Ginger J. Largen, Morefield & Largen, P.L.C., Abingdon, Virginia, for Plaintiff; Nora Koch, Acting Regional Chief Counsel, Region III, Jillian Quick, Assistant Regional Counsel, and Allyson Jozwik, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, Social Security Administration, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
James P. Jones United States District Judge
In this Social Security disability case, I affirm the decision of the Commissioner.
Plaintiff Tommy Jack Surber filed this action challenging the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (the “Commissioner”) denying his claim for supplemental security income benefits (“SSI”) under Title XVI of the Social Security Act (“Act”), 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 1381-1383f (West 2012 & Supp. 2013). Jurisdiction of this court exists under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1383(c)(3).
Surber filed for SSI administratively on June 25, 2009. After preliminary denials of his claims, he obtained a hearing before an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) on April 2, 2012, at which he was represented by counsel and during which he testified along with an impartial vocational expert, A. Bentley Hankins.On April 16, 2012, the ALJ issued a written decision finding that Surber was not disabled under the Act. Surber requested review by the Social Security Administration’s Appeals Council. The Appeals Council denied his request for review on April 19, 2013, thus making the ALJ’s decision the final decision of the Commissioner. Surber then filed this action on May 31, 2013, seeking judicial review of the Commissioner’s final decision.
The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment, which were briefed and thereafter orally argued by counsel on December 19, 2013. The case is now ripe for decision.
At the time of the alleged onset date of disability, Surber was 51 years old. He has a high school education and previously worked as a self-employed carpenter. Surber claimed that he had been unable to work since September 15, 2007. In his written decision, the ALJ found that Surber had the following severe impairments: “hearing loss; degenerative joint disease/degenerative disk disease of the cervical and lumbar spine; arthralgias [non-inflammatory joint pain]; left calf pain; history of marijuana abuse; and depression.” (R. 50.) The ALJ reviewed Surber’s medical history and the evidence presented at the hearing and set forth the reasons for his factual findings. He found that Surber did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled a listed impairment, had no past relevant work, and that he had the residual functional capacity to perform medium excertional work, with appropriate limitations in accord with his recognized impairments. Based upon the testimony of the vocational expert, the ALJ determined that Surber was capable of performing jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy.
It is contended in the present case that the ALJ erred by (1) rejecting certain opinions of Ralph Ramsden, Ph.D., a clinical psychologist who assessed Surber at the request of his attorney; (2) failing to include Surber’s mental impairment in his hypothetical question to the vocational expert; and (3) failing to evaluate all of Surber’s impairments in combination.
The plaintiff bears the burden of proving that he is under a disability. Blalock v. Richardson, 483 F.2d 773, 775 (4th Cir. 1972). The standard for disability is strict. The plaintiff must show that his “physical or mental impairment or impairments are of such severity that he is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy . . . .” 42 U.S.C.A. § 1382c(a)(3)(B).
In assessing disability claims, the ALJ applies a five-step sequential evaluation process. The ALJ considers whether the claimant: (1) has worked during the alleged period of disability; (2) has a severe impairment; (3) has a condition that meets or equals the severity of a listed impairment; (4) could return to his past relevant work; and (5) if not, whether he could perform other work present in the national economy. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4) (2013). The fourth and fifth steps of the inquiry require an assessment of the claimant’s residual functional capacity, which is then compared with the physical and mental demands of other work present in the national economy. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iv), (v).
In accordance with the Act, I must uphold the ALJ’s findings if substantial evidence supports them and the findings were reached through the application of the correct legal standard. Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 589 (4th Cir. 1996). Substantial evidence means “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Substantial evidence is “more than a mere scintilla of evidence but may be somewhat less than a preponderance.” Laws v. Celebrezze, 368 F.2d 640, 642 (4th Cir. 1966). It is the role of the ALJ to resolve evidentiary conflicts, including inconsistencies in the evidence. Seacrist v. ...