Bowers v. Astrue

Filing 25

District Judge Timothy S Hillman: ORDER entered denying 11 Motion to Remand to Social Security Administration; granting 16 Motion for Order Affirming Decision of Commissioner; adopting Report and Recommendations re 22 Report and Recommendations. (Jones, Sherry)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

DIETRA BOWERS,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Commissioner
Social Security Administration,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION
No. 11-40229-TSH

ORDER
July 14, 2014
HILLMAN, D.J.
Background
This is an action for judicial review of a final decision made by the Commissioner of the
Social Security Administration (“Commissioner”) denying the claim of Plaintiff, Dietra Bowers
(“Bowers”), for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits.
This matter was referred by this Court to Hennessy for a Report and Recommendation
on Plaintiff’s Motion To Remand The Decision Of The Commissioner Of The Social Security
Administration (Docket No. 11) and Defendant’s Motion To Affirm The Commissioner’s
Decision (Docket No. 16). Thereafter, Magistrate Judge Hennessy issued a Report and
Recommendation (Docket No. 22)(“R&R”) recommending that Bowers’s motion to remand be
denied, and the Commissioner’s motion to affirm be allowed. Bowers objects to the R & R on
the grounds that (1) the magistrate judge erred when he found that the substantial evidence
supported the decision of the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) despite the fact that the ALJ did
not expressly find that Bowers could sustain her activities; (2) the magistrate judge erred by

finding that no acceptable medical source diagnosed her with bipolar disorder and, in any event,
read the legal authority cited by her too narrowly; (3) the magistrate judge impermissibly
allowed the ALJ to discount the opinions of later medical sources on the grounds that they were
not acceptable medical sources, despite the fact that they were principal treating sources of
mental health at the time of her evaluation; and (4) the magistrate judge erred in holding that
expert support is not needed so long as the ALJ’s decision is based on evidence that would
suggest to a lay person that a claimant’s impairments are mild and pose no significant functional
restrictions. See Objections To Report and Recommendation Of The Magistrate Judge (Docket
No. 24).
Having reviewed Bowers’s objections, with one exception explained in detail below, I
find that the objections are without merit.1 Because I nonetheless find that for the reasons set
forth in the R&R the ALJ’s decision is substantially supported by the evidence in the record, I
otherwise accept and adopt the R&R.
Response to Objections
1. The record evidence establishes that the ALJ implicitly considered Bowers’s ability to
sustain her activities and this finding is supported by substantial evidence in the record. See
Lopes v. Barnhart, 372 F.Supp.2d 185, 193 (D.Mass. 2005)(ALJ’s determination will be upheld
after examination of entire record even if more express findings would have been
preferable)(citing Frustaglia v. Secretary, 829 F.2d 192, 195-196 (1st Cir. 1987)).
2. Bowers is correct that her psychiatrist, Dr. George Hardman, who diagnosed her with
bipolar disorder, is an acceptable medical source and therefore, the magistrate judge clearly erred
1

This Court conducts a de novo review of objections to the Magistrate Judge’s decision. Seavey v.
Barnhart, 276 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir. 2001)(citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)).

2

by concluding that “no acceptable medical source diagnosed Bowers with bipolar disorder.” See
R&R, at p. 21. Nonetheless, there was substantial contradictory medical evidence, which is
accurately summarized in the R&R, that Bowers did not suffer from bipolar disorder and did not
otherwise suffer from a disabling mental disorder. The ALJ was entitled to credit the other
medical sources and therefore, the ALJ’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in
the record.
3. Bowers mischaracterizes the ALJ’s findings. The ALJ did not ignore the opinion of
later medical sources solely on the grounds that they were not acceptable medical sources, as was
done in the case she cited, Alcantara v.Astrue, 257 Fed.Appx. 333 (1st Cir. 2007). Rather, the
ALJ gave some of these opinions less weight and explained the reasons for doing so. As to the
those later medical sources the ALJ disregarded completely, it was not for the sole reason that
they were unacceptable medical sources, but also because their findings were either inconsistent
with other medical evidence in the record, or based largely on Bowers’s subjective complaints.
4. Bowers asserts that the magistrate judge misapplied the First Circuit’s holding in
Manso-Pizarro v. Secretary, 76 F.3d 15 (1st Cir. 1996) by applying what he considered to be the
general rule “that the claimant’s capacity may even be assessed without regard to expert
testimony so long as the hearing officer’s decision is based on evidence that would suggest that a
claimant’s impairment are mild and pose no significant functional restrictions.” R&R, at p. 25 n.
13. 2 However, the R&R makes clear that the magistrate judge was simply summarizing another
judge’s statement of the general rule—and did so accurately. The magistrate judge specifically

2

Bowers describes the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning as hard to follow. However, I find the magistrate
judge’s discussion to be a straightforward and accurate description of the law and the record. I disagree with
Bowers’s interpretation of what the magistrate judge says in that discussion, which may be why I have difficulty
comprehending the exact nature of her objection.
3

stated that Bowers’s case is distinguishable because the ALJ did, in fact, rely on acceptable
expert testimony. I agree.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, except as set forth above, the Court accepts and adopts the
Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 22) of the magistrate judge. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s
Motion To Remand The Decision Of The Commissioner Of The Social Security Administration
(Docket No. 11) is denied and Defendant’s Motion To Affirm The Commissioner’s Decision
(Docket No. 16) is granted. The Clerk shall enter judgment for the Commissioner.

/s/ Timothy S. Hillman
TIMOTHY S. HILLMAN
DISTRICT JUDGE

4