MCCAULEY v. COLVIN, No. 1:2013cv00534 - Document 16 (M.D.N.C. 2016)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER on signed 6/24/2016. For the reasons stated herein, this Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment Reversing the Commissioner (Docket Entry 10 ) be DENIED, that Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Docket Entry 14 ) be GRANTED, and that the final decision of the Commissioner be upheld. (Daniel, J)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
MCCAULEY v. COLVIN Doc. 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ALF'RED E. McCAULEY, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, V CAROLYN !ø. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. 1:1,3CY534 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Plaintif{ Alfted E. McCauley, seeks review of a [tnaI decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying his claims for a pedod of disability and disabitity insurance benefits ("DIB"). The Coutt has befote it the certified administrative record and cross-motions for judgment. (Docket Entries 8, 10, 14.) Fot reasons discussed below, it is recommended that Plaintiffs motion for judgment reversing the Commissioner be denied, Defendant's motion fot judgment on the pleadings be granted, and that the Commissioner's decision be affrmed. I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiff applied for DIB on or about June2,201.0, alleging a disability onset date of November L, 2006. (It. 123-26.) t His application was denied initiatly and upon I Transcrþt citations refer to the sealed administrative record which was filed v¡ith Defendant's Answer, (Docket Entry 8,) 1 Dockets.Justia.com reconsideratton. (fr. 65-68; 72-75.) Thereafter, Plaintiff requested an Administrative LawJudge headng on Apdl 1.6,201,2. (.'ALJ'). Qr Çr.7 6-77 a hearing de .) Plaintiff and his attorney appeared at the 35-46.) ,{. decision was issued on May the denial of Ptaintiffs application fot Council denied Plaintiffs request novo befote 1.4,201,2, upholding DIB. Çr. 21,-27.) Ot Apdl 23, 201,3, the Appeals fot teview of the decision, theteby making the ALJ's determination the Commissioner's fìnal decision for purposes of judicial teview. Gt. 7-9.) II. STANDARD OF REVIEW The scope of judicial review of the Commissioner's final decision is specific and narrow: Smith u. Schweiker, 795 F.2d 343, 345 (4th Cu. 1986). Review is limited to determining if there is substantial evidence decision. 42 U.S.C. $ in the tecord to support the Commissioner's a05G); Hanteru. Sallìuan,gg3F.2d31,,34 (4th Cir. 1992); Hay 907 F.2ð 1453,1,456 (4th Cir. u. Sølliuaa, 1990). In reviewing fot substanttal evidence, the Cout does not re-weigh conflicting evidence, make credibility determinations, or substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner. Craig u. Chater,76 F.3d 585, 589 (4th Cir. 1996). The before the Court, therefore, issue is not whether Plaintiff is disabled but whether the Commissioner's finding that he is not disabled is suppotted by substantial evidence and was reached based upon a cotrect application of the relevant III. THE law. Id. ALJ'S DISCUSSION The ALJ followed the well-established five-step sequential analysis to ascettain whether Plaintiff is disabled, which is set foth in 20 C.F.R. Sec, Adnin., 17 S 404.1520 . See Albrìght u. Comm'r of Soe 4 F.3d 473, 47 5 n.2 (4th Cir. 1999). In rendedng his disabüity detetmination, 2 the ALJ made the following findings later adopted by Defendant: 1. The claimant last met the insured status tequirements of the Social Security Act fthe "Act"] on Decembet 31, 2010. 2. The claimant did not engage in substantial gainful activity during the period from his amended alleged onset date of November 1'9, 2009 through his date last insured IDLII of Decemb er 31., 201,0 Q0 CFR 404.1 57 1. er seq.). 3. Thtough the date last insured, the clumant has the following severe impairments: chronic low back pain, herniated disc, ar.d herntated disc in neck and left knee (20 CFR 404.1520(c)). 4. Through the date last insured, the clumant did not have an impairment ot combination of impairments that met or medically equaled the sevetity of one of the listed impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix L (20 CFR 404.1520(d),404.1,525 and 404.1526). 