Brodrick v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 20

ORDER entered by Judge Sara Darrow on March 30, 2015. The 18 Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED. Plaintiff's 11 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED, and Defendant's 15 Motion for Summary Affirmance is GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment, closing the case. (SC, ilcd)

E-FILED

Monday, 30 March, 2015 01:58:33 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DIVISION
MARK D. BRODRICK,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:13-cv-01528-SLD-JEH

ORDER
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge
Jonathan Hawley, ECF No. 18, filed on February 19, 2015. Plaintiff Mark Brodrick filed his
Objection to the Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 19, on March 5, 2015.
The Court may accept, reject, or modify (in whole or in part) the findings or
recommendations of the Magistrate Judge in a report and recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(3). The Court must review de novo the portions of the report to which objections are made.
Id. In making this determination, the Court must look to all of the evidence contained in the
record and “give fresh consideration to those issues to which specific objections have been
made.” Rajaratnam v. Moyer, 47 F.3d 922, 924 n.8 (7th Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks
omitted). It must review the other portions of the report for clear error. See Johnson v. Zema Sys.
Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999).
As an initial matter, the Court notes that the Magistrate Judge’s role was simply to
determine whether the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) was supported by
substantial evidence. “Substantial evidence” is defined as “such relevant evidence as a

1

reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Skinner v. Astrue, 478 F.3d
836, 841 (7th Cir. 2007). “The ALJ is not required to address every piece of evidence or
testimony presented, but must provide a ‘logical bridge’ between the evidence and the
conclusions . . . .” Jones v. Astrue, 623 F.3d 1155, 1160 (7th Cir. 2010). This Court may not
reweigh evidence, decide questions of credibility, or substitute its judgment for that of the ALJ.
See Young v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 995, 1001 (7th Cir.2004).
On June 14, 2012, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had the “residual functional capacity”
(“RFC”) to perform light work, AR 15,1 despite also finding that Plaintiff suffered severe
impairment from degenerative joint disease of his right rotator cuff, degenerative joint disease of
the knees, and a history of left ankle fractures, AR 11. The ALJ found, pursuant to 20 C.F.R.
§§ 404.1569, 404.1569(A), 416.969, and 416.969(a), that there were a significant number of jobs
in the national economy that Plaintiff could perform, AR 17, and thus denied his claim for
benefits, AR 18. Brodrick filed suit against the Commissioner of Social Security, ECF No. 1,
and filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 11, while the Commissioner filed a Motion
for Summary Affirmance, ECF No. 15. The Magistrate Judge duly issued a Report and
Recommendation.
Plaintiff alleges in his Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment that:
1) the Commissioner and ALJ erred in failing to obtain evidence from the prior
record; 2) the ALJ erred in not ensuring medical records were complete for an
unrepresented person; 3) the ALJ erred in failing to adopt the credibility of
[Plaintiff’s] pain as a limitation; and 4) the ALJ failed to consider all [Plaintiff’s]
impairments in establishing his RFC.
Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) 10; see Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. 3, 5, 8, 11; ECF No.
12. In a detailed, 20-page Report, the Magistrate comes to the following conclusions in rejecting

1

References to the Administrative Record are identified as AR [page number]. The Administrative Record appears
in the docket as ECF No. 9.

2

the validity of each of Plaintiff’s claims: 1) Plaintiff points to no medical records the ALJ failed
to consider that might have affected the ALJ’s determination, R&R 13–14; 2) the second claim
for benefits fails for the same reason the first claim failed, id.; 3) the ALJ made his credibility
determinations about Plaintiff’s pain on the basis of a reasoned and supported discussion of
Plaintiff’s medical problems, R&R 15–16; and 4), ALJs are “required only to incorporate into
[their] hypotheticals those impairments and limitations that [they accept] as credible,” R&R 19
(quoting Simila v. Astrue, 573 F.3d 503, 521 (7th Cir. 2009)). On the strength of this analysis,
the Magistrate Judge recommends that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment be denied and
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Affirmance be granted. R&R 20.
In his Objection to the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff contends that the
Magistrate Judge’s assessment of the ALJ’s determinations about Plaintiff’s credibility is
patently wrong. Objection 5. To support this claim, Plaintiff recites his medical history in some
detail, in order to suggest that the testimony he offered about his pain and its disabling effects
was credible. But he does nothing to show that the ALJ failed to support his credibility
determination with substantial evidence. Although the Court reviews the ALJ’s determination
on this issue directly, the Court plays an “‘extremely limited’ role. [The Court] will not ‘displace
the ALJ’s judgment by reconsidering facts or evidence, or by making independent credibility
determinations.’” Simila, 573 F.3d at 513 (quoting Elder v. Astrue, 529 F.3d 408, 413 (7th Cir.
2008)). Thus Plaintiff’s contention that the ALJ’s credibility determination was wrong gets him
nowhere; this Court will not review that determination. And, like the Magistrate Judge, the
Court finds that the credibility determination was supported by extensive discussion of Plaintiff’s
health problems, and thus, was supported by substantial evidence. See R&R 15–16.

3

The Court finds that the remainder of the Report and Recommendation does not contain
clear error. See Zema, 170 F.3d at 739. Having reviewed and considered the Report and
Recommendation, together with the entire record, the Court concurs with the recommendation of
the Magistrate Judge for the reasons set forth in his Report and Recommendation. The Court
also determines that no further proceeding is necessary.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, ECF No. 18, is
ADOPTED. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 11, is DENIED, and
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Affirmance, ECF No. 15, is GRANTED. The Clerk is
directed to enter judgment, closing the case.

Entered this 30th day of March, 2015.
s/ Sara Darrow
SARA DARROW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4