# Mooney v. Berryhill

> District Court, W.D. North Carolina · August 12, 2019

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10254836

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. North Carolina
- **Decided:** August 12, 2019
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10254836

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:18-cv-00097-MR

KIMBERLY KAY MOONEY, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) MEMORANDUM OF
) DECISION AND ORDER
ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner )
of Social Security )
)
Defendant. )
_______________________________ )

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment [Doc. 10] and the Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment. [Doc. 12].
I. BACKGROUND
On August 6, 2015, the Plaintiff, Kimberly Kay Mooney (“Plaintiff”), filed
an application for supplemental security income under Title XVI of the Social
Security Act (the “Act”), alleging an onset date of July 21, 2015. [Transcript
(“T.”) at 14]. The Plaintiff’s claim was initially denied on November 19, 2015
and upon reconsideration on February 29, 2016. [Id.]. Upon the Plaintiff’s
request, a hearing was held on August 1, 2017 before an Administrative Law
Judge (“ALJ”). [Id. at 36]. On November 16, 2017, the ALJ issued a written
decision denying the Plaintiff benefits, finding that the Plaintiff was not
disabled within the meaning of the Act since the alleged onset date of July

21, 2015. [Id. at 1]. The Appeals Council denied the Plaintiff’s request for
review, thereby making the ALJ’s decision the final decision of the
Commissioner. [Id. at 26]. The Plaintiff has exhausted all available

administrative remedies, and this case is now ripe for review pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 405(g).
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court’s review of a final decision of the Commissioner is limited to

(1) whether substantial evidence supports the Commissioner’s decision,
Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971); and (2) whether the
Commissioner applied the correct legal standards, Hays v. Sullivan, 907

F.2d 1453, 1456 (4th Cir. 1990). “When examining [a Social Security
Administration] disability determination, a reviewing court is required to
uphold the determination when an ALJ has applied correct legal standards
and the ALJ’s factual findings are supported by substantial evidence.” Bird

v. Comm’r, 699 F.3d 337, 340 (4th Cir. 2012). “Substantial evidence is such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support
a conclusion.” Johnson v. Barnhart, 434 F.3d 650, 653 (4th Cir. 2005)

(internal quotation marks omitted). “It consists of more than a mere scintilla
of evidence but may be less than a preponderance.” Hancock v. Astrue, 667
F.3d 470, 472 (4th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted).

“In reviewing for substantial evidence, [the Court should] not undertake
to reweigh conflicting evidence, make credibility determinations, or substitute
[its] judgment for that of the ALJ.” Johnson, 434 F.3d at 653 (internal

quotation marks and alteration omitted). Rather, “[w]here conflicting
evidence allows reasonable minds to differ,” the Court defers to the ALJ’s
decision. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). To enable judicial review
for substantial evidence, “[t]he record should include a discussion of which

evidence the ALJ found credible and why, and specific application of the
pertinent legal requirements to the record evidence.” Radford v. Colvin, 734
F.3d 288, 295 (4th Cir. 2013). It is the duty of the ALJ to “build an accurate

and logical bridge from the evidence to his conclusion.” Monroe v. Colvin,
826 F.3d 176, 189 (4th Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). “Without this
explanation, the reviewing court cannot properly evaluate whether the ALJ
applied the correct legal standard or whether substantial evidence supports

his decisions, and the only recourse is to remand the matter for additional
investigation and explanations.” Mills v. Berryhill, No. 1:16-cv-25-MR, 2017
WL 957542, at *4 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 10, 2017) (Reidinger, J.) (citing Radford,

734 F.3d at 295).
III. THE SEQUENTIAL EVALUATION PROCESS
A “disability” entitling a claimant to benefits under the Social Security

Act, as relevant here, is “[the] 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.”
42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). The Social Security Administration Regulations
set out a detailed five-step process for reviewing applications for disability.
20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920; Mascio v. Colvin, 780 F.3d 632, 634 (4th

