2012. (Tr. 214-19, 220-27.) Upon denial of those
applications initially (Tr. 63-94, 129-39) and on
reconsideration (Tr. 95-126, 143-60), Plaintiff requested a
hearing de novo before an Administrative Law Judge
(“ALJ”) (Tr. 161-63). Plaintiff, her attorney,
and a vocational expert (“VE”) attended the
hearing. (Tr. 33-62.) The ALJ subsequently ruled that
Plaintiff did not qualify as disabled under the Act. (Tr.
7-23.) The Appeals Council thereafter denied Plaintiff's
request for review (Tr. 1-6, 211-13), thereby making the
ALJ's ruling the Commissioner's final decision for
purposes of judicial review.
rendering that disability determination, the ALJ made the
following findings later adopted by the Commissioner:
1. [Plaintiff] met the insured status requirements of the 
Act through December 31, 2017.
2. [Plaintiff] has not engaged in substantial gainful
activity since June 1, 2012, the alleged onset date.
3. [Plaintiff] has the following severe impairments: aortic
occlusion status post bypass, degenerative disk disease,
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and depressive
4. [Plaintiff] does not have an impairment or combination of
impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of
one of the listed impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P,
5. . . . [Plaintiff] has the residual functional capacity to
perform medium work . . . except the claimant would be
limited to sitting, standing, and walking each for six hours
out of an eight-hour workday, but for no more than one hour
at [a] time for sitting, standing, or walking; frequent
balancing, stooping, kneeling, crouching, and crawling;
frequent climbing ramps and stairs; occasional climbing
ladders, ropes, poles, and scaffolds; avoiding concentrated
exposure to fumes, dusts, gases, and pulmonary irritants;
avoiding concentrated exposure to hazards such as unprotected
heights and moving machine parts; and concentrating on task
for two hours at a time before changing tasks or being
6. [Plaintiff] is unable to perform any past relevant work.
10. Considering [Plaintiff's] age, education, work
experience, and residual functional capacity, there are jobs
that exist in significant No. in the national economy that
[Plaintiff] can perform.
11. [Plaintiff] has not been under a disability, as defined
in the  Act, from June 1, 2012, through the date of this
(Tr. 12-22 (bold font and internal parenthetical citations
law “authorizes judicial review of the Social Security
Commissioner's denial of social security benefits.”
Hines v. Barnhart,453 F.3d 559, 561 (4th Cir.
2006). However, “the scope of [the Court's] review
of [such a] decision . . . is extremely limited.”
Frady v. Harris,646 F.2d 143, 144 (4th Cir. 1981).