GRIFFARD v. ASTRUE

Filing 14

ORDER ADOPTING 12 Report and Recommendations. The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED. Ordered by Judge Marc Thomas Treadwell on 8/7/2013. (tlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
BARBARA GRIFFARD,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner
of Social Security,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:12-CV-129 (MTT)

ORDER
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Charles H. Weigle’s Recommendation on
the Claimant’s complaint. (Doc. 12). The Magistrate Judge recommends affirming the
decision of the Commissioner because the Administrative Law Judge did not err by
presenting an incomplete hypothetical question to the vocational expert and
subsequently relying on the expert’s answer in determining that the Claimant was not
disabled. (Doc. 12 at 1). Further, the Magistrate Judge recommends affirming the
Commissioner’s decision because the ALJ sufficiently accounted for his findings with
regard to the Claimant’s limitations and because the ALJ’s findings are supported by
substantial evidence. (Doc. 12 at 1). The Claimant has objected to the
Recommendation. (Doc. 13). Specifically, the Claimant objects to: (1) the Magistrate
Judge’s finding that the hypothetical question presented by the ALJ to the vocational
expert accurately accounts for the Claimant’s impairments, and (2) the Magistrate
Judge’s finding that the ALJ properly considered the Claimant’s panic attacks in the
ALJ’s residual functional capacity (RFC) findings. (Doc. 13 at 103).

First, the Magistrate Judge fully addresses the Claimant’s argument with regard
to the ALJ’s hypothetical question to the vocational expert. (Doc. 12 at 6-8). Nothing in
the Claimant’s objection alters the Magistrate Judge’s analysis. Thus, the Court agrees
with the Recommendation and finds that the ALJ sufficiently accounted for his findings
regarding the Claimant’s limitations in the hypothetical question posed to the vocational
expert.
Further, the ALJ properly considered the Claimant’s panic attacks in the ALJ’s
RFC findings. In addition to the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning (Doc. 12 at 9-10), there is
further support for this conclusion found in the ALJ’s decision. When discussing the
Claimant’s mental impairments, after discussing the Claimant’s diagnoses and
symptoms of her panic/anxiety disorders, the ALJ specifically finds that “the Claimant’s
mental impairment meets the threshold diagnostic (or “A”) criteria of Listing 12.04
(affective disorders) and Listing 12.06 (anxiety-related disorders).” (Doc. 7-6 at 30).
Both Listings are found at 20 C.F.R. Pt. 202, Subpt. P., App. 1. Listing 12.04 deals with
“Affective disorders: Characterized by a disturbance of mood, accompanied by a full or
partial manic or depressive syndrome. Mood refers to a prolonged emotion that colors
the whole physic life; it generally involves either depression or elation.” Listing 12.06
deals with “Anxiety Related Disorders: In these disorders anxiety is either the
predominant disturbance or it is experienced if the individual attempts to master
symptoms; for example, confronting the dreaded object or situation in a phobic disorder
or resisting the obsessions or compulsions in obsessive compulsive disorders.” The
threshold diagnostic criteria listed in subsection “A” of Listing 12.06 takes into account
various symptoms of anxiety disorders, and the Listing specifically takes into account

-2-

“recurrent severe panic attacks.” Thus, the ALJ’s finding that the Claimant’s mental
impairment meets the threshold diagnostic criteria of Listings 12.04 and 12.06 further
supports the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that the ALJ considered the Claimant’s
panic attacks when making the RFC findings.
The Court has thoroughly considered the Claimant’s objection and has made a
de novo determination of the portions of the Recommendation to which the Claimant
objects. Accordingly, the Court accepts and adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. The Recommendation is adopted and made
the order of this Court. The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED, this 7th day of August, 2013.

S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

-3-