Dixon v. Colvin

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM OPINION: After careful consideration of the evidence of record, the Court finds that the Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, by Judgment Order entered this day, the Plaintiff's 19 MOTIO N to Remand is DENIED; Defendant's 20 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED, the final decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED, and this matter is DISMISSED from the docket of this Court. Signed by Magistrate Judge R. Clarke VanDervort on 9/30/2014. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (msa)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
BECKLEY DIVISION
ROBERT A. DIXON,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:12-3584

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is an action seeking review of the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security
denying Plaintiff's application for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB), under Title II of the Social
Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-433. This case is presently pending before the Court on the

Plaintiff’s Motion for Remand (Document No. 19.) and Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings. (Document No. 20.) Both parties have consented in writing to a decision by the United
States Magistrate Judge. (Document Nos. 3 and 4.)
The Plaintiff, Robert A. Dixon (hereinafter referred to as “Claimant”), filed an application
for DIB on April 24, 2009 (protective filing date), alleging disability as of November 15, 2008, due
to “back problems and anxiety problems. I also have arthritis problems, high blood pressure, and
high cholesterol.” (Tr. at 12, 135-36, 137-40, 155, 159.) The claim was denied initially and upon
reconsideration. (Tr. at 12, 52-53, 54-56, 63-65.) On January 5, 2010, Claimant requested a hearing
before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). (Tr. at 66-67.) The hearing was held on June 14, 2011,
before the Honorable Geraldine H. Page. (Tr. at 28-51.) By decision dated July 20, 2011, the ALJ
determined that Claimant was not entitled to benefits. (Tr. at 12-22.) The ALJ’s decision became
the final decision of the Commissioner on May 30, 2012, when the Appeals Council denied

Claimant’s request for review. (Tr. at 1-6.) On July 23, 2012, Claimant brought the present action
seeking judicial review of the administrative decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Document
No. 1.)
Under 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(5), a claimant for disability has the burden of proving a disability.
See Blalock v. Richardson, 483 F.2d 773, 774 (4th Cir. 1972). A disability is defined as the
"inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable
impairment which can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months . . . ."
42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A).
The Social Security Regulations establish a "sequential evaluation" for the adjudication of
disability claims. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920 (2011). If an individual is found "not disabled"
at any step, further inquiry is unnecessary. Id. §§ 404.1520(a), 416.920(a). The first inquiry under
the sequence is whether a claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful employment. Id. §§
404.1520(b), 416.920(b). If the claimant is not, the second inquiry is whether claimant suffers from
a severe impairment. Id. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c). If a severe impairment is present, the third
inquiry is whether such impairment meets or equals any of the impairments listed in Appendix 1 to
Subpart P of the Administrative Regulations No. 4. Id. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d). If it does, the
claimant is found disabled and awarded benefits. Id. If it does not, the fourth inquiry is whether the
claimant's impairments prevent the performance of past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e),
416.920(e). By satisfying inquiry four, the claimant establishes a prima facie case of disability. Hall
v. Harris, 658 F.2d 260, 264 (4th Cir. 1981). The burden then shifts to the Commissioner, McLain
v. Schweiker, 715 F.2d 866, 868-69 (4th Cir. 1983), and leads to the fifth and final inquiry: whether
the claimant is able to perform other forms of substantial gainful activity, considering claimant's
remaining physical and mental capacities and claimant's age, education and prior work experience.
2

