WILLIAMS v. COMMISSIONER SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

Filing 53

ORDER DENYING 41 Plaintiff's Motion for Reverse of Judgment or Modification of Decision, and GRANTING 51 Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. The decision of the Administrative Law Judge is affirmed. The clerk is directed to close this case. Signed by US District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 10/29/2013. Copy mailed to pro se plaintiff via US Mail. (Fisher, M.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
No. 5:12-CV-788-BO
CATHY L. WILLIAMS,

)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
V.

)

CAROLYN COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

ORDER

)
)
)
)
)

This matter is before the Court on the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the
pleadings [DE 51] and plaintiffs motion for reverse of judgment or modification of decision [DE
41]. For the reasons detailed below, plaintiffs motion is DENIED and defendant's motion is
GRANTED. The decision of the Administrative Law Judge is AFFIRMED.

BACKGROUND
In November 2008, the plaintiff filed applications for benefits. The applications were
denied initially and on reconsideration. Plaintiff requested a hearing before an Administrative
Law Judge ("ALJ") and a hearing was held on February 10, 2011. The ALJ issued a decision
finding that the plaintiff was not disabled on March 2, 2011. The Appeals Council denied review
on February 24, 2012 rendering the ALJ's opinion the final decision of the commissioner. The
prose plaintiff commenced a civil action on May 7, 2012 in the Northern District of Florida that
was later transferred to this Court.

DISCUSSION

Pursuant to the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), this Court's review of the
Commissioner's decision is limited to determing whether the Commissioner's decision, as a
whole, is supported by substantial evidence and whether the Commissioner employed the correct
legal standards. Hays v. Sullivan, 907 F.2d 1453, 1456 (4th Cir. 1990) (citing Richardson v.
Pearles, 402 U.S. 389, 390 (1971)). "'[S]upported by substantial evidence' means 'such relevant

evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion."' Id (quoting
Pearles, 402 U.S. at 401 ). Regulations establish a five-step sequential evaluation process to be

followed when determining whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.P.R.§§ 404.1520 and 416.920.
"The claimant bears the burden of proof at steps one through four, but the burden shifts to the
Commissioner at step five." Rogers v. Barnhart, 216 Fed. App'x 345, 348 (4th Cit. 2007) (citing
Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146 n.5 (1987)).

Plaintiff complains that her condition is deteriorating and she should now be eligible for
benefits. However, the Commissioner's decision was based on substantial evidence and correct
legal standards were used. Plaintiff offers no medical evidence to support her claim that her
condition has worsened. The medical records the ALJ reviewed do not support the view that she
is disabled. Dr. Loeb stated that she had a "0% impairment" and could return to full work. Mod.
Tr. 229. Dr. Le observed that she had normal strength and no motor or sensory deficits and had
no impairment affecting the ability to do normal daily tasks. Mod. Tr. 362. Dr. Clayton
completed an RFC assessment and stated that plaintiff could do medium-level work. Mod. Tr.
370. Plaintiffs subjective complaints alone cannot provide a basis for a finding of disability. See
42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(5) ("An individual shall not be considered to be under a disability unless he
furnishes such medical and other evidence of the existence thereof as the Commissioner of

2

Social Security may require. An individual's statement as to pain or other symptoms shall not
alone be conclusive evidence of disability as defined in this section; there must be medical signs
and findings, established by medically acceptable clinical or laboratory diagnostic techniques ...
."); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1508 ("Your impairment must result from anatomical, physiological, or
psychological abnormalities which can be shown by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory
diagnostic techniques . . . [a] physical or mental impairment must be established by medical
evidence consisting of signs, symptoms, and laboratory findings, and not only by an individual's
statement of symptoms.") The ALJ also properly relied on the testimony of the vocational expert
who said the plaintiff could do her past work as a cosmetologist. Mod. Tr. 30, 51.
The ALJ carefully considered all of the evidence in the record in making the
determination that plaintiff is not disabled. The ALJ' s findings are supported by substantial
evidence, and, as such, it is proper to affirm the ALJ' s determination that the claimant is not
disabled and not entitled to benefits.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons outlined above, defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings is
GRANTED and plaintiffs motion is DENIED. The decision of the Administrative Law Judge is
AFFIRMED. The clerk is directed to close the file.

SO ORDERED.
This, theU- day of October, 2013.

TERRENCE W. BOYLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT

3