United States District Court, D. Maryland, Southern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Thomas
M. DiGirolamo United States Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff
Katrina A. 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 her applications for
disability insurance benefits and Supplemental Security
Income under Titles II and 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).[2] Plaintiff contends that the administrative
record does not contain substantial evidence to support the
Commissioner's decision that she 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.
I
Background
On
November 9, 2016, Administrative Law Judge
(“ALJ”) Raghav Kotval held a hearing in
Baltimore, Maryland, where Plaintiff and a vocational expert
(“VE”) testified. R. at 32-83. The ALJ thereafter
found on January 30, 2017, that Plaintiff was not disabled
from her alleged onset date of disability of May 2, 2014,
through the date of the ALJ's decision. R. at 12-31. In
so finding, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had the residual
functional capacity (“RFC”)
to perform sedentary work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(a)
and 416.967(a), meaning she can lift, carry, push, and pull
ten pounds occasionally, less than ten pounds frequently, sit
for six hours total per day, and stand or walk for two hours
total per day. However, she can only sit for fifty minutes at
a time before needing to stand and she can only stand or walk
for twenty minutes at a time before needing to sit.
Additionally, [Plaintiff] can only occasionally climb ramps
and stairs, balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, or crawl but can
never climb ladders and scaffolds. Furthermore, she can never
be exposed to unprotected heights, moving mechanical parts,
and extreme heat.
R. at
20-21. In light of this RFC and the VE's testimony, the
ALJ found that Plaintiff could perform her past relevant work
as a customer service representative and could perform other
work, such as a telemarketer, order clerk, or dispatcher. R
at 24-26. The ALJ thus found that Plaintiff was not disabled
from May 2, 2014, through January 30, 2017. R. at 26.
After
the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for
review, Plaintiff filed on April 13, 2018, a complaint in
this Court 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.
II
Disability
Determinations and Burden of Proof
The
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).
To
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).
First,
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).
Second,
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 (4th
Cir. 1995); see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c),
404.1521(a), 416.920(c), 416.921(a).[3]
Third,
if the claimant has a severe impairment, then the
Commissioner will consider the medical severity of the
impairment. If the impairment meets or equals one of the
presumptively disabling impairments listed in the
regulations, then the claimant is considered disabled,
regardless of age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R.
§§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), 404.1520(d),
416.920(a)(4)(iii), 416.920(d); see Radford, 734
F.3d at 293.
Fourth,
if the claimant's impairment is severe, but it does not
meet or equal one of the presumptively disabling impairments,
then the Commissioner will assess the claimant's RFC to
determine the claimant's “ability to meet the
physical, mental, sensory, and other requirements” of
the claimant's past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. §§
404.1520(a)(4)(iv), 404.1545(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4)(iv),
416.945(a)(4). RFC is a measurement of the most a claimant
can do despite his or her limitations. Hines v.
Barnhart, 453 F.3d 559, 562 (4th Cir. 2006);
see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1),
416.945(a)(1). The claimant is responsible for providing
evidence the Commissioner will use to make a finding as to
the claimant's RFC, but the Commissioner is responsible
for developing the claimant's “complete medical
history, including arranging for a consultative
examination(s) if necessary, and making every reasonable
effort to help [the claimant] get medical reports from [the
claimant's] own medical sources.” 20 C.F.R.
§§ 404.1545(a)(3), ...