Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Horton v. Colvin

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division

September 13, 2016

Devon Heath Horton, Plaintiff,
v.
Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant.

          ORDER

          R. Bryan Harwell United States District Judge

         Plaintiff Devon Heath Horton seeks judicial review, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), of a final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (the Commissioner) denying his claim for child's insurance benefits (CIB) under the Social Security Act (the Act). The matter is before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff's objections to the Report and Recommendation (R & R) of United States Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(a) for the District of South Carolina. See R & R, ECF No. 19; Pl.'s Objs., ECF No. 22. The Magistrate Judge recommends the Court affirm the Commissioner's decision. R & R at 18.

         Background

         Plaintiff applied for CIB on January 31, 2012, alleging disability as of his date of birth, November 4, 1988.[1] See Administrative Transcript (Tr.) [ECF No. 8] at 10, 35, 168-74. The Commissioner denied Plaintiff's application initially and on reconsideration, so he requested a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ). Tr. at 112-16, 119, 126-27. The ALJ held a hearing on December 10, 2013, and he heard testimony from Plaintiff, [2] Plaintiff's uncle, and a vocational expert. Tr. at 29-67. The ALJ issued an unfavorable decision on February 28, 2014, finding Plaintiff was not disabled. Tr. at 7-28. The ALJ made the following findings:

1. Born on November 4, 1988, claimant had not attained age 22 as of November 4, 1988, the alleged onset date (20 CFR 404.102 and 404.350(a)(5)).
2. Claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since November 4, 1988, the alleged onset date (20 CFR 404.1571 et seq.).
3. Prior to attaining age 22, claimant had the following severe impairments: visual disorders, history of learning disabilities, borderline intellectual functioning; attention deficit hyperactivity disorder; personality disorder with avoidant traits (20 CFR 404.1520(c)).
4. Prior to attaining age 22, claimant did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of one of the listed impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (20 CFR 404.1520(d), 404.1525 and 404.1526).
5. After careful consideration of the entire record, I find that, prior to attaining age 22, claimant had the residual functional capacity to perform work at all exertional levels, but with the following nonexertional limitations: simple, routine tasks; no required ongoing interaction with the general public; a low stress environment defined as no required piece rate, no rigid inflexible production schedule, no required adaptation to frequent changes at the work site, and no required complex decisionmaking; no tasks that require binocular vision or keen depth perception; no exposure to hazards such as unprotected heights, vibration, and dangerous machinery; no operation of heavy industrial equipment.
6. Claimant has no past relevant work (20 CFR 404.1565).
7. Claimant was born on November 4, 1988 and was 0 years old, which is defined as a younger individual age 18-49, on the alleged disability onset date (20 CFR 404.1563).
8. Claimant has at least a high school education and is able to communicate in English (20 CFR 404.1564).
9. Transferability of job skills is not an issue because claimant does not have past relevant work (20 CFR 404.1568).
10. Prior to attaining age 22, considering claimant's age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity, there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that claimant can perform (20 CFR 404.1569 and 404.1569(a)).
11. Claimant has not been under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, at any time prior to November 3, 2010, the date he attained age 22 (20 CFR 404.350(a)(5) and 404.1520(g)).

Tr. at 12-22. The ALJ's findings became the final decision of the Commissioner when the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for further review on February 5, 2015. Tr. 1-6.

         Plaintiff filed the instant action on April 8, 2015, seeking judicial review of the Commissioner's decision. ECF No. 1. Both Plaintiff and the Commissioner filed briefs, and the Magistrate Judge issued an R & R on July 26, 2016, recommending that the Court affirm the Commissioner's decision. ECF Nos. 12, 13, 16, 18, & 19. Plaintiff filed timely objections to the R & R on August 18, 2016. ECF No. 22 (Pl.'s Objs.). Defendant filed a timely reply to Plaintiff's objections on September 1, 2016. ECF No. 24.

         Legal Standards

         I. Judicial Review of the Commissioner's Findings

         The federal judiciary has a limited role in the administrative scheme established by the Act, which provides the Commissioner's findings “shall be conclusive” if they are “supported by substantial evidence.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). “Substantial evidence has been defined innumerable times as more than a scintilla, but less than preponderance.” Thomas v. Celebrezze, 331 F.2d 541, 543 (4th Cir. 1964). Substantial evidence “means such relevant ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.