McCray v. Saul ( 2020 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA NORTHERN DIVISION No. 2:18-cv-46-BO CAROL MCCRAY, ) Plaintiff, V. ORDER ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, ) Defendant. This cause comes before the Court on cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings. [DE 23, 25]. A hearing was held on these matters before the undersigned on November 20, 2019, at Elizabeth City, North Carolina. For the reasons discussed below, the plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings [DE 23] is GRANTED and defendant’s motion [DE 25] is DENIED. BACKGROUND Plaintiff brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for review of the final decision of the Commissioner denying her application for period of disability and disability insurance benefits. After initial denials of her application for benefits, plaintiff was given a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), which occurred on May 16, 2017. The ALJ issued an unfavorable ruling, finding that plaintiff was not disabled, which became the final decision of the Commissioner when the Appeals Council denied plaintiff's request for review. Plaintiff then sought review of the Commissioner’s decision in this Court. ' Saul has been substituted as the proper defendant pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d). DISCUSSION Under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), this Court’s review of the Commissioner’s decision is limited to determining whether the decision, as a whole, is supported by substantial evidence and whether the Commissioner employed the correct legal standard. Richardson vy. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971). Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Johnson v. Barnhart, 434 F.3d 650, 653 (4th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (internal quotation and citation omitted). An individual is considered disabled if he is unable “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 twelve months.” 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(A). The Act further provides that an individual “shall be determined to be under a disability only if 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. § 1382c(a)(3)(B). Regulations issued by the Commissioner establish a five-step sequential evaluation process to be followed in a disability case. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4). The claimant bears the burden of proof at steps one through four, but the burden shifts to the Commissioner at step five. See Bowen vy. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146 n.5 (1987). If a decision regarding disability can be made at any step of the process the inquiry ceases. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4). At step one, if the Social Security Administration determines that the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity, the claim is denied. If not, then step two asks whether the claimant has a severe impairment or combination of impairments. If the claimant has a severe impairment, it is compared at step three to those in the Listing of Impairments (“Listing”) in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, App. 1. If the claimant’s impairment meets or medically equals a Listing, disability is conclusively presumed. If not, at step four, the claimant’s residual functional capacity (RFC) is assessed to determine if the claimant can perform his past relevant work. If the claimant cannot perform past relevant work, then the burden shifts to the Commissioner at step five to show that the claimant, based on his age, education, work experience, and RFC, can perform other substantial gainful work. If the claimant cannot perform other work, then he is found to be disabled. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4). In this case, the ALJ committed reversible error when he failed to consider whether plaintiff's lumbar spondylosis was a severe impairment. In December 2015, plaintiff underwent an MRI which indicated she had lumbar spondylosis. Tr. 823. Aside from merely mentioning that the MRI occurred, the ALJ failed to discuss the results of the MRI and whether the lumbar spondylosis, either by itself or in conjunction with plaintiffs other health issues, was a severe impairment. An ALJ cannot simply ignore medical evidence pointing to a finding of disability. See Lewis v. Berryhill, 858 F.3d 858, 869 (4th Cir. 2017). On the basis of this significant defect, the Court finds the ALJ’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence. Having found reversible error, there is no need to consider plaintiff's remaining arguments. Accordingly, the ALJ’s decision must be remanded. CONCLUSION Havng conducted a full review of tie record and decision in this matter, the □□□□□ concludes that remand is appropriate. Accordingly, plaintiffs motion for judgment on the pleadings [DE 23] is GRANTED and defendant’s motion [DE 25] is DENIED. This matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further proceedings. SO ORDERED, this we day of January, 2020. TERRENCE W. BOYLE CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE