Rhodie v. Astrue

Filing 38

ORDER GRANTING 25 Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, and DENYING 27 Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. This matter is REMANDED to the agency for rehearing in accordance with this Order. Signed by US District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 8/30/2013. Counsel is directed to read Order in its entirety. (Fisher, M.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
No. 7:12-CV-202-BO
PHILLIP RAY RHODIE,

)
)

Plaintiff,

)
)

v.
CAROLYN COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

)
)
)
)

ORDER

)

Defendant.

)

This matter is before the Court on the parties' cross-motions for judgment on the
pleadings [DE 25 & 27]. A hearing on this matter was held in Elizabeth City, North Carolina on
August 27, 2013 at 10:00 a.m. For the reasons discussed below, plaintiffs motion is GRANTED,
defendant's motion is DENIED, and the matter is REMANDED to the agency for rehearing in
accordance with this Order.
BACKGROUND
The plaintiff protectively filed for supplemental security income on March 14, 2008. His
alleged onset date was January 1, 2004. His application for benefits was denied initially and
upon reconsideration. The plaintiff appeared before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) for an
administrative hearing. Subsequently, that ALJ issued an opinion finding the plaintiff not
disabled. On May 1, 2012, the Appeals Council denied the plaintiffs request for review
rendering the ALJ's opinion the final decision of the commissioner. The plaintiff now seeks
review of the Commissioner's final decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

DISCUSSION
When a social security claimant appeals a final decision of the Commissioner, the district
court's review is limited to the determination of whether, based on the entire administrative
record, there is substantial evidence to support the Commissioner's findings. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g);

Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971). Substantial evidence is defined as "evidence
which a reasoning mind would accept as sufficient to support a particular conclusion." Shively v.

Heckler, 739 F.2d 987, 989 (4th Cir. 1984)(quoting Laws v. Celebrezze, 368 F.2d 640, 642 (4th
Cir. 1966)). If the Commissioner's decision is supported by such evidence, it must be affirmed.

Smith v. Chater, 99 F.3d 635, 638 (4th Cir. 1996).
In making a disability determination, the ALJ engages in a five-step evaluation process.
20 C.F.R. § 404.1520; see Johnson v. Barnhart, 434 F.3d 650 (4th Cir. 2005). The analysis
requires the ALJ to consider the following enumerated factors sequentially. At step one, if the
claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity, the claim is denied. At step two, the
claim is denied if the claimant does not have a severe impairment or combination of impairments
significantly limiting him or her from performing basic work activities. At step three, the
claimant's impairment is compared to those in the Listing of Impairments. See 20 C.F .R. Part
404, Subpart P, App. 1. If the impairment is listed in the Listing of Impairments or if it is
equivalent to a listed impairment, disability is conclusively presumed. However, if the claimant's
impairment does not meet or equal a listed impairment then, at step four, the claimant's residual
functional capacity ("RFC") is assessed to determine whether plaintiff can perform his past work
despite his impairments. If the claimant cannot perform past relevant work, the analysis moves
on to step five: establishing whether the claimant, based on his age, work experience, and RFC
can perform other substantial gainful work. The burden of proof is on the claimant for the first

2

four steps ofthis inquiry, but shifts to the Commissioner at the fifth step. Pass v. Chafer, 65 F.3d
1200, 1203 (4th Cir. 1995).
Here, the ALJ erred at step three by failing to consider the listing for gout. Mr. Rhodie
allegedly suffers from gout and arthritis. He was 50 years old at the time of the administrative
hearing. The plaintiff suffers from several ailments, but there was evidence in the record that the
plaintiff suffers from a severe case of gout, which causes him pain and discomfort. The ALJ
noted the plaintiffs gout, but failed to consider whether he met the listing for gout - Listing
14.09. Where, as here, there is ample evidence to support the plaintiffs allegations of a condition
the ALJ must compare the plaintiffs symptoms to the criteria set forth in the appropriate listing.
Cook v. Heckler, 783 F.2d 1168, 1172-73 (4th Cir. 1986). As the ALJ failed to evaluate the

plaintiff under the appropriate listing for gout, this matter should be remanded for an evaluation
under that listing.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, plaintiffs motion is GRANTED and the matter is REMANDED
to the agency for rehearing in accordance with this Order.

SO ORDERED.

Thi~day of August, 2013.
RRENCE W. BOYLE
UNITED STATES DISTR

3