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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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