Crosby v. Colvin

Filing 33

ORDER denying 23 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and granting 26 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Signed by Chief Judge James C. Dever III on 2/20/2014. (Sawyer, D.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
No. 5:13-CV-10-D

DOROTHY D. CROSBY,
Plaintiff,

v.

)
)
)
)

)

ORDER

)

CAROLYNW. COLVIN,
)
Acting Commissioner of Social Security, )
)

Defendant.

)

Dorothy D. Crosby ("Crosby'' or "plaintiff'') challenges the fmal decision of Acting
Commissioner of Social Security Carolyn W. Colvin ("Commissioner") denying her application for
social security benefits. Crosby moved for judgment on the pleadings [D.E. 23] and filed a
memorandum in support [D.E. 24], and the Commissioner moved for judgment on the pleadings
[D.E. 26] and filed a memorandum in support [D.E. 27]. On February 20,2014, the court held oral
argument.
On January 29, 2010, Crosby applied for benefits and claimed that she became disabled on
November 14, 2009. The Social Security Administration ("SSA") found that Crosby was not
disabled, and denied her application. Upon Crosby's request, the SSA reconsidered her application,
but again denied it. McNeill then requested and received a hearing before an Administrative Law
Judge ("ALJ"). On September 14, 2011, the ALJ denied Crosby's claim. Transcript ofProceedings
("Tr.") 9-18. Crosby timely sought review with the Appeals Council, to no avail. Crosby timely
sought judicial review. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

In reviewing the Commissioner's denial of benefits, a district court is limited to determining
whether substantial evidence supports the Commissioner's factual findings and whether the
Commissioner applied the correct legal standards. See id.; Walls v. Barnhart, 296 F.3d 287, 290
(4th Cir. 2002); Hays v. Sullivan, 907 F .2d 1453, 1456 (4th Cir. 1990). Substantial evidence is more
than a scintilla of evidence but may be somewhat less than a preponderance. See Richardson v.
Perales, 402 U.S. 389,401 (1971); Hancock v. Astrue, 667 F.3d 470,472 (4th Cir. 2012); Smith v.
Chater, 99 F.3d 635, 638 (4th Cir. 1996). When reviewing for substantial evidence, the court does
not ''undertake to re-weigh conflicting evidence, make credibility determinations, or substitute [its]
judgment" for that of the Commissioner. Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 589 (4th Cir. 1996),
superseded by regulation on other grounds, 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(d)(2). To determine whether a
decision is supported by substantial evidence, the court must determine whether the Commissioner

has considered all relevant evidence and sufficiently explained the weight given to probative
evidence. See Sterling Smokeless Coal Co. v. Akers, 131 F.3d 438,439--40 (4th Cir. 1997).

In evaluating disability claims, the Commissioner follows a familiar five-step process. The
Commissioner asks, in sequence, whether the claimant: (1) worked during the alleged period of
disability; (2) had a severe impairment; (3) had an impairment that met or equaled the requirements
of a listed impairment; (4) could return to the claimant's past relevant work; and (5) if not, could
perform any other work in the national economy. See 20 C.F .R. § 416.920(a)(4). The claimant has
the burden of production and proof in steps one through four. See Hunter v. Sullivan, 993 F.2d 31,
35 (4th Cir. 1992). If the process reaches the fifth step, the Commissioner has the burden of proving
that the claimant, despite impairments, can perform a job that exists in significant numbers in the
national economy. See id.; Johnson v. Barnhart, 434 F.3d 650, 653 (4th Cir. 2005) (per curiam).

2

In sum, as explained in open court and incorporated herein by reference, the court GRANTS
the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings [D.E. 26], DENIES Crosby's motion for
judgment on the pleadings [D.E. 23], and AFFIRMS the Commissioner's final decision. The clerk
shall close the case.
SO ORDERED.

This~ day

of February 2014.

~SC.DEVERill
Chief United States District Judge

3