20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f), 416.920(f) (2011). The Commissioner must show two things: (1) that the
claimant, considering claimant’s age, education, work experience, skills and physical shortcomings,
has the capacity to perform an alternative job, and (2) that this specific job exists in the national
economy. McLamore v. Weinberger, 538 F.2d 572, 574 (4th Cir. 1976).
In this particular case, the ALJ determined that Claimant satisfied the first inquiry because
he had not engaged in substantial gainful activity from his alleged onset date of November 15, 2008,
through his date last insured of December 31, 2009. (Tr. at 14, Finding No. 2.) Under the second
inquiry, the ALJ found that Claimant suffered from “obesity, carpal tunnel syndrome, lumbar spine
degenerative and arthritic changes, disc bulging and protrusion, and degenerative disc disease,
anxiety, and panic disorder with agoraphobia,” which severe impairments. (Tr. at 14, Finding No.
3.) At the third inquiry, the ALJ concluded that Claimant’s impairment did not meet or equal the
level of severity of any listing in Appendix 1. (Tr. at 14, Finding No. 4.) The ALJ then found that
Claimant had a residual functional capacity to perform light exertional work, as follows:
[T]he [C]laimant had the residual functional capacity to perform light work as
defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) except he can frequently handle, feel, finger, and
reach with the upper left extremity. He should engage in no more than concentrated
exposure to climbing ladders, ropes, or scaffold, and hazards such as moving
machinery, unprotected heights, and vibrating surfaces. He should engage in only
occasional interaction with the general public, and superficial contact with coworkers
and supervisors.
(Tr. at 16, Finding No. 5.) At step four, the ALJ found that Claimant was unable to return to his past
relevant work. (Tr. at 21, Finding No. 6.) On the basis of testimony of a Vocational Expert (“VE”)
taken at the administrative hearing, the ALJ also concluded that Claimant could perform jobs such
as an assembler, a packer, and an inspector/tester/sorter, at the unskilled, light level of exertion. (Tr.
at 21, Finding No. 10.) On this basis, benefits were denied. (Tr. at 22, Finding No. 11.)

3

Scope of Review
The sole issue before this Court is whether the final decision of the Commissioner denying
the claim is supported by substantial evidence. In Blalock v. Richardson, substantial evidence was
defined as:
evidence which a reasoning mind would accept as sufficient to support a particular
conclusion. It consists of more than a mere scintilla of evidence but may be
somewhat less than a preponderance. If there is evidence to justify a refusal to direct
a verdict were the case before a jury, then there is ‘substantial evidence.’
Blalock v. Richardson, 483 F.2d 773, 776 (4th Cir. 1972) (quoting Laws v. Celebrezze, 368 F.2d
640, 642 (4th Cir. 1966)). Additionally, the Commissioner, not the Court, is charged with resolving
conflicts in the evidence. Hays v. Sullivan, 907 F.2d 1453, 1456 (4th Cir. 1990). Nevertheless, the
Courts “must not abdicate their traditional functions; they cannot escape their duty to scrutinize the
record as a whole to determine whether the conclusions reached are rational.” Oppenheim v. Finch,
495 F.2d 396, 397 (4th Cir. 1974).
A careful review of the record reveals the decision of the Commissioner is supported by
substantial evidence.
Claimant’s Background
Claimant was born on December 16, 1957, and was 53 years old at the time of the
administrative hearing, June 14, 2011. (Tr. at 21, 32, 137.) Claimant had a ninth grade, or limited
education and was able to communicate in English. (Tr. at 21, 32, 158, 163.). In the past, Claimant
worked in satellite television business, repairs, installation, and supervision. (Tr. at 21, 47, 160, 16668.)
Claimant’s Challenges to the Commissioner’s Decision
Claimant alleges that the Commissioner’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence

4

because the ALJ erred in relying on the testimony of the VE which was inconsistent with
information contained in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (“DOT”). (Document No. 19 at 3-8.)
Claimant addresses each of the three jobs identified by the VE separately. (Id.) However, he first
asserts that the ALJ erred in finding that his left, non-dominant hand can be used frequently, but
failed to address the frequency of his right hand. (Id. at 3.) Claimant asserts that the non-dominant
hand is not as manipulative. (Id.)
Claimant also alleges that the requirements of the jobs of assembler, bagger/packer, and
sorter are inconsistent with the ALJ’s assessed RFC. (Document No. 19 at 4-8.) He contends that
he is unable to perform the assembler job because it requires him to use his hands in a “tedious
manner on a continual basis for the duration of a work day,” which is precluded by his CTS. (Id. at
5-6.) He further asserts that he is unable to perform the assembler job because his limited neck,
lumbar, and extremity motion preclude him from looking downward at his hands and hand tools and
leaning forward for the duration of the work day. (Id. at 5.) Claimant next alleges that he is unable
to perform any of the jobs because his panic disorder with agoraphobia and anxiety preclude him
from undergoing one month of training as required for the assembler and sorter jobs and preclude
more than minimal interaction with coworkers and the public as required for the bagger/packer job.
(Id. at 5-8.)
Claimant alleges that he is unable to perform the job of packer/bagger because it requires
constant use of both arms, both hands, bending, and reaching. (Id. at 7.) Finally, Claimant alleges
that he is unable to perform the job of sorter because it would create “constant stress and strain to
maintain a production rate pace and can therefore be physically demanding of a worker.” (Id. at 8.)
In response, the Commissioner asserts that the assembler job requires the use of hands only
on a frequent basis and that the ALJ did not find that Claimant had any limitations in looking down
5