5. After careful consideration of the entire Íecord, the undersigned finds that, through the [DLI], the claimant had the residual functional capacity IRtrC] to perform the full range of light wotk as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b). The claimant had the ability to lift and car'¡ up to 20 pounds occasionally and L0 pounds frequently, as well as sit, stand and walk 6 hours in an B-hour wotkday. The claimant should avoid climbing and concentrated exposure to heights andhazardous machinery. Çt23-24.) In tight of the above fìndings regarding Plainuffs RFC, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff was unable to perfotm his past relevant work as a dishwashet. also found that Plaintiff, who was 47 years old on the individual. (Id. (cit:ng 20 C.F.R. S Qr26.) The AIJ DLI, met the definition of a younger 404.1563). Finally, the ALJ noted that transfetability of õ J job skills was not an issue in the case because PlaintifPs past relevant work was unskilled' (Id.) Based upon PlaintifPs age, education, wotk expetience, and his RFC, the ALJ concluded that "there wete jobs that existed in significant numbers in the national economy that the claknant could have performed" thtough the DLI. (Id. (ctttng20 C.F'.R. SS 404.1569 and a0a.1,569(a))). ,\ccordingly, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff was not undet a "disability," as defined in the Act, from his amended alleged onset date through December 31, 201,0, the DLI. Çr.27.) IV. ANALYSIS Plaintiff contends that the Commissioner ered in determining that he was not disabled for purposes of the A.ct. (Docket Entry 11). Plaintiff raises three arguments. First, Plaintiff contends that the ALJ "faiIed to propedy detetmine the weight to be given [to] the opinions fofl both Dr. Pool and Dr. Lucas." (Id. at 6.) Second, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred in limiting his consideration of Plaintiffs disability to only the pedod priot to the date last insured. (Id. at 6-7 .) Lastly, he contends that the ALJ failed to explain why Plaintiff did not meet Listing1..02A. Qd. at8-9.) A. Opinions of Dr. Henry Pool and Dr. Michael Lucas Plaintiff argues that the ALJ failed to determine the weight to be given to treating physicians Henry Pool, M.D. ("Dt. Pool") and Michael Lucas, M.D. 5.) ("Dt.Lucas"). (Id. at3- Plaintiff asserts this rgument by compating the ALJ's decision to give Dr. Lucas'opinion "signifìcant" weight to the ALJ's decision to give Dr. Pool "little weight" when both physicians faited to indicate Plaintiffs ability to lift, carfy, sit, stand orwalk. (Id. at3.) Piaintiff furthet argues that both Dr. Pool and Dr. Lucas' opinions are "inconsistent with each othet" such 4 that neither should receive controlling weight; as such, the ALJ should have engaged in futther consideration to determine the weight to be given to each doctor. (Id. at 5.) Plaintiffs atgument fails. The "úeating physician rule," 20 C.F.R. S 404.1,527(.X2), generally ptovides more weight to the opinion of a treating source, because ít may "provide a detailed, longitudinal pictute of fthe claimant's] medical impafumentþ) fwhich] may bdng a unique perspective to the medical evidence." 20 C.F.R. S 404.1,527(r)Q)., An ALJ refusing to accord conttolling weight to the medical opinion of a treattng physician must consider various "factors" to detetmine how much weight to give it. Id. S 404.1,521(c)Q)-(). These factors include: (i) the frequency of examination and the length, nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (ü) the evidence in support of the tteating physician's opinion; (rü) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (iv) whether the opinion is from a specialist; and (v) othet factots btought to the Social Security Administation's attention that tend to support or contradict the opinion. 