UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION DOCKET NO. 1:19-cv-127

MILES WALKER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Vs. ) ORDER ) ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social ) Security, ) ) Defendant. )

THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 9) and Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 11). Plaintiff filed an application for a period of disability and Disability Insurance Benefits on January 3, 2013, alleging a disability onset date of June 1, 2009. Plaintiff subsequently amended his alleged onset date to May 1, 2011. Plaintiff’s claim was denied both initially and on reconsideration. After a hearing before an administrative law judge (“ALJ”), the ALJ issued an unfavorable decision on July 17, 2015, which was ultimately remanded by this court on June 18, 2018. After a new hearing, a different ALJ found Plaintiff not disabled at step 5 of her analysis. Plaintiff now seeks review of this decision. The only issues on review are whether the Commissioner applied the correct legal standards and whether the Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence. Richardson v. Perales,

(1971); Hays v. Sullivan,

(4th Cir. 1990). Review by a federal court is not de novo, Smith v. Schwieker,

(4th Cir. 1986); rather, inquiry is limited to whether there was “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion,” Richardson,

. Even if the undersigned were to find that a preponderance of the evidence weighed against the Commissioner’s decision, the Commissioner’s decision would have to be affirmed 1f supported by substantial evidence. Hays,

. The Court has carefully considered the motions and reviewed the briefs and the record and finds that the ALJ’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence. The Court finds the Plaintiff's arguments to be persuasive as to both his assignments of error. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in Plaintiffs brief, Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted, the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment will be denied, and the decision of the Commissioner will be vacated.

ORDER IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that (1) the decision of the Commissioner, denying the relief sought by Plaintiff, is VACATED; (2) the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 9) is GRANTED; and (3) the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 11) is DENIED; and (4) the matter is hereby REMANDED for further consideration.

February 11, 2020 Labia L Meade Graham C. Mullen ee United States District Judge mt