or leaning forward because the medical evidence failed to support such a finding. (Id.) Respecting
Claimant’s mental impairments, the Commissioner asserts that the ALJ specifically limited Claimant
only to occasional interaction with the general public and only superficial contact with coworkers
and supervisors. (Id. at 11.) The ALJ’s RFC assessment is supported by Ms. Fontenot’s opinion and
Dr. Bickham’s opinion. (Id.) Furthermore, any training that Claimant may require is speculative.
(Id.) Regarding the packer/bagger job, the Commissioner asserts that there is no evidence that the
job would require interaction with people that Claimant does not know or more than minimal
interaction with coworkers. (Id. at 12.)
The Commissioner asserts that contrary to Claimant’s allegation, the job of packer/bagger
requires frequent rather than constant use of the arms for reaching, handling, and fingering, and there
is no evidence that the job requires bending or repetitive tasks. (Id. at 11-12.) Regarding the sorter
job, the Commissioner asserts that there is no support for Claimant to conclude that the job would
create constant stress or strain, or require a production rate that exceeds his abilities. (Id. at 12.)
The Medical Record
The Court has reviewed all the evidence of record, including the medical evidence, and will
discuss it below in relation to Claimant’s arguments.
Physical Impairments:
On February 20, 2008, Dr. John O. Collins, M.D., Neurology Clinic, Inc., ordered an EMG
and nerve conduction study of Claimant’s upper extremities upon complaints of burning, numbness,
tingling, and pain in both hands that came on all at once after cutting a Walnut tree. (Tr. at 252.) The
study was mildly abnormal with findings suggestive of left greater than right median distal
neuropathy. (Id.) Dr. Collins noted that the findings were subtle with clinical history suggesting the
possibility of CTS, although Claimant did not have problems with stiffness or popping in his hands
6

with movement. (Id.) He recommended a trial use of wrist splints, a trial of Celebrex, and possible
x-rays to evaluate for hand arthropathy. (Id.)
On May 22, 2009, Dr. Albert H. Gelderman, M.D., completed a Routine Abstract Form Physical, on which he indicated that Claimant had severe osteoarthritis with sciatica, herniated disc
at L4-L5, chronic shoulder pain, well-controlled hypertension, and chronic anxiety. (Tr. at 315.) Dr.
Gelderman noted that on exam, Claimant presented with normal gait and station and fine and gross
motor skills. (Tr. at 316.) He had limited range of motion in his neck, lumbar spine, and upper and
lower extremities. (Id.) Neurological findings were within normal limits, except for sensory deficits
in the lower extremities. (Tr. at 317.) Dr. Gelderman referred Claimant for an MRI of his
lumbosacral spine on October 16, 2009, which revealed moderate degenerative changes at L3-L4
and L4-L5 with bulging annulus with arthritic changes causing mild bilateral foraminal narrowing;
tiny central disc protrusion at L5-S1 without impingement; and significant diffuse thickening of the
wall of the urinary bladder. (Tr. at 300.)
Dr. Shamma Othman, M.D., conducted a consultative evaluation of Claimant on August 27,
2009, for complaints of back pain. (Tr. at 286-90.) Claimant reported back pain with occasional
lower extremity radiation and a tear in his left shoulder. (Tr. at 286.) He also reported arthritis pains
in both hands. (Tr. at 287.) Physical exam revealed full motor strength in all extremities, limited left
flexion of the shoulder, full grip strength, normal fine manipulation, some limitation of lumbar
flexion and extension, positive straight leg raise testing bilaterally at 60 degrees, and an ability to
stand on his toes and heels, and squat with some difficulty. (Tr. at 287-88.) Claimant ambulated with
a cane and used it to help him get on and off the exam table, but usually did not use it when he
walked. (Tr. at 288.) His gait was unremarkable. (Id.)
On November 16, 2009, Dr. Jeffrey A. Greenberg, M.D., conducted a neurological
7

