McPherson v. O'Malley ( 2024 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION No. 5:23-CV-248-BO-RN DAWN McPHERSON, ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) MARTIN O’MALLEY, ) Commissioner of Social Security ) Defendant. ) This cause comes before the Court on plaintiff's complaint, which seeks review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security and entry of judgment in her favor. The appropriate briefs pursuant to the Supplemental Rules for Social Security have been filed, [DE 11, 12], and the matter is ripe for disposition. A hearing was held on the matter before the undersigned on May 29, 2024, at Raleigh, North Carolina. For the following reasons, the decision of the Commissioner is reversed, and the matter is remanded for an award of benefits. BACKGROUND Plaintiff brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for review of the Commissioner’s final decision to deny her application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Titles I] and XVI of the Social Security Act. On November 2, 2020, plaintiff submitted the appropriate applications, alleging an onset date of August 31, 2018. After initial denials, she proceeded to a telephone hearing: before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) on May 2, 2022, after which the ALJ issued an unfavorable decision. Plaintiff was 45 years old at her alleged date of onset and 49 years old at the time of the ALJ’s decision. On March 6, 2023, this 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. 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 v. 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 or she 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 v. 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). Here, at step one, the ALJ determined that plaintiff met the insured status requirements through December 31, 2023, and had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since her