Sink v. Astrue
Filing
21
-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP- DECISION AND ORDER denying 7 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 14 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; adopting in its entirety Report and Recommendations re 17 Report and Recommendations. (Clerk to close case.) Signed by Hon. Michael A. Telesca on 6/8/15. (JMC)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
________________________________
RODNEY S. SINK,
Plaintiff,
DECISION AND ORDER
No. 1:12-cv-00239(JJM)(MAT)
-vsCAROLYN COLVIN,
Defendant.
________________________________
I.
Introduction
This matter comes before the Court following a Report &
Recommendation (Dkt #17) filed on March 30, 2015, by the Honorable
Jeremiah J. McCarthy, United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72(b) and (c) of the
Western District of New York. In his Report & Recommendation
(“R&R”),
Judge
McCarthy
recommended
that
the
Commissioner’s
decision denying Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) benefits to
plaintiff Rodney Sink (“Plaintiff”) be affirmed in full.
The
Judge
Court
McCarthy’s
has
R&R
before
and
it
the
entire
Plaintiff’s
file,
Objections
as
to
well
as
Report
&
Recommendation (“Pl’s Obj.”) (Dkt #20). Defendant has not filed any
responsive papers to Plaintiff’s Objections.
When reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation,
a district court is required to “make a de novo determination of
those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made[,]” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b),
and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge[,]” id.
Where no “specific written objection” is made to portions of the
magistrate judge’s report, the district court may adopt those
portions, “as long as the factual and legal bases supporting the
findings and conclusions set forth in those sections are not
clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Eisenberg v. New England
Motor Freight, Inc., 564 F. Supp.2d 224, 226 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)
(citing FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149
(1985); other citation omitted). The district court is not required
to review any portion of a magistrate judge’s report that is not
the subject of an objection. Eisenberg, 564 F. Supp.2d at 227
(citing Thomas, 474 U.S. at 149). Here, Plaintiff has asserted one
specific objection–that Judge McCarthy erroneously found that the
ALJ’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”) assessment adequately
accounted for Plaintiff’s limitations in handling stress. See Pl’s
Obj., p. 7 of 11. The Court therefore must consider, de novo,
Judge McCarthy’s analysis of this issue. As discussed further
below, the R&R is approved and adopted in its entirety.
II. Discussion
The
Court
discusses
the
administrative
record,
including
Plaintiff’s medical history and the ALJ’s decision, only insofar as
is necessary to the resolution of whether Plaintiff’s objection has
merit.
-2-
Plaintiff, who was 40 years-old on the alleged onset date of
March 1, 2008, filed an application for SSI based on degenerative
joint disease of the right shoulder dating back to 2006, as well as
chronic depression and an anxiety disorder. Psychologist Thomas E.
Ryan, Ph.D. performed a consultative examination of Plaintiff on
August 14, 2008. See T.240-43.1 At the conclusion of his report,
Dr. Ryan issued the following Medical Source Statement:
[Plaintiff] demonstrates no significant limitation in
ability to follow and understand simple instructions,
perform
simple
tasks,
maintain
attention
and
concentration, maintain a regular schedule, learn new
tasks, perform some complex tasks. [He has] [m]oderate to
severe limitation in ability to make appropriate
decisions, relate with others, and deal with stress.
T.242.
At step two of the sequential evaluation, the ALJ found that
in addition to several severe physical impairments (degenerative
joint disease of the right shoulder, carpal tunnel syndrome, and
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), Plaintiff has the following
severe mental impairments: mood disorder and anxiety disorder.
Decision. T.16. Examining Plaintiff’s mental impairments in the
context of Listings 12.04 (Affective Disorder) and 12.06 (Anxiety
Disorders), the ALJ found that Plaintiff does not meet the “B”
criteria of those listings, since he has only mild restrictions in
activities
of
daily
living,
moderate
difficulties
in
social
1
Numerals preceded by “T.” refer to pages from the transcript
of the administrative record.
-3-
functioning, moderate difficulties in maintaining concentration,
persistence, and pace, and no episodes of decompensation. In
particular, the ALJ noted that in terms of social functioning,
Plaintiff had reported symptoms of anxiety, social withdrawal,
outbursts of anger including a history of assaults, and difficulty
getting
along
with
others,
such
as
neighbors,
family
and
co-workers. However, the ALJ opined, there is “no indication” that
Plaintiff was unable to relate appropriately with others, although
he “would likely benefit from reduced social interaction in the
work place environment.” T.17.
The ALJ stated that when reviewing the medical opinions of
record,
he
had
“given
great
weight
to
the
opinions
of
the
consultative medical and psychiatric2 examiners [i.e., Dr. Ryan].”
