United States District Court, D. Maryland, Southern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
M. DIGIROLAMO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Darryl Green seeks judicial review under 42 U.S.C.
§§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3) of a final decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security (“Defendant” or
the “Commissioner”) denying his application for
Supplemental Security Income under Title XVI of the Social
Security Act. Before the Court are Plaintiff's Motion for
Summary Judgment (ECF No. 15) and Defendant's Motion for
Summary Judgment (ECF No. 20). Plaintiff contends that the
administrative record does not contain substantial evidence
to support the Commissioner's decision that he is not
disabled. No. hearing is necessary. L.R. 105.6. For the
reasons that follow, Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment (ECF No. 20) is GRANTED,
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 15) is
DENIED, and the Commissioner's final
decision is AFFIRMED.
August 3, 2016, Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”)
Michael A. Krasnow found that Plaintiff was not disabled
since the application date of November 14, 2013. R. at 14-37.
In so finding, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff had the
residual functional capacity (“RFC”)
to perform medium work as defined in 20 CFR 416.967(c) except
he can frequently climb ramps and stairs, balance, stoop,
kneel, crouch, and crawl; can occasionally climb ladders,
ropes, or scaffolds; must avoid concentrated exposure to
extreme heat; and must avoid even moderate exposure to fumes,
odors, dusts, and gases.
22. The ALJ found that, although he had no past relevant
work, Plaintiff was capable of performing other work, such as
a packer, laundry worker, or patient transporter. R. at
the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for
review, Plaintiff filed a complaint in this Court on June 13,
2017, seeking review of the Commissioner's decision. Upon
the parties' consent, this case was transferred to a
United States Magistrate Judge for final disposition and
entry of judgment. The case then was reassigned to the
undersigned. The parties have briefed the issues, and the
matter is now fully submitted.
Determinations and Burden of Proof
Social Security Act defines a disability as the inability to
engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any
medically determinable physical or mental impairment that can
be expected to result in death or that has lasted or can be
expected to last for a continuous period of not less than
twelve months. 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A),
1382c(a)(3)(A); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1505, 416.905. A
claimant has a disability when the claimant is “not
only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering
his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other
kind of substantial gainful work which exists . . . in
significant numbers either in the region where such
individual lives or in several regions of the country.”
42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(2)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(B).
determine whether a claimant has a disability within the
meaning of the Social Security Act, the Commissioner follows
a five-step sequential evaluation process outlined in the
regulations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920;
see Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20, 24-25, 124
S.Ct. 376, 379-80 (2003). “If at any step a finding of
disability or nondisability can be made, the [Commissioner]
will not review the claim further.” Thomas,
540 U.S. at 24, 124 S.Ct. at 379; see 20 C.F.R.
§§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4). The claimant has
the burden of production and proof at steps one through four.
See Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146 n.5, 107
S.Ct. 2287, 2294 n.5 (1987); Radford v. Colvin, 734
F.3d 288, 291 (4th Cir. 2013).
the Commissioner will consider a claimant's work
activity. If the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful
activity, then the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R.
§§ 404.1520(a)(4)(i), 416.920(a)(4)(i).
if the claimant is not engaged in substantial gainful
activity, the Commissioner looks to see whether the claimant
has a “severe” impairment, i.e., an impairment or
combination of impairments that significantly limits the
claimant's physical or mental ability to do basic work
activities. Pass v. Chater, 65 F.3d 1200, 1203 ...