United States District Court, D. Maryland
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A.
David Copperthite United States Magistrate Judge
On
October 26, 2018, Richard William V. ("Plaintiff)
petitioned this Court to review the Social Security
Administration's ("SSA") final decision to deny
his claim for Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB")
and Supplemental Security Income ("SSI").
See ECF No. 1 ("the Complaint"). After
consideration of the Complaint and the parties'
cross-motions for summary judgment (ECF Nos. 12, 14), the
Court finds that no hearing is necessary. See Loc.R.
105.6 (D.Md. 2018). In addition, for the reasons that follow,
Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 12) is DENIED
and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 14)
is GRANTED.
Procedural
History
On
February 16, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Title II application for
DIB, alleging disability beginning on January 1, 2015.
Plaintiff also filed a Title XVI application for SSI on
February 16, 2016, alleging disability beginning on January
1, 2015. His claims were denied initially and upon
reconsideration on June 28, 2016, and October 13, 2016,
respectively. Subsequently, on October 26, 2016, Plaintiff
filed a written request for a hearing and, on August 29,
2017, an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") presided
over a video hearing. On September 25, 2017, the ALJ rendered
a decision ruling that Plaintiff "ha[d] not been under a
disability, as defined in the Social Security Act [(the
"Act")], from January 1, 2015, through the date of
this decision." ECF No. 10 at 90. Thereafter, Plaintiff
filed an appeal of the ALJ's disability determination,
and on August 30, 2018, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiffs
request for review because it "found no reason under
[its] rules to review the [ALJ's] decision." ECF No.
10 at 4. Thus, the decision rendered by the ALJ became the
final decision of the SSA. See 20 C.F.R. §
416.1481 (2018); see also Sims v. Apfel, 530 U.S.
103, 106-07 (2000).
On
October 26, 2018, Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this Court
seeking judicial review of the SSA's denial of his
disability application. On June 13, 2019, Plaintiff filed a
Motion for Summary Judgment, and Defendant filed a Motion for
Summary Judgment on August 9, 2019.[2]This matter is now fully
briefed and the Court has reviewed both parties' motions.
Standard
of Review
"This
Court is authorized to review the [SSA]'s denial of
benefits under 42 U.S.C.A. § 405(g)." Johnson
v. Barnhart, 434 F.3d 650, 653 (4th Cir. 2005) (per
curiam) (citation omitted). The Court, however, does not
conduct a de novo review of the evidence. Instead,
the Court's review of an SSA decision is deferential, as
"[t]he findings of the [SSA] as to any fact, if
supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive."
42 U.S.C. § 405(g); see Smith v. Chater, 99
F.3d 635, 638 (4th Cir. 1996) ("The duty to resolve
conflicts in the evidence rests with the ALJ, not with a
reviewing court."); Smith v. Schweiker, 795
F.2d 343, 345 (4th Cir. 1986) ("We do not conduct a
de novo review of the evidence, and the [SSA]'s
finding of non-disability is to be upheld, even if the court
disagrees, so long as it is supported by substantial
evidence." (citations omitted)). Therefore, the issue
before the reviewing court is not whether the plaintiff is
disabled, but whether the ALJ's finding that the
plaintiff is not disabled is supported by substantial
evidence and was reached based upon a correct application of
the relevant law. Brown v. Comm 'r Soc. Sec.
Admin., 873 F.3d 251, 267 (4th Cir. 2017) ("[A]
reviewing court must uphold the [disability] determination
when an ALJ has applied correct legal standards and the
ALJ's factual findings are supported by substantial
evidence." (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted)).
"Substantial
evidence is that which a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion. It consists of more than a
mere scintilla of evidence but may be less than a
preponderance." Pearson v. Colvin, 810 F.3d
204, 207 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal citations and quotation
marks omitted). "In reviewing for substantial evidence,
we do not undertake to reweigh conflicting evidence, make
credibility determinations, or substitute our judgment for
that of the ALJ. Where conflicting evidence allows reasonable
minds to differ as to whether a claimant is disabled, the
responsibility for that decision falls on the ALJ."
Hancock v. Astrue, 667 F.3d 470, 472 (4th Cir. 2012)
(internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Therefore,
in conducting the "substantial evidence" inquiry,
the court shall determine whether the ALJ has considered all
relevant evidence and sufficiently explained the weight
accorded to that evidence. Sterling Smokeless Coal Co. v.
Akers, 131 F.3d 438, 439-40 (4th Cir. 1997).
Disability
Determinations and Burden of Proof
In
order to be eligible for DIB and SSI, a claimant must
establish that he is under disability within the meaning of
the Act. The term "disability," for purposes of the
Act, is defined as the "inability to engage in any
substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically
determinable physical or mental impairment which can be
expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be
expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12
months." 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A),
1382c(a)(3)(A); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1505(a),
416.905(a). A claimant shall be determined to be under
disability where "his physical or mental impairment or
impairments are of such severity that he 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 the national
economy[.]" 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(2)(A),
1382c(a)(3)(B).
In
determining whether a claimant has a disability within the
meaning of the Act, the ALJ, acting on behalf of the SSA,
follows the five-step evaluation process outlined in the Code
of Federal Regulations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520,
416.920; see Mascio v. Colvin, 780 F.3d 632, 634-35
(4th Cir. 2015). The evaluation process is sequential,
meaning that "[i]f at any step a finding of disability
or nondisability can be made, the SSA will not review the
claim further." Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S.
20, 24 (2003); see 20 C.F.R. §§
404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4).
At step
one, the ALJ considers the claimant's work activity to
determine if the claimant is engaged in
"substantialgainful activity." 20 C.F.R.
§§ 404.1520(a)(4)(i), 416.920(a)(4)(i). If the
claimant is engaged in "substantial gainful
activity," then the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R.
§§ 404.1520(a)(4)(i), 404.1520(b),
416.920(a)(4)(i), 416.920(b).
At step
two, the ALJ considers whether the claimant has a
"severe medically determinable physical or mental
impairment [or combination of impairments] that meets the
duration requirement[.]" 20 C.F.R. §§
404.1520(a)(4)(h), 416.920(a)(4)(h). If the claimant does not
have a severe impairment or combination of impairments
meeting the durational requirement of twelve months, then the
claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§
404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 404.1520(c), 416.909, 416.920(a)(4)(h),
416.920(c).
At step
three, the ALJ considers whether the claimant's
impairments, either individually or in combination, meet or
medically equal one of the presumptively disabling
impairments listed in the Code of Federal Regulations. 20
C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), 416.920(a)(4)(iii).
If the impairment meets or equals one of the listed
impairments, then the claimant is considered disabled,
regardless of the claimant's 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
v. Colvin, 734 F.3d 288, 291 (4th Cir. 2013).
Prior
to advancing to step four of the sequential evaluation, the
ALJ must assess the claimant's residual functional
capacity ("RFC"), which is then used at the fourth
and fifth steps of the analysis. 20 C.F.R. §§
404.1520(e), 416.920(e). RFC is an assessment of an
individual's ability to do sustained work-related
physical and mental activities in a work setting on a regular
and continuing basis. SSR 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184, at *1 (July
...