T.22. The ALJ discussed some of the findings Dr. Ryan observed
during his clinical examination, but did not specifically mention
any portion of Dr. Ryan’s Medical Source Statement, T.242, quoted
above.
In his RFC assessment, the ALJ determined, among other things,
that Plaintiff would be able to understand, remember, and carry out
simple
instructions;
make
judgments
on
simple
work-related
decisions; interact appropriately with supervisors and coworkers in
a routine work setting; and respond to usual work situations and
2
As Judge McCarthy noted, although the ALJ referred to Dr. Ryan
as a consultative psychiatrist, the record indicates that Dr. Ryan
is a psychologist, not a psychiatrist.
-4-
changes in a routine work setting. However, Plaintiff “would
require work that is isolated from the public with only superficial
and [sic] no direct interaction with the public and only occasional
supervision and occasional interaction with co-workers.” T.18.
Plaintiff takes issue with Judge McCarthy’s determination that
“it is clear that the ALJ did consider plaintiff’s stressors and
reactions in making his findings and RFC determination,” in light
of the ALJ’s inclusion of restrictions in his RFC assessment on
Plaintiff’s interactions with co-workers and the public. See R&R at
31-32. Judge McCarthy discussed in detail Plaintiff’s testimony
about his anxiety symptoms, the ALJ’s questioning of the vocational
expert with regard
to the level of social interaction required of
certain jobs, and the vocational expert’s testimony on this topic.
After reviewing this record evidence, Judge McCarthy found that the
ALJ’s restrictions “sufficiently take into account [P]laintiff’s
anxiety or stress by reducing what [P]laintiff himself indicated3
was a cause of his stress: being around other people.” R&R at 32.
Plaintiff counters that consultative psychologist Dr. Ryan
found
“[m]oderate
to
severe
limitation
in
ability
to
make
appropriate decisions, relate with others, and deal with stress.”
T.242 (emphasis supplied). Plaintiff argues that this phrasing
3
For instance, Plaintiff reported “symptoms of anxiety related
to getting along with others” and testified that he “did not like
people” and “becomes concerned that they are going to hurt him.”
R&R at 31 (emphasis and citations to record omitted).
-5-
“suggests Dr. Ryan felt that Plaintiff’s difficulties in dealing
with stress were distinct from his difficulties in dealing with
others.” Pl’s Obj. at 8. However, after reviewing Dr. Ryan’s
report, the Court cannot find support for Plaintiff’s contention
that Dr. Ryan believed that Plaintiff’s “difficulties in dealing
with stress were distinct from his difficulties in dealing with
others.”
In
the
section
of
the
report
titled,
“Current
Functioning,” Dr. Ryan noted that Plaintiff
speaks of being depressed, irritable, socially withdrawn.
No thoughts of self harm. A great deal of worry. He
states that he gets panic attacks with palpitations and
sweating, He states that occurs when he thinks people are
out
to
“get
[him].”
When
asked
about
manic
symptomatology, he states he has times when he feels
better, but he did not really describe manic episodes.
When asked about hallucinations, delusions, or paranoid
ideation, he states he sometimes sees shadows. . . .
T.240-41 (emphases supplied). Apart from Plaintiff’s feelings of
social isolation and concerns about persecution, Dr. Ryan did not
refer to any other causes of worry or stress–either that Plaintiff
identified himself or that Dr. Ryan independently observed. In sum,
the Court finds nothing in Dr. Ryan’s report to suggest the
existence
of
a
significant
source
of
stress,
distinct
from
Plaintiff’s social anxiety, that the ALJ overlooked in formulating
Plaintiff’s RFC assessment. The Court therefore disagrees with
Plaintiff’s
contentions
that
the
ALJ
incorrectly
evaluated
Dr. Ryan’s opinion and erred in formulating the RFC assessment by
-6-
not adequately accounting for Plaintiff’s difficulties in dealing
with stress.
With regard to the remainder of the R&R, as to which no
specific objections have been made, the Court finds that it is free
of clear error. The Court notes that even if it were to subject the
remainder of Judge McCarthy’s thorough and detailed R&R to a
de novo review, the R&R easily would survive such scrutiny.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court approves Judge McCarthy’s
R&R (Dkt #17) and adopts it in its entirety. Defendant’s crossmotion (Dkt #14) for judgment on the pleadings is granted, and
Plaintiff’s motion (Dkt #7) for judgment on the pleadings is
denied.
The
Commissioner’s
decision
denying
SSI
benefits
is
affirmed. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.
SO ORDERED.
S/Michael A. Telesca
HONORABLE MICHAEL A. TELESCA
United States District Judge
DATED:
June 8, 2015
Rochester, New York
-7-
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?