Morgan, Jr. v. Colvin
ORDER GRANTING 23 Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, and DENYING 25 Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. This matter is remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings. Signed by US District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 11/13/2014. (Fisher, M.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
LEWIS B. MORGAN, JR.,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
This matter is before the Court on the parties' cross-motions for judgment on the
pleadings. [DE 23 & 25]. A hearing on this matter was held in Elizabeth City, North Carolina on
November 12, 2014 at 11:00 a.m. For the reasons discussed below, this matter is REMANDED
for further consideration by the Commissioner.
On March 30, 2014, plaintiff filed an application for a period of disability and disability
insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, alleging disability since January 14,
2009. Plaintiff's application was denied initially and upon reconsideration. An Administrative
Law Judge ("ALJ") then held a hearing on August 23, 2012, at which plaintiff, his attorney at the
time, and a Vocational Expert ("VE") appeared. At the hearing, plaintiff amended his alleged
onset date to June 3, 2009. The ALJ decided that plaintiff was not disabled within the meaning of
the Act from June 3, 2009 through September 13, 2012, the date of the ALI's decision.
Plaintiff is currently 51 years old. He was enrolled in special education classes and
completed the 8th grade. In 1977, at the age of 14, Mr. Morgan scored a 70 on the California
Test of Mental Maturity. Plaintiff suffers from coronary artery disease, tobacco abuse, postcoronary artery bypass grafting, post percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, chronic
costochondritis (inflammation of the ribs causing chest pain), rotator cuff issues, and depression.
Plaintiff held semi-skilled work for 30 years as a brick layer and concrete layer. Mr. Strickland
is 58 years of age and has an eighth grade education. Mr. Strickland complains of chronic pain in
his left shoulder, elbow, and wrist, and arthritis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,
shortness of breath, peripheral vascular disease, and degenerative disc disease. The relevant time
period in this case is from January 2, 2008 through December 31, 2009 - plaintiff's date last
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. Chafer, 99 F.3d 635, 638 (4th Cir. 1996).
In making a disability determination, the ALJ engages in a five-step evaluation process.
20 C.P.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
four steps of this inquiry, but shifts to the Commissioner at the fifth step. Pass v. Chafer, 65 F.3d
1200, 1203 (4th Cir. 1995).
Here, the plaintiff alleges that the ALJ erred at step three by not finding that Mr. Morgan
met Listing 12.05C. Plaintiff posits that he suffers from mild mental retardation and has a
physical or other mental impairment which imposes significant and additional work related
limitations of function, along with evidence of substantial deficits in adaptive functioning and
therefore meets Listing 12.05C. Here the ALJ did not discuss Listing 12.05C at all in his opinion.
[Tr. 30-33]. The ALJ's failure to consider Listing 12.05C in this instance, where there is
obviously evidence that may support the listing, is clear error. However, the proper remedy here
is remand. Radford v. Colvin, 734 F.3d 288, 295 (4th Cir. 2013) (insufficient legal analysis by
ALJ requires remand). Here, similar to Radford, it appears that a fair amount of evidence in the
record is supportive of plaintiffs claim. Therefore, the Court remands the matter to the ALJ with
instructions to consider Listing 12.05C. The ALJ should further examine whether plaintiffs
impairments or combination of impairments are "of equal medical significance to those of a
Listed Impairment." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1526(b)(3).
For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiffs motion for judgment on the pleadings is
GRANTED, and the matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further proceedings
consistent with this decision.
This /Jday ofNovember, 2014.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?