Cir. 2015). “If an applicant’s claim fails at any step of the process, the ALJ
need not advance to the subsequent steps.” Pass v. Chater, 65 F.3d 1200,
1203 (4th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). The burden is on the claimant to

make the requisite showing at the first four steps. Id.
At step one, the ALJ determines whether the claimant is engaged in
substantial gainful activity. If so, the claimant’s application is denied
regardless of the medical condition, age, education, or work experience of

the claimant. Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 416.920). If not, the case progresses to
step two, where the claimant must show a severe impairment. If the claimant
does not show any physical or mental deficiencies, or a combination thereof,
which significantly limit the claimant’s ability to perform work activities, then
no severe impairment is established and the claimant is not disabled. Id.

At step three, the ALJ must determine whether one or more of the
claimant’s impairments meets or equals one of the listed impairments
(“Listings”) found at 20 C.F.R. 404, Appendix 1 to Subpart P. If so, the

claimant is automatically deemed disabled regardless of age, education or
work experience. Id. If not, before proceeding to step four, the ALJ must
assess the claimant’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”). The RFC is an
administrative assessment of “the most” a claimant can still do on a “regular

and continuing basis” notwithstanding the claimant’s medically determinable
impairments and the extent to which those impairments affect the claimant’s
ability to perform work-related functions. Social Security Ruling 96-8p; 20

C.F.R. §§ 404.1546(c); 404.943(c); 416.945.
At step four, the claimant must show that his or her limitations prevent
the claimant from performing his or her past work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520,
416.920; Mascio, 780 F.3d at 634. If the claimant can still perform his or her

past work, then the claimant is not disabled. Id. Otherwise, the case
progresses to the fifth step where the burden shifts to the Commissioner. At
step five, the Commissioner must establish that, given the claimant’s age,

education, work experience, and RFC, the claimant can perform alternative
work which exists in substantial numbers in the national economy. Id.; Hines
v. Barnhart, 453 F.3d 559, 567 (4th Cir. 2006). “The Commissioner typically

offers this evidence through the testimony of a vocational expert responding
to a hypothetical that incorporates the claimant’s limitations.” 20 C.F.R. §§
404.1520, 416.920; Mascio, 780 F.3d at 635. If the Commissioner succeeds

in shouldering her burden at step five, the claimant is not disabled and the
application for benefits must be denied. Id. Otherwise, the claimant is
entitled to benefits.
IV. THE ALJ’S DECISION

At step one, the ALJ found that the Plaintiff had not engaged in
substantial gainful activity since her alleged onset date, July 21, 2015. [T. at
13]. At step two, the ALJ found that the Plaintiff has severe impairments

including “depression, anxiety, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, neuropathy,
vision and obesity.” [Id.]. At step three, the ALJ determined that the Plaintiff
does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or
medically equals the Listings. [Id. at 13-15]. The ALJ then determined that

the Plaintiff, notwithstanding her impairments, has the RFC:
[T]o perform light work as defined in 20 CFR
416.967(b) except she is limited to frequent, but not
continuous, use of the upper and lower extremities
for pushing, pulling and operating hand and foot
controls, as well as, fine and gross manipulations.
She can occasionally balance, stoop, kneel, bend,
crouch and crawl, but must avoid work place hazards
such as ladders, ropes, scaffolding, unprotected
heights and dangerous machinery parts. No
handling of small objects or finely printed materials.
The claimant can follow short simple, but not
detailed, instructions and perform routine tasks, but
no work requiring a production rate or demand pace.
She is able to remain on task while maintaining
attention and concentration for 2 hours at a time. The
claimant must avoid work environments dealing with
crisis situations, complex decision making, or
constant changes in a routine setting. She can have
frequent, but not continuous, contact or interactions
with coworkers, supervisors and the public.