evaluation of Claimant for complaints of chronic back pain. (Tr. at 305-07.) Claimant reported low
back pain, lateralized more to the left that rarely radiated down his legs. (Tr. at 305.) He currently
was taking Hydrocodone for pain, Klonopin to help him sleep, and Prozac for depression. (Id.)
Claimant reported that the pain was worse upon bending and lifting. (Id.) Physical examination
revealed negative straight leg raise testing, normal motor strength bilaterally in the upper and lower
extremities, intact sensation, diminished ankle reflexes, downward-going toes, a normal gait and
tandem walk, difficulty toe and heel walking, decreased lumbar spine range of motion, and
tenderness at L4-L5 and L5-S1. (Tr. at 306.) Dr. Greenberg recommended facet injections and
Claimant agreed. (Tr. at 306-07.)
Claimant treated with Dr. Marc Swanson, M.D., at the Blue Ridge Pain Management
Associates, P.C., and on January 20, 2011, Dr. Swanson noted on examination that Claimant had
poor neck and lumbosacral spine range of motion, but modest left shoulder arthropathy, and modest
elbow, wrist, and hand arthropathy. (Tr. at 454.) On May 17, 2011, Dr. Swanson noted bilaterally
impaired shoulder abduction, extension, and scapular excursion; a bit deficient grip strength; and
arthropathic hands. (Tr. at 518.)
Dr. Amy Wirts, M.D., a state agency physician, completed a form Physical RFC Assessment
on September 11, 2009, on which she opined that Claimant was capable of performing medium work
with frequent postural limitations except that he could occasionally crawl and climb ladders, ropes,
and scaffolds. (Tr. at 291-98.) Dr. Wirts further opined that Claimant was limited in his ability to
reach, handle, finger, and feel due to mild limitations in his left shoulder and due to CTS, left greater
than right. (Tr. at 294.) Finally, she opined that Claimant should avoid even concentrated exposure
to extreme cold, vibration, and hazards. (Tr. at 295.)

8

Mental Impairments:
On June 29, 2009, Tina Fontenot, M.S., a licensed psychologist, conducted a consultative
psychological evaluation. (Tr. at 263-67.) Claimant reported anxiety on a daily basis, panic attacks,
sleep disturbance, appetite fluctuations, low energy and fatigue, and fleeting suicidal thoughts. (Tr.
at 264.) He denied any mental health treatment. (Tr. at 265.) On mental status exam, Ms. Fontenot
observed that he was motivated and oriented, spoke clearly and concisely, had a euthymic mood and
blunted affect, had fair insight and mildly deficient concentration, and had a normal exam in all
other respects. (Id.) She noted his daily activities to have included feeding chickens and collecting
the eggs, caring for his dogs, watching television, riding the tractor, taking short walks, helping out
a little around the house, and performing his own personal care. (Tr. at 266.) Ms. Fontenot diagnosed
anxiety disorder NOS and panic disorder without agoraphobia. (Id.) She noted that Claimant was
uncomfortable going into crowded places, did not like to speak to strangers, and preferred to stay
to himself. (Id.) She opined that Claimant’s prognosis was poor but that he was capable of managing
his finances. (Id.)
On November 12, 2009, Dr. Douglas R. Eitel, M.D., conducted a psychiatric evaluation. (Tr.
at 312-13.) Claimant reported a history of high anxiety, a tendency to withdraw from his family, an
avoidance of social gatherings other than family, poor sleep, and irritability. (Tr. at 312.) He
admitted that he drank a twelve pack of beer daily, together with liquor, and currently drinks four
to six beers a day. (Id.) On mental status exam, Dr. Eitel observed that Claimant ambulated with a
cane and had a restricted affect and an anxious mood. (Tr. at 312-13.) The exam essentially was
normal in all other respects. (Id.) He assessed panic disorder with agoraphobia, prescribed Symbyax
3/25 nightly, and recommended continued counseling and alcohol reduction. (Tr. at 313.) Dr. Eitel

