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.

Rickie Leroy Court v. Saul

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

September 16, 2019

RICKIE LEROY COURT, Plaintiff/Claimant,
v.
ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

          ORDER

          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-22, -24] pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c). Claimant Rickie Leroy Court ("Claimant") filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3) seeking judicial review of the denial of his 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, Claimant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is denied, Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is allowed, and the final decision of the Commissioner is upheld.

         I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

         Claimant protectively filed an application for a period of disability and DIB on July 9, 2015, and he protectively filed an application for SSI on September 9, 2015, alleging disability in both applications beginning December 6, 2011. (R. 17, 250-67). Both claims were denied initially and upon reconsideration. (R. 17, 99-148). A hearing before the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") was held on February 20, 2018, at which Claimant, represented by a non-attorney representative, and a vocational expert ("VE") appeared and testified. (R. 17, 43-98). On August 14, 2018, the ALJ issued a decision denying Claimant's request for benefits. (R. 14-42). Claimant then requested a review of the ALJ's decision by the Appeals Council (R. 248-49), and he submitted additional evidence as part of his request (R. 2). The Appeals Council did not exhibit the additional evidence because it was not new; it was a copy of evidence already in the record. Id. The Appeals Council denied Claimant's request for review on October 30, 2018. (R. 1-5). 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. Chafer, 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 impairment(s): 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 following errors: (1) the ALJ improperly weighed the opinions of Claimant's treating providers and (2) the ALJ erred in determining that Claimant's statements were not entirely consistent with the medical and other evidence. Pl.'s Mem. [DE-23] at 4-22.

         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 engaged in substantial gainful activity from January 2017 to December 2017, but there were continuous twelve-month periods during which Claimant did not engage in substantial gainful activity from January 2012 to December 2016 and from January 2018 to the present. (R. 20-21). Next, the ALJ determined Claimant had the following severe impairments: degenerative disc disease, dysfunction of major joints related to the feet and ankles, essential hypertension, diabetes mellitus, obesity, sleep apnea, and peripheral vascular disease. (R. 21). The ALJ also found Claimant had nonsevere impairments of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ("COPD") and depressive, bipolar, and related disorders. 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. 23-24). Applying the technique prescribed ...


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.