1/. Significantly, as subsections (2) thtough (4) of the rule desctibe in great detail, a tteating source's opinion, like all medical opinions, must be both well-supported by medical signs and ' SSR 96ap provides that "[c]ontrolling weight my not be given to z úeatinE source's medical opinion unless the opinion is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical andlabontory diagnostic techniques." SSR 96-2p,1996 ffl. 3741.88, at *1 (fuly 2,1996). However, where "atreat:rngsource's medical opinion is well-supported and not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case tecord, it must be given conttolling weight[.]" Id. SSR 96-5p provides futhet that "tteatjrtE sorüce opinions on issues tesewed to the Commissioner are never entitled to controlling weight ot special signifi.cance." SSR 96-5p, 1996 lØL 374783, at*7. However, "opinions from any medical sorúce about issues teserved to the Commissioner must never be þored, and . the notice of the detetmination or decision must explain the consideration given to the tteating source's opinion(s)." Id. 5 laboratory findings as well as consistent with the othet substantial evidence in the case tecotd. Id. S 404.1,521(c)Q)-(). "Flf u physician's opinion is not suppotted by clinical evidence or it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence, it should be accorded significantly weight." Craig 76 F.3d at 590; accord Mastro ,. , þftl, 270 F.3d 171, 178 (4th Cit. if less 2001). Opinions by physicians regarding the ultimate issue of whethet aplaintsff is disabled within the meaning of the Act never receive conttolling weight because the decision on that issue remains fot the Commissioner alone. 20 C.F.R. S 404.1527(d). Here, substantial evidence supports the weight given to each of Plaintiffs treating physicians. The ALJ explicitly concluded the following tegatding Dr. Lucas' treatment of Plaintiff: "Significant weight is . . . given to the opinion of claimant's tteating physician, Dt. Lucas, who indicated in August, November, and Decembet 201,0, that the claimant had no conttaindication to gainful employment and no wotk testtictions." decision Çr. 25.) The ALJ's is suppotted by tretment tecords completed by Dt. Lucas during the time he provided services to Plaintiff and is consistent with other substantial evidence in the tecord, including Plaintifls own testimony of his ability cats, and get around on a scooter with no to care fot his personal difficulty. (See Tr needs, care fot his 43-44,21,9-220,223-24.) The ALJ also concluded the following tegarding Dt. Pool's tteatment of Plaintiff: Little weight is given to the opinion of Dt. Pool, who completed a Medical Statement on Februaty 25,201.1,. Dr. Pool indicated that the claimant suffered from moderate chronic low back pain, but that he was unable to perform any wotk acttvity. Little weight is afforded [to] this assessment as Dr. Pool did not indicate the claimant's ability to lift, c^rrry, sit, stand, or walk. Additionally, his repott was incomplete (Exhibit B-6F). Qr. 25-26.) In making this conclusion, the ALJ 6 specifically refetenced an incomplete checklist opinion in which Dr. Pool summarily concludes that Plaintiff "is unable to wotk in any capacity." Çr. 230-36.) In his rgumenq Plaintiff attempts to measure the AIJ's assessment of Dr. Pool's opinion against the ALJ's assessment of Dt. Lucas' opinion. However, this compatison is to no avail. Dr. Pool's conclusion that Plaintiff cannot wotk concerns an issue teserved for the Commissioner. SSR 96-5P, 1,996 WL 374183, at *2 ("fl]teating source opinions on issues that ate reserved to the Commissionet significance."); see also Elli¡ u. ^te never entitled to conttolling weight ot special Bamhart,392F.3d 988, 994 (8th Cir. 2005) (",{. medical soutce opinion that an appìicant is 'disabled' or 'unable to work,' . . . , involves an issue reserved for the Commissioner and therefore is not the type Commissioner gives controlling WL 364741.1., 'medical opinion' to which the weight."). Additionally, checklist opinions, even fully completed, ate often entitled to telatively little weight. 148-RJ, 201,2 of See McGlothlen u. A¡traa, No. 7:1.1.-CY- at x6 (E,.D.N.C. Aug. 23, 201.2) ("fotm reports . . . ate arguably entitled to little weight due to the lack of explanation"); Halloran u, Barnhørt, 362 F.3d 28, 31,- 32 e. n.2 Qd Clr. 2004) (standardized form opinions are "only marginally useful" and not particulatly "infotmative"); Berrios lupt< u. Sec'1 of Heahh dv (1st Cir. 1,991) (checklist opinions disfavoted); FrrJ u. Haman Seras., 951, F.2d 427 , 431 Bowen,816 F'. 