Beckham v. Saul

Filing 22

ORDER denying 15 Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 19 Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Senior Judge Graham Mullen on 5/6/2022. (ef)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
STATESVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL NO. 5:21-CV-45-GCM

KELLY ANN BECKHAM,
Plaintiff,
vs.
KILOLO KIJAKAZI,
Acting Commissioner of Social
Security,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc.
No. 15) and Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 19), as well as the Parties’
briefs and exhibits.
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 March 15, 2021. She assigns error to the
Administrative Law Judge’s formulation of her Residual Functional Capacity (“RFC”).1 She also
contends that the ALJ’s decision was constitutionally defective.

1
The Social Security Regulations define “Residual Functional Capacity” as “what [a claimant] can still do
despite his limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a). The Commissioner is required to “first assess the nature and
extent of [the claimant’s] physical limitations and then determine [the claimant’s] Residual Functional Capacity for
work activity on a regular and continuing basis.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(b).

1
Case 5:21-cv-00045-GCM Document 22 Filed 05/06/22 Page 1 of 4

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 v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971), 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 v. Sullivan, 907 F.2d
at 1456 (4th Cir. 1990); see also Smith v. Schweiker, 795 F.2d at 345; and Blalock v.
Richardson, 483 F.2d at 775. Indeed, this is true even if the reviewing court disagrees with the
2
Case 5:21-cv-00045-GCM Document 22 Filed 05/06/22 Page 2 of 4

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 Plaintiff became disabled at any time.2 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.
Plaintiff argues that SSA’s decision denying her disability benefits claim was
constitutionally defective because the Social Security Act provision that limits the President’s
authority to remove the Presidentially-appointed, Senate-confirmed Commissioner of Social
Security without good cause, 42 U.S.C. § 902(a)(3), violates the separation of powers. However,
as the Supreme Court recently explained in Collins v. Yellen, 141 S. Ct. 1761, 1787-89 (2021),
even where an unconstitutional statutory removal restriction exists, a plaintiff seeking relief on
that basis must show that the restriction actually caused her harm. Plaintiff herein offers no
evidence to demonstrate a nexus between Section 902(a)(3)’s removal restriction and the denial
of her benefits claim.
III. ORDER
NOW THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 15) is DENIED;

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 19) is GRANTED; and the

Under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 301, et seq., the term “disability” is defined as an:

2

inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable
physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can
be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months…
Pass v. Chater, 65 F. 3d 1200, 1203 (4th Cir. 1995).

3
Case 5:21-cv-00045-GCM Document 22 Filed 05/06/22 Page 3 of 4

Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED.
2.

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

for the parties.
SO ORDERED

Signed: May 6, 2022

4
Case 5:21-cv-00045-GCM Document 22 Filed 05/06/22 Page 4 of 4