Broom v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 34

ORDER denying 20 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; granting 23 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; and adopting the 27 Memorandum and Recommendations. Signed by District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 1/29/2016. Copy mailed to pro se plaintiff via US Mail to 122 Forest Manor Dr., Sanford, NC 27332. (Romine, L.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
No. 5:15-CV-47-BO
CHRISTINE BROOM,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

This cause comes before the Court on memorandum and recommendation (M&R) from
United States Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers, II. For the reasons discussed below, the
M&R is adopted, the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted, and
plaintiffs motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff brought this action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3) for review of the
final decision of the Commissioner denying her claim for supplemental security income (SSI)
pursuant to Title XVI of the Social Security Act. Plaintiff protectively filed for SSI on October
15, 2012, alleging disability since January 3, 2011. After initial denials, a hearing was held
before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) who then issued an unfavorable ruling. The ALJ's
decision became the final decision of the Commissioner when the Appeals Council denied
plaintiffs request for review.
decision in this Court.

Plaintiff then timely sought review of the Commissioner's

On July 8, 2015, the Court referred the pending cross-motions for judgment on the
pleadings to United States Magistrate Judge Numbers for entry of an M&R.

[DE 25].

Magistrate Judge Numbers' M&R was entered on November 17, 2015, recommending that the
Commissioner's motion be. granted and the ALJ's decision be affirmed. Plaintiff timely filed an
objection, to which the Commissioner has responded.
DISCUSSION

A district court is required to review an M&R de nova if a party specifically objects to it
or in cases of plain error. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50
(1985). The district court is only required to make a de nova determination of those specific
findings to which the party has actually objected. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l); Camby v. Davis, 718
F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1983). Objections to "strictly legal issues" and "conclusory objections
that do not direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate's proposed findings and
recommendations" do not require de nova review. Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir.
1982).
Plaintiff has objected to the M&R, arguing that the ALJ failed to consider evidence in the
record related to plaintiffs obsessive compulsive disorder and irritable bowel syndrome.
Specifically, plaintiff first contends that she can only go outside her house when she is driven to
a doctor's appointment and in order to tend to a small vegetable garden in her yard. She next
contends that her obsessive compulsive disorder and inability to use a public bathroom, in
combination with her irritable bowel syndrome, make it impossible for her to be away from
home for extended periods. Plaintiff also points to the testimony of the vocational expert present
at her hearing before the ALJ who stated that a person who misses work regularly would be

2

precluded from maintaining gainful employment; plaintiff attends metal health appointments
once a month as well as weekly group therapy sessions.
None of plaintiffs statements point to a specific error in the recommendation made by
the magistrate judge. However, because plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court will review the
ALJ's treatment of plaintiffs non-exertional limitations raised in her objection de nova.
Under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and 1383(c)(3), this Court's review of
the Commissioner's decision is limited to determining whether the decision, as a whole, is
supported by substantial evidence and whether the Commissioner employed the correct legal
standard.

Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971).

Substantial evidence is "such

relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion."
Johnson v. Barnhart, 434 F.3d 650, 653 (4th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (internal quotation and

citation omitted).
In his decision, the ALJ found plaintiffs obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD), major
depressive disorder, and irritable bowel syndrome to be severe impairments at step two of the
sequential evaluation.' Tr. 23. At the hearing before the ALJ, plaintiff specifically discussed her
fear of germs, her preference to stay home rather than to be in public, and her therapy sessions.
Tr. 47-48. Plaintiff also discussed her irritable bowel syndrome and her refusal to use public
restrooms.

Tr. 52-53.

The ALJ's decision reflects that he considered plaintiffs frequent

handwashing due to fear of germs and her participation in therapy for her OCD symptoms. Tr.
28. The ALJ further noted the absence of documented inflammatory bowel disease, that a 2013

1

The Court incorporates by reference the magistrate judge's recitation of the five-step sequential
evaluation for determining whether a claimant is disabled and the applicable legal standards on
review. [DE 27 at 4-5].
3

CT of plaintiffs abdomen was normal, and that plaintiff reported that her irritable bowel
symptoms were minimal following a change in her medication in 2012. Tr. at 24; 28.
Accordingly, the bases of plaintiffs objection were presented to and the decision reflects
considered by the ALJ. See Craig v. Apfel, 212 F.3d 433, 436 (8th Cir. 2000) (even a failure "to
cite specific evidence does not [necessarily] indicate that it was not considered."). Moreover, the
medical evidence in the record does not support plaintiffs claim that these limitations would
preclude her from work. The treatment notes discuss the presence of OCD, see e.g. Tr. 521, but
there is not substantial evidence in the record which would support a finding that the condition is
disabling.

While Dr. Wagnitz, plaintiffs treating psychiatrist, recommends continued

psychotherapy to treat plaintiffs OCD, there is no evidence in the record which would support a
finding that such psychotherapy sessions would necessitate absence from work such that gainful
employment could not be maintained.

Finally, as discussed above, there is a lack of any

documented inflammatory bowel disease as well as plaintiffs own report that her symptoms
improved.
The record demonstrates that the ALJ considered plaintiffs non-exertional limitations
and that his findings related to plaintiffs OCD and irritable bowel syndrome are supported by
substantial evidence. Accordingly, the magistrate judge's recommendation that the decision of
the ALJ be affirmed is without error.

4

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court ADOPTS the memorandum and recommendation.
[DE 27]. Plaintiffs motion for judgment on the pleadings [DE 20] is DENIED and defendant's
motion for judgment on the pleadings [DE 23] is GRANTED. The decision of the ALJ is
AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED, this

_a1_ day of January, 2016.
TERRENCE W. BOYLE
UNITED STA TES DISTRIC

5