9

assessed a GAF of 60.1 (Id.)
Paula J. Bickham, Ph.D., completed a form Mental RFC Assessment on July 18, 2009, on
which she opined that Claimant was moderately limited in his ability to interact appropriately with
the general public and to get along with coworkers or peers without distracting them or exhibiting
behavioral extremes. (Tr. at 282-84.) She assessed that Claimant was not limited significantly in all
other functional areas. (Id.) Dr. Bickham opined that Claimant retained “the ability to perform worklike activities with minimal contact with the general public and coworkers.” (Tr. at 284.)
Analysis.
Claimant alleges that the VE’s testimony is inconsistent with the DOT. (Document No. 19
at 4-8.) To be relevant or helpful, a vocational expert’s opinion must be based upon consideration
of all evidence of record, and it must be in response to a hypothetical question which fairly sets out
all of the claimant’s impairments. Walker v. Bowen, 889 F.2d 47, 51 (4th Cir. 1989). “[I]t is difficult
to see how a vocational expert can be of any assistance if he is not familiar with the particular
claimant’s impairments and abilities – presumably, he must study the evidence of record to reach
the necessary level of familiarity.” Id. at 51. Nevertheless, while questions posed to the vocational
expert must fairly set out all of a claimant’s impairments, the questions need only reflect those
impairments that are supported by the record. See Chrupcala v. Heckler, 829 F.2d 1269, 1276 (3d
Cir. 1987). Additionally, the hypothetical question may omit non-severe impairments, but must
include those which the ALJ finds to be severe. See Benenate v. Schweiker, 719 F.2d 291, 292 (8th

1

The Global Assessment of Functioning (“GAF”) Scale is used to rate overall psychological
functioning on a scale of 0 to 100. A GAF of 51-60 indicates that the person has “[m]oderate
symptoms . . . or moderate difficulty in social, occupational, or school functioning (e.g., few friends,
conflicts with peers or co-workers).” American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders (“DSM-IV”) 32 (4th ed. 1994).
10

Cir. 1983).
SSR 00-4p, which became effective December 4, 2000, and was in effect at the time of the
administrative hearing in 2009, states that before an ALJ can rely on Vocational Expert testimony,
he or she must identify and obtain a reasonable explanation for any conflicts between occupational
evidence provided by the vocational expert and information contained in the DOT and explain in
the determination or decision how any conflict that has been identified was resolved. Social Security
Ruling 00-4p, 2000 WL 1898704 (December 4, 2000).
A. Upper Extremities.
Claimant first alleges that the ALJ erred in finding that his left, non-dominant hand can be
used frequently, but failing to address the frequency of use of his right hand. (Document No. 19 at
3.) In her RFC assessment, the ALJ found that Claimant could frequently handle, feel, finger, and
reach with the left upper extremity. (Tr. at 16.) In making this finding, the ALJ noted Dr. Othman’s
range of motions limitations and left shoulder tear with some limitations. (Tr. at 18, 286-87.) The
EMG/Nerve Conduction Study by Dr. Collins was suggestive of median distal neuropathy, left
greater than right. (Tr. at 17, 252.) Accordingly, the medical record supported a limitation for
Claimant’s left upper extremity but not for his right. The Court finds that the ALJ properly assessed
Claimant’s upper extremity limitations and that Claimant’s argument is without merit.
B. Assembler Job.
Claimant next alleges that he is unable to perform the job of assembler, DOT occupational
number, 731.687-010, because it requires him to use his hands in a tedious manner on a continual
basis. (Document No. 19 at 5-6.) Contrary to Claimant’s allegation, the job of assembler requires
the use of hands for reaching, handling, fingering, and feeling on a frequent basis. DOT 731.687010, 1991 WL 679813. Claimant next alleges that he is unable to perform the job of assembler due
11