[Id. at 15-16].
At step four, the ALJ identified the Plaintiff’s past relevant work as a
production assembler, handpackager, unit clerk, cashier/checker, and night
audit clerk. [Id. at 20]. The ALJ observed, however, that the Plaintiff is
“unable to perform past relevant work as actually or generally performed.”
[Id.]. At step five, based upon the testimony of the VE, the ALJ concluded
that, considering Plaintiff’s age, education, work experience, and RFC,
Plaintiff is capable of performing other jobs that exist in significant numbers
in the national economy, including laundry folder, cafeteria attendant, and
housekeeper. [Id. at 20-21]. The ALJ therefore concluded that the Plaintiff
was not “disabled” as defined by the Social Security Act from July 21, 2015,
the alleged onset date, through November 16, 2017, the date of the decision.
[Id. at 21].
V. DISCUSSION1
As one of her assignments of error, the Plaintiff alleges that the ALJ

failed to properly consider her inability to perform daily activities. [Doc. 11 at
11-12]. According to the Plaintiff, her “activities restricted by both mental and
physical limitations . . . are disabling because they preclude any work

sustained ‘in an ordinary work setting on a regular and continuing basis.’”
[Id. at 12 (quoting Social Security Rule 96-8p)]. The Plaintiff argues that the
ALJ erred by considering “the type of activities [the Plaintiff] can perform
without also considering the extent to which she can perform them.” Brown

v. Comm’r, 873 F.3d 251, 263 (4th Cir. 2017).
The ALJ noted that the Plaintiff is able to “live on her own performing
several activities of daily living, such as washing dishes, cooking simple

meals, cleaning the house, doing laundry and shopping” and is able to “read,
watch television and take care of her cat.” [T. at 18]. The ALJ, however,
failed to consider the Plaintiff’s statements that she can only do light
housework for 20 to 30 minutes at a time, can only read for 20 to 30 minutes

at a time, can only stand for 10 to 15 minutes at a time, can only sit for 15 to
30 minutes at a time, forgets to finish chores that she attempts to perform,

1 Rather than set forth the relevant facts in a separate section, the Court has incorporated
the relevant facts into its legal analysis.
and spends an entire day in bed once or twice per week. [Id. at 41, 42, 46,
48, 49].

While the ALJ mentioned the types of daily activities that the Plaintiff
performs she never explained the extent to which the Plaintiff could carry out
the daily activities based on the limitations listed above. The ALJ’s ultimate

conclusions as to Plaintiff’s limitations may be correct, but the Court is left to
guess how those conclusions were reached. Under these circumstances,
the Court cannot affirm the ALJ’s finding of no disability without a showing of
substantial evidence to support her findings at each step of the sequential

evaluation process. Mascio, 780 F.3d at 637.2
VI. CONCLUSION
Because this Courts lacks an adequate record of the basis for the ALJ’s

decision, it cannot conduct a meaningful review of that ruling. See Radford,
734 F.3d at 295. In assessing the Plaintiff’s limitations on remand, the ALJ
should consider not just the type of daily activities performed by the Plaintiff,
but also the extent to which she can perform such activities. Brown, 873

F.3d at 263; see also Woods v. Berryhill, 888 F.3d 686, 694 (4th Cir. 2018)
(noting that an ALJ erred by considering that a claimant could “maintain her

2 Because the Court has determined that a remand is necessary on this ground, the Court
need not address the Plaintiff’s other assignments of error.
personal hygiene, cook, perform light household chores, shop, socialize with
family members, and attend church services on a regular basis” without
considering the claimant’s struggles with accomplishing those activities and
the fact that “some days, she spends the entire day on the couch.”).
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Plaintiffs Motion for
Summary Judgment [Doc. 10] is GRANTED and the Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment [Doc. 12] is DENIED. Pursuant to the power of this
Court to enter judgment affirming, modifying or reversing the decision of the
Commissioner under Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the decision of
the Commissioner is REVERSED and the case is hereby REMANDED for
further administrative proceedings consistent with this opinion. A judgment
shall be entered simultaneously herewith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed: August 12, 2019
a Reidinger ie ae
United States District Judge gs

10

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10254836. Public record. Not legal advice.