2d 508, 515 (10th Cir. 1987) (checklist fotms, "unaccompanied by thorough wdtten reports or persuasive testimoîy, aîe not substantial evidenc e"); see also 20 C.F.R. $ 1527(c)(3) ("The more a medicai source presents relevant evidence to support an opinion . . . the more weight we will give that opinion. The bettet an explanation a source provides for an opinion, the more weight we will give that 7 opinion."). Because the ALJ's consideration of Plaintiffs treating physicians is supported by substantial evidence, Plaintiff s atgument fails. B. Evidence Post-DLI Next Plaintiff argues that the ALJ failed to considet evidence cteated aftet Plaintiffls DLL3 pocket Entty Corun'r of Soa Sec. 11 at 6-7.) In suppott of his argument, Plaintiff telies upon Bird u. Admìn, which held that "[m]edical evaluations made after a claimant's insured sttus has expired are not automatscally barred from considetation andmay be relevant to prove a disability atising befote the claimant's (citation omitted). The Cout futher DLI." 699 F.3d 337,340 (4th Cir. 201,2) stated that "evidence created aftet a claima¡t's DLI, which permits an infetence of linkage between the claimant's post-DLI state of health and her pte-DLI condition, could be the most cogent proof of a claknant's pte-DLI disability." Id. at 341, (internal quotations and citations omitted). Thus, "tetrospective considetation of evidence is approprite when the record is not so persuasive as to ûnal condition of the citations omitted); out any linkage of the claimant with his eatliet symptoms." Id. (internal quotations and ¡ee al¡o Power¡ u. Coluin, Jan. 1,4,2015) (unpublished) (examining Here, Plaintiffs de No. 1:14CV272,2015 !ØL post-DLI analysis 2131.89, at x4 (44.D.N.C. in Bird). DLI was Decembet 31,201.0. Çl 21.) The ALJ discussed evidence after that date, including the evaluations of Dr. Pool the infotmation tegatding Plaintiffs sutgeties in 3 "To qualify for DIB, 2011, and 201,2 in considered and 201.1, (r. 25-26), Çr. 25), and othet treatment fPlaintiffl must prove that þe] became disabled pdot to the expiration of h[is] insured status." Johnson u. Bamhart,434F.3d 650, 655-56 (4th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted). 8 records fuom 201,1 Ql 25). The ALJ also tefetenced Plaintiffs absence of medical attention following his surgery ín 201,2 Çr.26¡.+ Because the ALJ propedy considered evidence post- DLI, Plaintiffs claim is without merit. See Joe u. Coluin, No. 8:14-CV-01,221,-JDA, 2015 lfI, 4878886, ú.x1.4 Q).S C. Aug. L4, 2015) (unpublished) ("[C]ontraLry to Plainuffs assertions, the ALJ expressly consideted the evidence dated after Plaintiffs DLI . . . [hus] Plaintiffs atgument . . . is without medt."). C. Listing t.02^ Lasdy, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ failed to explain why Plaintiff did not meet Listing 1,.021'.s (Docket Entty 9.) Step three of the sequential analysis requires the AtJ to + At the time of the hearing, the post-2012 sutgery notes were not available. Upon review by the Appeals Council, medical evidence regarding post-2072 surgely evaluations were provided by Piaintiffls counsel and became patt of the record. Gt. 10, 283,285.) The ptogtess notes showed improvement in b¿ck and lower extremity pin. ¡ In this argument, Plaintiff also inco¡porates a challenge to the ALJ's findings at step two. (Docket Etttty 1'1 at B.) Referencing the ALJ's firdirg of "low back pain" s a severe impairment (see Tt. 23), Plintiff assetts that pain is a symptom and not an impairment. (Docket Entty 11 at 8) "A severe impairment is one that 'signifitu"tty limits [a claimanCs] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities."' Garoþlo u. Coluin, No. 1:14CV761,,201,6 WL 1,092650, at *2 Q{.D.N.C. Mar 21,2076) (citing 20 C.F.R. $ a16.920(c). Low back pain is fiequently noted as a severe impairment. See IWorleyt u. Coluin, No. 2:14CV00020, 2016WL 1248976, at x1 $X/.D.Ya.}rlat.29,201,6) (unpublished) ("The ALJ found that the medical evidence established that fclatmant] suffered from severe impairments, namely chronic low back pain with lowet extremity weakness . . . l'); Brewer u. Coluin, No. 5:13-CV705-BO, 2015 ìØL 450901., at*2 @^D.N.C. Feb. 3,2015) (unpublished) ('Plaintiffs obesity . , . low back pain were consideted severe impairments . . . ."); McMwrry u. Cobin,No. CIV.A.8:12-01792,201.3 ìfL 5288076, atxl. P.S.C. Sept. 17, 2013) (unpublished) ("[Ilh. ALJ found fhat fclaimant] suffered from sevetal severe impairments-hypopituitary syndrome, fatigue . , . low back pain . . . well as -s a numbet of non-severe impairments."); þnes u. