United States District Court, D. South Carolina
ORDER
PAIGE
J. GOSSETT, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This
social security matter is before the court pursuant to Local
Civil Rule 83.VII.02 (D.S.C.) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) for
final adjudication, with the consent of the parties, of the
plaintiff's petition for judicial review. The plaintiff,
Saporia Octavia Jackson, 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, Commissioner of
Social Security (“Commissioner”), denying her
claims for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”).
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. § 1382c(a)(3)(H)(i), 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. §
416.905(a); see also Blalock v. Richardson, 483 F.2d
773 (4th Cir. 1973). The regulations generally 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 her past relevant work;
and (5) whether the claimant's impairments prevent her
from doing any other kind of work.
20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4).[2] 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 she is unable to return to her past relevant work
because of her 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. §
1382c(a)(3)(A)-(B); 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
September 2014, Jackson applied for SSI, alleging disability
beginning October 26, 2009. Jackson's application was
denied initially and upon reconsideration, and she requested
a hearing before an ALJ. A hearing was held on March 9, 2017,
at which Jackson appeared and testified and was represented
by Jason K. Baril, Esquire and Ryan Goddard, Esquire. After
hearing testimony from a vocational expert, the ALJ issued a
decision on May 22, 2017 finding that Jackson had not been
under a disability since the application was filed on
September 23, 2014. (Tr. 20-27.)
Jackson
was born in 1994 and was twenty years old on the date her
application was filed. She has a high school education and no
past relevant work experience. (Tr. 195.) Jackson alleged
disability due to brachial plexus, and right shoulder and arm
numbness and atrophy. (Tr. 194.)
In
applying the five-step sequential process, the ALJ found that
Jackson had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since
the application date of September 23, 2014. The ALJ also
determined that Jackson's right brachial plexus with
right shoulder degenerative joint disease were severe
impairments. However, the ALJ found that Jackson 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 ...