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.

Hoffman v. Colvin

United States District Court, D. South Carolina

December 26, 2016

John E. Hoffman, Plaintiff,
v.
Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          PAIGE J. GOSSETT, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         This social security matter is before the court for a Report and Recommendation pursuant to Local Civil Rule 83.VII.02 (D.S.C.). The plaintiff, John E. Hoffman, brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3) to obtain judicial review of a final decision of the defendant, Acting Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”), denying his claims for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”). Having carefully considered the parties' submissions and the applicable law, the court concludes that the Commissioner's decision should be affirmed.

         SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY GENERALLY

         Under 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A) and (d)(5), as well as pursuant to the regulations formulated by the Commissioner, the plaintiff has the burden of proving disability, which is defined as an “inability to do 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.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1505(a); see also Blalock v. Richardson, 483 F.2d 773 (4th Cir. 1973). The regulations require the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) to consider, in sequence:

(1) whether the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity;
(2) whether the claimant has a “severe” impairment;
(3) whether the claimant has an impairment that meets or equals the requirements of an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (“the Listings”), and is thus presumptively disabled;
(4) whether the claimant can perform his past relevant work; and
(5) whether the claimant's impairments prevent him from doing any other kind of work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4).[1] If the ALJ can make a determination that a claimant is or is not disabled at any point in this process, review does not proceed to the next step. Id.

         Under this analysis, a claimant has the initial burden of showing that he is unable to return to his past relevant work because of his impairments. Once the claimant establishes a prima facie case of disability, the burden shifts to the Commissioner. To satisfy this burden, the Commissioner must establish that the claimant has the residual functional capacity, considering the claimant's age, education, work experience, and impairments, to perform alternative jobs that exist in the national economy. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A); see also McLain v. Schweiker, 715 F.2d 866, 868-69 (4th Cir. 1983); Hall v. Harris, 658 F.2d 260, 264-65 (4th Cir. 1981); Wilson v. Califano, 617 F.2d 1050, 1053 (4th Cir. 1980). The Commissioner may carry this burden by obtaining testimony from a vocational expert. Grant v. Schweiker, 699 F.2d 189, 192 (4th Cir. 1983).

         ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS

         In February 2012, Hoffman applied for DIB, alleging disability beginning January 11, 2010. Hoffman's application was denied initially and upon reconsideration, and he requested a hearing before an ALJ. A hearing was held on April 9, 2014, at which Hoffman, who was represented by Jason A. Stegner, Esquire, appeared and testified. After hearing testimony from a vocational expert, the ALJ issued a decision on June 8, 2014 finding that Hoffman was not disabled. (Tr. 14-27.)

         Hoffman was born in 1973 and was thirty-six years old on his alleged disability onset date. (Tr. 26.) He has a high school education and training as a professional truck driver. (Tr. 204.) He has past relevant work experience as a delivery driver and a paper processor. (Id.) Hoffman alleged disability due to psoriasis, tissue damage, and a hernia. (Tr. 203.)

         In applying the five-step sequential process, the ALJ found that Hoffman had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since January 11, 2010-his alleged onset date. The ALJ also determined that Hoffman's psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, status post inguinal hernia repair, status post left ankle tendon injury, and obesity were severe impairments. However, the ALJ found that Hoffman did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled the severity of one of the listed impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (the “Listings”). The ALJ further found that Hoffman retained the residual functional capacity to

perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) except: he is restricted from working in an environment with excessive heat, cold, humidity or wetness; he is limited to only occasional stooping; he is restricted from crouching, crawling, or kneeling; and he is restricted from exposure in his work to ...

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.