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.,No. 4:1OCV1,46,201,1,WL 6981,194, at x3 (E.D. Va. Dec. 72,2011), report and reconmendation adoþred, No. 4:1OCV746,201,2 ìØL 78398 (E,.D. Ya. Jan. 1'0, 2072) , aÍid, 47 4 F. App'x 17 4 (4th C:r.. 201,2) ("At step two, the ALJ found that [claimant] had the following severe impairments: osteopathy of the left glenohumeral (shoulder) joint, low back pain, and migraine headaches."); Hornick u. Bamhar4 No. CIV.A. 505CV00053, 2006 VlL 759666, at *2 CIY.D. Ya. Jan. 26,2006) (unpublished) ("The ALJ's step-two findings were . . . low back pain, hepatitis-C, and 'questionable' autoimmune hepatitis . . . ."). Plaintiff does not argue that any other 9 determine whether aclaimant's impairment(s) meets ot equals the medical ctiteria of 20 C.F.R., Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, which sets forth a list of impairments that w^tta;nt a finding of disability without considedng vocational critena. 20 C.F.R. S 404.1520(d); rce also Radford Coluin,734 F.3d 288, 291. (4th Cir. 201,3) (intemal quotations and citations omitted) claimant is entitled to a conclusive presumption that he is impaired if u. ("'\ he can show that his condition meets or equals the listed impairments."). The claimant has the butden of demonsttating that all of the cdteria of a Listing are 1,1.52 met. Kellzagb u. Heckler,785 F.2d 1,1,47 , (4th Cir. 1986). Here, Plaintiff specifically finds fault with the ALJ's "lack of consideration, analysis, and explanation" of Listing1.02A.6 Q)ocket Etttry 11 any mention, at9.) Listing 1,.021' provides that: Major dysfunction of a joint(s) (due to any cause): Charactenzed by gross anatomical deformity (e.g., subluxation, contracture, bony or fibtous ankylosis, instability) and chronic joint pain and stiffness with signs of limitation of motion ot other abnormal motion of the affected joint(s), and findings on appropriate medically acceptable imaging of joint space nanowing, bony desttuction, ot ankylosis of the affected joint(s). found at step two. In any event, any purported step two effor harmless given the presence of other identified severe impairments. Young u. A$rue, No. 1:09CV1008,201,3 WL 474787, at xl0 (X4.D.N.C. Feb. 7, 2013) (unpublished) ("\üØhere an ALJ has alteady determined that a plaintiff suffers fiom at least one severe impafument, any fatlure to categorize an additional impairment as severe generally cnnot constitute tevetsible ettor, because, upon detetmining that a claimant has one severe impairment, tlre Secretary must continue with the temaining steps in his disability evaluation.") (internal quotations and citations omitted); ¡ee also Garoþ/0, 201.6 WL 7092650, at x4 ('[A]ny step two error as to consideration of these impairments is harmless given that the ALJ identified other severe impairments at step two and ptoperþ considered all impafuments, both sevete and non-severe, in formulating Plaintiffs RFC assessment.") (citations omitted). severe impafument should have been is a The ALJ did discuss another Listing in his decision, Listing 10 1.04. Çr.23.) A. Involvement of one maior peripheral weight-bearing joint (i.e., hip, knee, ot ankle), resulting in inability to ambulate effectively, as defined in 1.0082b[.] 20 C.F.R. $ Pt.404, Subpt. P, App. 1, S 1.02. Listing 1,.02A also requires a findingof an "inability to ambulate effectively".T Id. 't duty of an ALJ includes identifting "relevant listed impairments," and "fcompadng] each of the listed cÅteria to the evidence of [a claimant's] symptoms." Cook u. Hec,ë./er, 183 tr.2d 1,168, 1,1,73 (4th Cfu. 1986). The duty to identi$' relevant listed impafuments is tiggered when there is "'ample evidence in the tecotd to support a determination' that the claimant's impairment meets or equals one of the listed impafuments Ketcheru. 