Hildebrant v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 15

ORDER denying 9 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 13 Defendant's Social Security Brief; and the Commissioner's decision is affirmed. Signed by Senior Judge Graham Mullen on 6/3/3024. (kab)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:23-CV-00525-GCM
JESSICA HILDEBRANT,
Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.

THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc.
No. 9) and Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 13). After carefully
reviewing those motions, supporting memoranda, and the pleadings, the Court enters the following
findings, conclusions, and Order.
The Court finds that Defendant’s decision to deny Plaintiff Social Security benefits is
supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the Court will DENY Plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment; GRANT Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment; and AFFIRM the
Commissioner’s decision.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The Court adopts the procedural history as stated in the parties’ briefs.
Plaintiff filed the present action on August 21, 2023. She contends that the Administrative
Law Judge erred by failing to “fully account for Hildebrant’s limitation in interaction with others
in the RFC or explain why not.” (Doc. No. 10 at 6.)

II. DISCUSSION
The Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and § 1383(c)(3), limits this Court's review of
a final decision of the Commissioner to: (1) whether substantial evidence supports the
Commissioner’s decision, Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 390, 401 (1971); and (2) whether
the Commissioner applied the correct legal standards. Hays v. Sullivan, 907 F.2d 1453, 1456 (4th
Cir. 1990); see also Hunter v. Sullivan, 993 F.2d 31, 34 (4th Cir. 1992) (per curiam). The District
Court does not review a final decision of the Commissioner de novo. Smith v. Schweiker, 795 F.2d
343, 345 (4th Cir. 1986); King v. Califano, 599 F.2d 597, 599 (4th Cir. 1979); Blalock v.
Richardson, 483 F.2d 773, 775 (4th Cir. 1972).
As the Social Security Act provides, “[t]he findings of the [Commissioner] as to any fact,
if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive.”

42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

In Smith v.

Heckler, 782 F.2d 1176, 1179 (4th Cir. 1986), quoting Richardson, 402 U.S. at 401, the Fourth
Circuit defined “substantial evidence” thus:
Substantial evidence has been defined as being “more than a scintilla and do[ing]
more than creat[ing] a suspicion of the existence of a fact to be established. It
means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion.
See also Seacrist v. Weinberger, 538 F.2d 1054, 1056-57 (4th Cir. 1976) (“We note that it is the
responsibility of the [Commissioner] and not the courts to reconcile inconsistencies in the medical
evidence”).
The Fourth Circuit has long emphasized that it is not for a reviewing court to weigh the
evidence again, nor to substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner, assuming the
Commissioner’s final decision is supported by substantial evidence. Hays, 907 F.2d at 1456; see
also Smith, 795 F.2d at 345; Blalock, 483 F.2d at 775. Indeed, this is true even if the reviewing
2

court disagrees with the outcome – so long as there is “substantial evidence” in the record to
support the final decision below. Lester v. Schweiker, 683 F.2d 838, 841 (4th Cir. 1982).
The question before the ALJ was whether Ms. Hildebrant became disabled at any time.
The Court has carefully reviewed the record, the authorities, and the parties’ arguments. The ALJ
applied the correct legal standards and her conclusion that Plaintiff was not disabled is supported
by substantial evidence.
III. ORDER
NOW THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED; Defendant’s Motion for

Summary Judgment is GRANTED; and the Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED.
2.

The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Memorandum and Order to counsel for

the parties.

3