to his limited neck, lumber, and extremity motion, which precludes him from looking downward or
leaning forward. (Document No. 19 at 5.) Contrary to Claimant’s allegations, the ALJ did not assess
any limitations in looking down or leaning forward, because such limitations were unsupported by
the medical evidence. None of the physicians of record assessed any work-related functional
limitation resulting from Claimant’s spine. Dr. Othman found some lumbar spine limitation, but no
cervical spine limitation. (Tr. at 18, 287-88.) Dr. Gelderman found limited range of neck, lumber
spine, and upper extremity motion (Tr. at 17, 316.) and Dr. Swanson noted poor neck and lumbar
spine range of motion. (Tr. at 19, 454.) Nevertheless, the ALJ considered such limitations, noted the
absence of any work-related functional limitations, and reduced Claimant’s RFC to light exertional
level work. (Tr. at 16.) Thus, the ALJ compensated for the reduced ranges of motion. There is no
indication that the reduced level of motion is beyond the level of light level work.
Claimant also alleges that he is unable to perform the job of assembler because his panic
disorder with agoraphobia and anxiety precludes him from undergoing training for up to one month.
(Document No. 19 at 5-8.) Claimant also alleges that for this reason he is unable to perform the job
of sorter. (Id. at 8.) As the Commissioner notes, the ALJ accounted for Claimant’s panic disorder
with agoraphobia in her RFC assessment when she limited Claimant only to occasional interaction
with the general public and only superficial contact with coworkers or supervisors. (Tr. at 16.) Ms.
Fontenot specifically opined that Claimant was uncomfortable in crowded places, did not like
speaking to people he did not know, stayed to himself, and was unable to be in public due to his
panic disorder. (Tr. at 18, 266.) Similarly, Dr. Bickham opined that Claimant was able to perform
work-like activities with minimal contact with the general public and coworkers. (Tr. at 18, 284.)
To the extent that Claimant alleges that the jobs will require a month of training that will require
more than the interaction assessed by the ALJ is speculative. Accordingly, the Court finds that the
12

VE’s testimony is consistent with the DOT, that Claimant is capable of performing the job of
assembler as identified by the VE, and that Claimant’s argument is without merit regarding the
assembler position.
B. Packer/Bagger Job.
Claimant also alleges that the VE is inconsistent with the DOT because he is unable to
perform the job of packer/bagger, DOT occupational number 920.687-018, because it requires
constant use of both arms, both hands, bending, and reaching. (Document No. 19 at 7.) Contrary to
Claimant’s allegations, the job of bagger requires only frequent use of the arms for reaching,
handling, and fingering. DOT 920.687-018, 1991 WL 687965. Contrary to the Commissioner’s
statements, stooping, or bending is required only on an occasional basis and there is an indication
that repetitive or short-cycle work is required. Id. Nevertheless, because the use of the hands and
arms is only on a frequent basis rather than a continual basis and because the VE has identified two
other jobs in significant numbers that Claimant can perform, the Court finds any error that may have
been committed to be harmless.
C. Sorter Job.
Finally, Claimant alleges that he is unable to perform the job of sorter, DOT occupational
number 569.687-022, because it would create stress, strain, and a production rate pace that was too
physically demanding of him. (Document No. 19 at 8.) Claimant provides no support for his
argument and the Court finds no evidence to support his contention. The ALJ properly relied on the
VE’s testimony in response to proper hypothetical questions and substantial evidence supports the
ALJ’s reliance to find that Claimant is capable of performing job in significant numbers in the
national and regional economies. Accordingly, the Court finds that Claimant is capable of
performing the jobs identified by the VE and that Claimant’s arguments are without merit.
13

After a careful consideration of the evidence of record, the Court finds that the
Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, by Judgment Order
entered this day, the Plaintiff’s Motion for Remand (Document No. 19.) is DENIED, Defendant’s
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Document No. 20.) is GRANTED, the final decision of the
Commissioner is AFFIRMED, and this matter is DISMISSED from the docket of this Court.
.

The Clerk of this Court is directed to send a copy of this Memorandum Opinion to counsel

of record.
ENTER: September 30, 2014.

R. Clarke VanDervort
United States Magistrate Judge

14