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)

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