Moss v. Commissioner Of Social Security Administration, 5:16-cv-00047

Plaintiff Darrell Wayne Moss applied for DIB and SSI alleging disability from February 1, 2010, based on spinal, shoulder, wrist, foot injuries and mental symptoms; prior work as a construction worker.
ALJ held a hearing, found severe impairments (cervical and lumbar degenerative disc disease with fusions, right carpal tunnel, left rotator cuff repair), but concluded plaintiff did not meet Listing 1.04 and retained RFC for light work; denied benefits.
Plaintiff appealed; Magistrate Judge recommended remand, concluding the ALJ’s step-three analysis was insufficient; parties did not object.
District Court reviewed for clear error where no objections were filed, affirmed and adopted the Magistrate Judge’s report, granted plaintiff’s motion, denied Commissioner’s motion, and remanded for further factfinding.
Court found ALJ’s step-three discussion was conclusory regarding Listing 1.04A (spinal disorders) and inconsistent on record facts (e.g., straight‑leg raise findings); but upheld the ALJ’s RFC (light work) and credibility determination as supported by substantial evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ALJ erred at step three by failing to show that impairments meet Listing 1.04A	ALJ summarily concluded Listing 1.04A not met without comparing claimant’s actual symptoms to listing criteria	ALJ’s statement that objective criteria not satisfied is adequate; record does not show required signs	Court: ALJ’s step‑three analysis was conclusory; remand required for fuller comparison and explanation
Whether RFC for light work (including cane necessity) is supported	RFC incorrect; plaintiff needs cane and greater restrictions	Substantial evidence supports light work RFC; no medical order or documentation showing cane is medically necessary	Court: Magistrate right to uphold ALJ’s RFC and reject medically necessary cane absent records
Whether ALJ improperly evaluated claimant credibility	ALJ failed to credit claimant’s subjective pain and limitations	ALJ followed two‑step Craig framework and considered SSR 96‑7p factors; explanation adequate	Court: Credibility finding not patently wrong and is supported; upheld
Remedy and appellate rights waiver	Plaintiff sought benefits or remand	Commissioner opposed benefits; argued decision supported by substantial evidence	Court: Grant summary judgment to plaintiff; remand for further factfinding on step three; parties waived appeal by not objecting

Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585 (4th Cir.) (standard for reviewing credibility and substantial‑evidence review)
United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364 (U.S. 1948) (standard for "clearly erroneous" review)
Cook v. Heckler, 783 F.2d 1168 (4th Cir.) (ALJ must do more than a summary comparison to listings)
Hall v. Harris, 658 F.2d 260 (4th Cir.) (claimant bears burden to prove meeting or equaling a listing)
Farnsworth v. Astrue, 604 F. Supp. 2d 828 (N.D. W. Va.) (ALJ has primary responsibility for RFC determination)