Ellison v Saul

Filing 33

Judge Richard G. Stearns: ORDER entered denying 18 Motion for Order Reversing Decision of Commissioner; granting 22 Motion for Order Affirming Decision of Commissioner; adopting Report and Recommendations re 31 Report and Recommendations. (Zierk, Marsha)

Download PDF
Case 1:21-cv-10898-RGS Document 33 Filed 09/16/22 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS CIVIL ACTION NO. 21-10898-RGS TREMAYNE ELLISON, Plaintiff v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE September 16, 2022 STEARNS, D.J. I agree with Magistrate Judge Boal that this is a sad case. I also agree that the Commissioner acted appropriately in denying petitioner Tremayne Ellison’s application for supplemental social security income benefits. More specifically, the Commissioner correctly determined that Ellison was not disabled as of the amended onset date (January 2, 2019), after considering all his impairments, including his substance abuse, and that, therefore, no further Drug Addiction and Alcoholism (DAA) materiality determination was required. The Commissioner also correctly concluded Case 1:21-cv-10898-RGS Document 33 Filed 09/16/22 Page 2 of 2 that jobs exist in significant numbers in the national economy that Ellison could perform. Therefore, the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation is ADOPTED, petitioner’s motion to reverse or remand the decision of the Commissioner is DENIED, and the Commissioner’s motion to affirm is ALLOWED.1 The Clerk will enter judgment for the Commissioner and close the case. SO ORDERED. /s/ Richard G. Stearns__________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Ellison filed a timely Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. The Objection more carefully hones Ellison’s arguments on appeal that the Commissioner (or more precisely, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)) failed to properly apply Social Security policy with respect to DAA, and that she erred in her residual functional capacity (RFC) assessment. (Ellison is not pursuing his claim that the Appeals Council erred in refusing to consider his offer of “new and material evidence.” See Obj. at 3 n.3 (Dkt #32)). After careful review of the Objection, I remain persuaded that the Magistrate Judge was correct in finding that the ALJ took great care to insure a proper DAA analysis. I also agree that the ALJ gave due consideration to Ellison’s subjective complaints regarding his physical and mental limitations, but that these complaints were not consistent with the record evidence. 1 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?