Shaffer v. Astrue

Filing 31

ORDER DENYING 22 Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, and GRANTING 24 Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED. Signed by US District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 7/31/2013. Counsel is directed to read Order in its entirety for critical information. (Fisher, M.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
EASTERN DIVISION
NO. 4:12-CV-73-BO
JOHN ALLEN SHAFFER,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings. A hearing
was held before the undersigned on May 31,2013, at Edenton, North Carolina. For the reasons
discussed below, the decision of the Commissioner is affirmed.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffbrought this action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3) for review of the final
decision of the Commissioner denying his claim Supplemental Security Income (SSI) pursuant to
Title XVI of the Social Security Act. Plaintiff protectively applied for SSI on June 11,2008, alleging
disability since May 15, 2002. His claims were denied initially and on reconsideration. After
conducting a hearing and considering the claim de novo, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found
that plaintiff was not disabled.

The decision of the ALJ became the final decision of the

Commissioner when the Appeals Council denied plaintifi' s request for review. Plaintiff then timely
sought review of the Commissioner's decision in this Court.
DISCUSSION
Under the Social Security Act, 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. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); see Hays v.

Sullivan, 907 F.2d 1453, 1456 (4th Cir. 1990). Substantial evidence consists of more than a mere
scintilla of evidence, but may be less than a preponderance of evidence. Richardson v. Perales,
402 U.S. 389,401 (1971). The Court must not substitute its judgment for that ofthe
Commissioner if the Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial evidence. Hays, 907
F.2d at 1456.
In evaluating whether a claimant is disabled, an ALJ uses a multi-step process. First, a
claimant must not be able to work in a substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520.
Second, a claimant must have a severe impairment that significantly limits his or her physical or
mental ability to do basic work activities. !d. Third, to be found disabled, without considering a
claimant's age, education, and work experience, a claimant's impairment must be of sufficient
duration and must either meet or equal an impairment listed by the regulations. !d. Fourth, in the
alternative, a claimant may be disabled if his or her impairment prevents the claimant from doing
past relevant work and, fifth, if the impairment prevents the claimant from doing other work. !d.
After finding that plaintiff had not engaged in any substantial gainful activity since his
application date at step one, the ALJ determined that plaintiff had the following severe
impairments: bilateral sensorineural hearing loss, arthritis, lumbar disc disease, right and left
knee arthritis, and prostasis. The ALJ went on to find that plaintiff did not have an impairment
or combination of impairments that met or equaled a listing at step three, and found that plaintiff
had a residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform a light work with environmentallimiations.
Plaintiff was found to be unable to perform past relevant work, but the ALJ found that,
considering plaintiffs age, education, work experience, and RFC, jobs existed in significant

2

numbers that plaintiff could perform. Accordingly, the ALJ found that plaintiff had not been
under a disability since his date of application.
Substantial evidence supports the ALJ's finding that plaintiff could perform light work
with some limitations. Contrary to plaintiffs assertion, the fact that the ALJ found that plaintiff
could not return to his past relevant work as a salesman does not require a finding that plaintiff
could not perform any light work. Light works involves lifting no more than twenty pounds and
frequent lifting of up to ten pounds. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567; SSR 83-10. Light work also requires
a good deal of walking or standing. SSR 83-10.
Imaging revealed only early degenerative changes in plaintiffs knee, Tr. 298, no stenosis,
spondylolysis, or spondylolisthesis were discovered in plaintiffs spine, Tr. 299, and a bilateral
straight-leg raise test was negative. Tr. 295. The ALJ also specifically considered the testimony
of plaintiffs friend and his insight into the severity of plaintiffs hearing impairment. SSR 0603p; Tr. 24. The friend's testimony was consistent with plaintiffs audiologist, who noted
plaintiffs difficulty hearing soft speech with background noise, and was incorporated into the
RFC finding. Tr. 54-55; 477; 23. The RFC further accounts for plaintiffs complaints regarding
dizziness, and plaintiff does not contend that the ALJ failed to adequately account for his
prostatitis or diabetes in the RFC.
Finally, the hypothetical question posed to the vocational expert (VE) in this matter was
proper as the ALJ had a sufficient basis to discount plaintiffs and his friend's allegations
regarding the severity of plaintiffs limitations as inconsistent with and in light ofthe medical
and other evidence in the record. Again, contrary to plaintiffs assertion, the VE did not testify
that plaintiff could only work one or two days a week; rather, the VE testified that, if the ALJ
3

accepted the testimony of plaintiffs friend that plaintiff could only work one or two days a week
as true, no jobs would exist that plaintiff could perform. Tr. 52. Because the determination of
the ALJ was otherwise supported by substantial evidence and the correct legal standard was
employed, his decision is affirmed.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, plaintiffs motion for judgment on the pleadings [DE
22] is DENIED, defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings [DE 24] is GRANTED, and
the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED, this

~/

day

ot(f
~, 2013.

RENCE W. BOYLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT

4