73); rce, e.g., Apfel,68 F.Supp.2d629,645 Md. 1999) (quoting C00k,783F.2dat1,1,72- MarÍin u. Coluin, No. 1:11CV408, 2014WL 4114207, at *4 (À4.D.N.C. Aug. 20, 201,4); Drøne u. Coluin, also Morgan u. z P. No. 1:10CV901, 201,4WL 408753, at x4 (IVI.D.N.C. Feb. 3, 2014); Coluin,No. 7:13-CV-279-8O,201/WL6473525,atx2 @.D.N.C. Nov. 1,8,201,4) Effective ambulation is defined in 20 C.F.R. $ Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, S 1.008(2)þ) Inability to ambulate effectively means an extreme limitation of the ability to walk; i.e., an impairment(s) that interferes very seriously with the individual's ability to independently initiate, sustain, ot complete activities. Ineffective ambulation is defrned generally as having insufficient lowet exttemity functioning to permit independent ambulation without the use of a hand-held assistive device(s) that limits the functioning of both upper exttemities . . . . To ambulate effectively, individuals must be capable of sustaining a reasonble walking pce over a sufficient distance to be able to carry out activities of daiþ living. They must have the abiJity to travel without companion assistance to and from a place of employment ot school. Therefote, examples of ineffective ambulation include, but are not limited to, the inability to walk without the use of a walket, two crutches or two cnes, the inability to walk a block a re soÍLlble pace on rough or uneven surfaces, ^t the inability to use standard public transportation, the inability to c tty out toutine ambulatory activities, such as shopping and banking, and the inability to climb a few steps at a teasonable pace with the use of a single hand rail. 1.1 see ("The ALJ's failure to consider [the] Listing . . . in this instance, whete there is obviously evidence that may support the listing, is clear ertot."). "Neither the Social Security law not logic commands an ALJ to discuss allor any of the listed impaitments without some significant indication in the record that the clatrnant suffers ftom that impafument." Ketcher,63 F. Supp. 2d at 645. Here, Plaintiffs brief fails to point to any medical findings demonsttating that his impairments equal or meet all the criteria of Listing 1.I2A, not does the Coutt find ample evidence sufficient enough to ttigger the ALJ's duty to discuss such atgument fails. Cknyt a. Corzm'r of Soc. Jar., Listing.s Thus, PlainufPs No. SAG-15-0106,201,5WL 61,52253, at *2 (D. Md. Oct. 16,2015) (unpublished) (finding several requitements of a Listing "not ptesent on the record . . . thus no ample evidence exists to mandate an express discussion of the Listing'). Plaintiffs reliance pdmarily upon the holding inRødþrd is misplaced. 734F.3d at295. In Radford, the Foutth Circuit held that the ALJ's surnmary conclusion that the claimant did not meet a Listing was an "insufficient legal analysis" and "[a] full explanation by the r{LJ [was] particularly important amount in fthat] case because [the claimant's] medical record includefd] a fau of evidence supportive of his claim[.]" Id. (citatton omitted). Thus, "the AIJ's failure to adequately explain his teasoning ptecludefd] th[at] Court and the disttict court ftom undertaking a meaningful teview of the finding that [the claimant] did not satis$' [the] Listing I For ex¿mple, no ample evidence exists tegarding Plaintiffs "inability to ambulate effectively" triggering the ALJ's duty to discuss Listing 1,.02A. See e.g., Tr. 219,221, 223,267 $lrrdrns Plaintiff displayed normal or good gut); see also Tr. 201,-05,271.-1.8 (evaluations of state agency physicians (which the ALJ gave greatweight) specificaþ indicating that Plaintiffs impairments did not equal or meetlistingl,.02[). n ... ." Id. at296 (citations and quotations omitted). Hete, this case is distinguishable in that Plaintiff has failed to bdng all the requirements of foth any evidence supportive of this claim that he equaled or met Listin91,.02A. Mills u. Coluin,No. 5:13-CV-432-FL,201'4WL 4055818, at x5 (E.D.N.C. A.ug. 1,4,201,4) ("In this case . . . whete there is no such probative evidence suggesting that plaintiff meets or equals Listing 1.02 or Listing 1.04, the AlJ was not required to engage in a full explanation of such listings.") Thetefore, the ALJ's lack of discussion tegarding Listing 1,.021' does not waffarft remand. V. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated herein, this Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiffls Motion fot Judgment Revetsing the Commissionet pocket Entry 10) be DENIED, that Defendant's Motion forJudgment on the Pleadings Q)ocket Entry 14) be GRANTED, and that the final decision of the Commissioner be upheld. U June 24,201.6 Durham, Noth Carcltna 73 oe L. Webster States Magistrate Judge
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
