Manly Hook v. Carolyn Colvin
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 6:14-cv-01311-TMC. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000019676]. [15-2352]
Appeal: 15-2352
Doc: 33
Filed: 02/08/2017
Pg: 1 of 6
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-2352
MANLY HOWELL HOOK,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
CAROLYN
W.
COLVIN,
Administration,
Commissioner
of
Social
Security
Defendant – Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(6:14-cv-01311-TMC)
Argued:
December 6, 2016
Decided:
February 8, 2017
Before KING, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ARGUED: William Daniel Mayes, SMITH, MASSEY, BRODIE, GUYNN &
MAYES, P.A., Aiken, South Carolina, for Appellant.
Jillian
Elizabeth Quick, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, for Appellee.
ON BRIEF: Nora Koch, Acting
Regional Chief Counsel, Charles Kawas, Acting Supervisory
Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; William N. Nettles,
United States Attorney, Marshall Prince, Assistant United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Appeal: 15-2352
Doc: 33
Filed: 02/08/2017
Pg: 2 of 6
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
Appeal: 15-2352
Doc: 33
Filed: 02/08/2017
Pg: 3 of 6
PER CURIAM:
A
security
Howell
Manly
social
Hook’s
administrative
application
law
for
judge
(ALJ)
Disability
denied
Insurance
Benefits and Supplemental Security Income, finding that he is
not
disabled
under
the
Social
Security
Act.
After
the
ALJ’s
decision became final, Hook filed this action seeking judicial
review. Following briefing by the parties and a recommendation
by a magistrate judge, the district court affirmed the final
decision. Hook now appeals. We affirm.
We must uphold the ALJ’s disability determination unless it
is based on legal error or, in light of the whole record, is
unsupported by substantial evidence. Mascio v. Colvin, 780 F.3d
632,
634
requires
(4th
Cir.
2015).
more
than
a
The
substantial
scintilla,
but
may
evidence
be
less
standard
than
a
preponderance, of evidence. Hancock v. Astrue, 667 F.3d 470, 472
(4th Cir. 2012). We do not reweigh conflicting evidence, make
credibility determinations, or substitute our judgment for that
of the ALJ. Johnson v. Barnhart, 434 F.3d 650, 653 (4th Cir.
2005). When conflicting evidence could lead reasonable minds to
differ regarding whether a claimant is disabled, we must defer
to the ALJ’s determination. Hancock, 667 F.3d at 472.
An ALJ is required to use a five-step sequential evaluation
process
in
determining
whether
a
claimant
is
disabled.
See
Mascio, 780 F.3d at 634-35 (explaining the process). If the ALJ
3
Appeal: 15-2352
Doc: 33
Filed: 02/08/2017
Pg: 4 of 6
finds that the claimant has been working (step one) or that the
claimant’s
medical
impairments
do
not
meet
the
severity
and
duration requirements of the social security regulations (step
two), the process ends with a finding of “not disabled.” If the
ALJ reaches step three, he must either find that the claimant is
disabled
because
the
medical
impairments
meet
or
equal
an
impairment listed in the regulations or continue the analysis,
but he cannot deny benefits at this step.
If
the
first
determination,
the
three
ALJ
steps
then
do
not
assesses
lead
the
to
a
conclusive
claimant’s
residual
functional capacity (“RFC”), which is the most the claimant can
do
despite
physical
and
mental
limitations
that
affect
his
ability to work. To make this assessment, the ALJ must consider
all
of
the
claimant’s
medically
determinable
impairments
of
which the ALJ is aware. The ALJ then moves to step four, where
the ALJ either finds the claimant not disabled because he is
able to perform past work or proceeds to step five because the
exertion required for the claimant’s past work exceeds the RFC.
The claimant bears the burden of proof at the first four
steps, but at step five the burden shifts to the Commissioner to
prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the claimant can
perform other work that exists in significant numbers in the
national
education,
economy,
and
work
considering
experience.
4
the
The
claimant’s
Commissioner
RFC,
age,
typically
Appeal: 15-2352
Doc: 33
Filed: 02/08/2017
offers
this
evidence
expert
responding
through
to
a
Pg: 5 of 6
the
testimony
hypothetical
that
of
a
vocational
incorporates
the
claimant’s limitations. If the Commissioner meets her burden,
the
ALJ
finds
the
claimant
not
disabled
and
denies
the
application for benefits.
Conducting this analysis, the ALJ proceeded through step
five.
In
summary,
the
ALJ
found
that
Hook
suffers
from
the
severe impairments of degenerative joint disease and obesity,
but that he has the ability to perform sedentary work subject to
certain limitations. Based on the vocational expert’s testimony,
the ALJ further found that the Commissioner met her burden of
proving that Hook is capable of performing work that exists in
significant numbers in the national economy. For this reason,
the ALJ concluded that Hook is not disabled.
On
appeal,
Hook
primarily
contends
that
(1)
the
ALJ’s
rationale for rejecting the opinion of Dr. Vaughan Massie is not
supported by substantial evidence, (2) the ALJ improperly failed
to include certain restrictions in the RFC determination, and
(3)
the
Having
ALJ
failed
thoroughly
to
adequately
considered
the
explain
record,
his
oral
RFC
findings.
arguments,
and
controlling legal principles, we conclude that there is no basis
to
disturb
the
ALJ’s
decision.
We
reach
our
decision
for
substantially the reasons articulated by the district court –
that is, the ALJ properly followed the controlling regulations
5
Appeal: 15-2352
Doc: 33
Filed: 02/08/2017
Pg: 6 of 6
in assessing Hook’s application, the ALJ adequately explained
the bases for his adverse disability finding, and the decision
is
supported
by
substantial
evidence.
See
J.A.
53-74,
93-99
district
court
(magistrate report and district court order).
Based
on
the
foregoing,
we
affirm
the
judgment.
AFFIRMED
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?