Bizauskas v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 29

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 25 the Report and Recommendation, be ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full, to the extent that it is not inconsistent with this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 20 Plaintiff's Motion to Reverse and/or Remand, is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 22 Defendant's Cross-Motion to Affirm, is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 9/23/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JQC)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

KIMBERLY L. BIZAUSKAS,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

4

Plaintiff,

5
6

vs.

7

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,

8

Defendant.

9

Case No.: 2:16-cv-01901-GMN-VCF

ORDER

10

Pending before the Court is the Motion for Reversal and/or Remand, (ECF No. 20), filed

11
12

by Plaintiff Kimberly L. Bizauskas (“Plaintiff”). Defendant Nancy A. Berryhill (“Defendant”)

13

filed a Response, (ECF. No. 23), and a Cross-Motion to Affirm, (ECF No. 22), to which

14

Plaintiff filed a Reply, (ECF No. 24). These motions were referred to the Honorable Cam

15

Ferenbach, United States Magistrate Judge, for a report of findings and recommendations

16

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(B) and (C).

17

On September 26, 2017, Judge Ferenbach entered the Report and Recommendation (“R.

18

& R.”), (ECF No. 25), recommending Plaintiff’s Motion for Reversal and/or Remand be denied

19

and Defendant’s Motion to Affirm be granted. Plaintiff timely filed an Objection, (ECF No.

20

26), to the R. & R., and Defendant filed a Response to the Objection, (ECF No. 27).

21

I.

BACKGROUND

22

Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant in her capacity as the Commissioner of the

23

Social Security Administration, pursuant the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Compl.,

24

ECF No. 4). Plaintiff seeks judicial review of the final decision by the Commissioner of the

25

Social Security Administration, wherein the Commissioner denied her claims for social security

Page 1 of 4

1

disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Title XVI of the Social

2

Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381–1385. (Id. ¶¶ 6, 9).

3

Plaintiff applied for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income

4

benefits on August 26, 2011. (Admin. R. (“A.R.”) at 857–869, ECF No. 15-2). Her

5

applications were denied initially, upon reconsideration, and after a hearing before an

6

Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) on February 20, 2015. (Id. at 706–724). Plaintiff timely

7

requested Appeals Council review of the ALJ’s decision, which the Appeals Council denied on

8

June 20, 2016. (Compl. ¶ 8). Plaintiff then filed her Complaint and the instant Motion to

9

Reverse or Remand.

10

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

11

A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a

12

United States Magistrate Judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1–4. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B);

13

D. Nev. Local R. IB 3-2. Upon the filing of such objections, the Court must make a de novo

14

determination of those portions of the Report to which objections are made. Id. The Court may

15

accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the

16

Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Nev. Local R. IB 3-2(b).

17

III.

DISCUSSION

18

Plaintiff challenges Judge Ferenbach’s findings that the ALJ properly considered

19

Plaintiff’s limitations as endorsed in Dr. Fabella-Hicks’s report. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges

20

that the ALJ did not properly consider the statement that “[h]er ability to complete tasks on a

21

sustained basis would be affected by her mental health symptoms.” (Obj. 5:6–5:9, ECF No. 26).

22

According to Plaintiff, if the ALJ accepted Dr. Fabella Hicks’s statement as true, Plaintiff

23

would be entitled to social security benefits. (Id. 5:5–5:12).

24

In reviewing Defendant’s denial of benefits, the Court determines whether the ALJ’s

25

underlying decision is supported by enough “evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as

Page 2 of 4

1

adequate to support a conclusion.” Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197 (1938); see

2

Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 2005) (stating that if the evidence supports more

3

than one interpretation, the court must defer to the Commissioner’s interpretation). Here, the

4

ALJ satisfied this standard.

5

Although Dr. Fabella-Hicks’s report acknowledges that Plaintiff’s mental health

6

symptoms may affect her ability to complete tasks on a sustained basis, that report did not state

7

that Plaintiff’s symptoms would interfere with her ability to perform simple tasks. (A.R. at 717,

8

ECF No. 15-1). Additionally, the ALJ considered Dr. Fabella-Hicks’s findings in combination

9

with the findings of the other examining physicians. (Id. at 714–718). As Judge Ferenbach

10

notes, the other physicians “commented favorably on Bizauskas ability to concentrate and carry

11

out tasks, and the ALJ gave specific reasons for the weight given to each medical expert.”

12

(R&R 5:13–5:18). The Court therefore agrees with Judge Ferenbach’s conclusion that the

13

ALJ’s determination is supported by substantial medical evidence and that the ALJ adequately

14

considered Dr. Fabella-Hicks’s report. Given that the ALJ’s conclusion is supported by

15

substantial evidence, Plaintiff has not provided adequate reasons for the Court to now depart

16

from, or reverse, the ALJ’s decision. See Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1115 (9th Cir.

17

2012).

18

Having reviewed Plaintiff’s objections de novo, the Court finds no basis on which to

19

reject Judge Ferenbach’s R. & R., (ECF No. 25). The Court therefore overrules Plaintiff’s

20

Objection, (ECF No. 26).

21

IV.

CONCLUSION

22

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 25), be

23

ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full, to the extent that it is not inconsistent with this Order.

24
25

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Reverse and/or Remand, (ECF
No. 20), is DENIED.

Page 3 of 4

1
2
3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Cross-Motion to Affirm, (ECF No. 22),
is GRANTED.
The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case.

4
5

23
DATED this _____ day of September, 2019.

6
7
8
9
10

___________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge
United States District Court

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Page 4 of 4