A disability benefits denial was sent back for another look by a federal judge.

Record source: CourtListener

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Kevin W. R.,1 ) C/A No. 9:25-cv-07222-BHH-MHC ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Frank J. Bisignano, Commissioner of the ) Social Security Administration, ) ) Defendant. ) ) Plaintiff Kevin W. R. (Plaintiff) filed the Complaint in this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ’s) final decision denying his claim for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) under the Social Security Act (Act). This case was referred to the undersigned for a report and recommendation pursuant to Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(a) (D.S.C.). For the reasons that follow, the undersigned recommends that the ALJ’s decision be reversed and remanded for further administrative review. I. BACKGROUND2 Plaintiff applied for DIB on July 17, 2022, alleging disability beginning May 25, 2022. R.pp. 179–80. Plaintiff’s claim was denied initially and upon reconsideration, and Plaintiff then requested a hearing before an ALJ. R.pp. 61–78, 98. A video hearing, at which Plaintiff, represented by counsel, and a vocational expert (VE) testified, was held on December 11, 2024. R.pp. 34–60. The ALJ thereafter denied Plaintiff’s claim in a decision issued on January 6, 2025, 1 The Committee on Court Administration and Case Management of the Judicial Conference of the United States has recommended that, because of significant privacy concerns in social security cases, federal courts refer to claimants only by their first names and last initials. 2 Citations to the record refer to the page numbers in the Social Security Administration Record. See ECF No. 9. finding that Plaintiff was not disabled from the alleged date of onset through the date of the decision. R.pp. 17–28. On June 30, 2025, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request for review, making the ALJ’s decision the final decision of the Commissioner. R.pp. 1–6. This appeal followed. Because this Court writes primarily for the parties who are familiar with the facts, the Court dispenses with a lengthy recitation of the medical history from the relevant period. To the extent specific records or information are relevant to or at issue in this case, they are addressed within the Discussion section below. II. APPLICABLE LAW A. Scope of Review Jurisdiction of this Court is pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Under this section, judicial review of a final decision regarding disability benefits is limited to determining (1) whether the factual findings are supported by substantial evidence, and (2) whether the correct legal standards were applied. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Walls v. Barnhart, 296 F.3d 287, 290 (4th Cir. 2002) (citing Hays v. Sullivan, 907 F.2d 1453, 1456 (4th Cir. 1990)). Accordingly, a reviewing court must uphold the final decision when “an ALJ has applied correct legal standards and the ALJ’s factual findings are supported by substantial evidence.” Brown v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 873 F.3d 251, 267 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Substantial evidence” is an evidentiary standard that is not high: it is “more than a mere scintilla” and means only “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Biestek v. Berryhill, 587 U.S. 97, 103 (2019). A reviewing court does not reweigh conflicts in evidence, make credibility determinations, or substitute its judgment for that of the ALJ. Hancock v. Astrue, 667 F.3d 470, 472 (4th Cir. 2012). “Where conflicting evidence allows reasonable minds to differ as to whether a claimant is disabled, the responsibility for that decision falls on the [ALJ].” Id. (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). However, this limited review does not mean the findings of an ALJ are to be mechanically accepted, as the “statutorily granted review contemplates more than an uncritical rubber stamping of the administrative action.” Howard v. Saul, 408 F. Supp. 3d 721, 725–26 (D.S.C. 2019) (quoting Flack v. Cohen, 413 F.2d 278, 279 (4th Cir. 1969)). B. Social Security Disability Evaluation Process To be considered “disabled” within the meaning of the Social Security Act, a claimant must show that he has an impairment or combination of impairments which prevent him from engaging in all substantial gainful activity for which he is qualified by his age, education, experience, and functional capacity, and which has lasted or could reasonably be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than twelve months. See 42 U.S.C. § 423. The Social Security Administration established a five-step sequential procedure to evaluate whether an individual is disabled for purposes of receiving benefits. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520; see also Mascio v. Colvin, 780 F.3d 632, 634–35 (4th Cir. 2015) (outlining the questions asked in the five-step procedure). The burden rests with the claimant to make the necessary showings at each of the first four steps to prove disability. Mascio, 780 F.3d at 634–35. If the claimant fails to carry his burden, he is found not disabled. Lewis v. Berryhill, 858 F.3d 858, 861 (4th Cir. 2017). If the claimant is successful at each of the first four steps, the burden shifts to the Commissioner at step five. Id. At the first step, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has engaged in substantial gainful activity since his alleged disability onset date. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(b). At step two, the ALJ determines whether the claimant has an impairment or combination of impairments that meet the regulations’ severity and duration requirements. Id. § 404.1520(c). At step three, the ALJ considers whether the severe impairment meets the criteria of an impairment listed in Appendix 1 of 20 C.F.R. part 404, subpart P or is equal to a listed impairment. If so, the claimant is automatically eligible for benefits; if not, before moving on to step four, the ALJ assesses the claimant’s residual functional capacity (RFC).3 Id. § 404.1520(d), (e); Lewis, 858 F.3d at 861. At step four, the ALJ determines whether, despite the severe impairment, the claimant retains the RFC to perform his past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e), (f). If the ALJ finds the claimant capable of performing his past relevant work, he is not disabled. Id. § 404.1520(f). If the requirements to perform the claimant’s past relevant work exceed his RFC, then the ALJ goes on to the final step. At step five, the burden of proof shifts to the Social Security Administration to show that the claimant can perform other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy, considering the claimant’s age, education, work experience, and RFC. Id. § 404.1520(g); Mascio, 780 F.3d at 634–35. Typically, the Commissioner offers this evidence through the testimony of

Official opinion source