United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Aiken Division
ORDER
DAVID
C. NORTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This
matter is before the court on United States Magistrate Judge
Shiva V. Hodges's Report and Recommendation
("R&R") that this court affirm Acting
Commissioner of Social Security Nancy A. Berryhill's
("the Commissioner") decision denying iplaintiff
Toni Kaye Romanus's ("Romanus") application for
disability insurance benefits ("DIB"). Romanus
filed objections to the R&R. For the reasons set forth
below, the court adopts the R&R and affirms the
Commissioner's decision.
I.
BACKGROUND
Unless
otherwise noted, the following background is drawn from the
R&R.
A.
Procedural History
Romanus
filed an application for DIB and Supplemental Security Income
("SSI") on June 16, 2014, alleging disability
beginning on February 7, 2014, which was later amended to
September 9, 2015.[2] The Social Security Agency denied
Romanus's claims initially, ' and her DIB claim was
denied on reconsideration.[3] Romanus requested a hearing. before an
administrative law judge ("ALJ"), and ALJ John T.
Molleur held a hearing on July 12, 2016.
The ALJ
issued a decision on August 31, 2016, finding Romanus not
disabled under the Social Security Act. Romanus requested
Appeals Council review of the ALJ's decision. The Appeals
Council denied Romanus's request for review, rendering
the ALJ's decision the final decision of the
Commissioner. On January 3, 2017, Romanus filed this action
seeking review of the ALJ's decision. The magistrate
judge issued an R&R on September 25, 2017, recommending
that this court affirm the ALJ's decision. Romanus filed
objections to the R&R on October 10, 2017, to which the
Commissioner responded on October 23, 2017. The matter is now
ripe for the court's review.
B.
Medical History
Because
Romanus's medical history is not directly at issue here,
the court dispenses with a lengthy recitation thereof and
instead notes a few relevant facts. Romanus was born on
August 26, 1956, and was fifty-nine years old on the alleged
onset date. She has a high school education and past relevant
work experience as a merchandiser.
C.
ALJ's Findings
The
Social Security Act defines "disability" as 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 rhonths[.]" 42 U.S.C. §
423(d)(1)(A); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1505(a). The Social
Security regulations establish a five-step sequential
evaluation process to determine whether a claimant is
disabled. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. Under this
process, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant: (1)
"is currently engaged in substantial gainful
activity;" (2) "has a severe impairment;"(3)
has an impairment which equals an illness contained in 20
C.F.R. § 404, Subpt. P, App'x 1, "which
warrants a finding of disability without considering
vocational factors;"(4) if not, whether the claimant has
an impairment that prevents her from performing past relevant
work; and (5) if so, "whether the claimant is able to
perform other work considering both [her] remaining physical
and mental capacities" (defined by her residual
functional capacity) and her "vocational capabilities
(age, education, and past work experience) to adjust to a new
job." Hall v. Harris, 658 F.2d 260, 264-65 (4th
Cir. 1981); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). The applicant
bears the burden of proof during the first four steps of the
inquiry, while the burden shifts to the Commissioner for the
final step. Pass v. Chater, 65 F.3d 1200, 1203 (4th
Cir. 1995) (citing Hunter v. Sullivan, 993 F.2d 31,
35 (4th Cir. 1992)).
The ALJ
employed the statutorily-required five-step sequential
evaluation process to determine whether Romanus was disabled
beginning September 9, 2015. The ALJ first determined that
Romanus did not engage in substantial gainful activity during
the period at issue. Tr. 22. At the second step, the ALJ
found that Romanus suffered from the following severe
impairments: seronegative rheumatoid arthritis and
osteoarthritis of the hands and feet. Tr. 22-24. At step
three, the ALJ found that Romanus's impairments or
combination of impairments did not meet or equal one of the
listed impairments in the Agency'.s Listings of
Impairments ("the Listings"). Tr. 24-26; see 20
C.F.R. Part 404, Subpt. P, App'x 1. Before reaching the
fourth step, the ALJ determined Romanus had the residual
functional capacity ("RFC") to perform medium work
as defined by the Social Security Act, with frequent
fingering with the bilateral hands and frequent postural
activities except for occasional climbing of ropes and
ladders. Tr. 26. Specifically, the ALJ found that Romanus had
the ability to lift and carry fifty pounds occasionally and
twenty-five pounds frequently, and stand, walk, and sit for
six hours in an eight-hour workday. Tr. 26. The ALJ found at
step four that Romanus was able to perform past relevant-work
as a merchandiser and that this work did not require the
performance of work-related activities precluded by
Romanus's RFC. Tr. 29. Therefore, the ALJ found that
Romanus was not disabled "from September 9, 2015,
through the date of the decision. Tr. 29
II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
This
court is charged with conducting a de novo review of
any portion of the magistrate judge's R&R to which
specific, written objections are made. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1). A party's failure to object is accepted as
agreement with the magistrate judge's conclusions.
See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). The
R&R carries no presumptive weight, and the ...