Adams v. Colvin
Filing
24
ORDER accepting and adopting 14 Memorandum and Recommendations; denying Pltf's 10 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting Deft's 12 Motion for Summary Judgment, and affirming the Commissioner's decision. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 5/1/14. (ejb)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
BRYSON CITY DIVISION
DOCKET NO. 2:13-cv-00019-FDW-DSC
SHARON RADFORD ADAMS,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner of )
Social Security Administration,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s “Objections to the Report and
Recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge” (Doc. No. 20), Defendant’s “Response
to Plaintiff’s Objections” (Doc. No. 22), Plaintiff’s “Motion for Summary Judgment” (Doc. No.
10) and “Brief of Plaintiff in support of her Social Security Appeal” (Doc. No. 11), Defendant’s
“Motion for Summary Judgment” (Doc. No. 12) and “Memorandum of Law in Support of
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment” (Doc. No. 13), and the Magistrate Judge’s
Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”) (Doc. No. 14). This matter is now ripe for review.
For the reasons that follow, the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the M&R (Doc. No. 14).
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED, Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment is GRANTED, and the Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Federal Magistrate Act states that “a [district] court shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report or specific proposed findings or recommendations to
which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir.
1983). “By contrast, in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a
de novo review, but instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the
record in order to accept the recommendation.’” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co.,
416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). De
novo review is also not required “when a party makes general or conclusory objections that do not
direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate judge’s proposed findings and
recommendations.” Howard Yellow Cabs, Inc. v. United States, 987 F. Supp. 469, 474 (W.D.N.C.
1997) (quoting Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982)). The district court need not
review issues that are beyond the subject of an objection. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149
(1985); Camby, 718 F.2d at 200. Upon careful review of the record, “the [district] court may
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the
magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
DISCUSSION
Here, the M&R recommended the Court DENY Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment,
GRANT Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and AFFIRM the Commissioner’s decision.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) allows a party fourteen (14) days to file specific written
objections to a Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings and recommendations. Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(2). Plaintiff timely and specifically objected to the M&R’s conclusions that the ALJ had
not erred by (1) affording Plaintiff’s treating physician limited weight and (2) finding that Plaintiff
can perform her past relevant work as a human resources manager. Notably, Plaintiff does not
object to any findings of fact, and those are hereby adopted as if incorporated by reference herein.
Turning to Plaintiff’s first argument, Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ failed to afford proper
weight to Plaintiff’s treating physician, Dr. Glendon Rougeou, because his opinion “was well-
supported by the record and thus should have been afforded substantial, if not controlling, weight.”
(Doc. No. 20, p. 2). “[I]f a physician’s opinion is not well-supported by clinical evidence or is
inconsistent with other substantial evidence, it should be accorded significantly less weight.”
Mastro v. Apfel, 270 F.3d 171, 178 (4th Cir. 2001).
The Court has conducted a de novo review of the ALJ’s decision and has concluded,
contrary to Plaintiff’s argument, that Dr. Rougeou’s opinion is not well-supported by substantial
objective evidence of record. The Court specifically notes the ALJ’s determination that Dr.
Rougeou’s opinion is inconsistent with Plaintiff’s daily activities as noted throughout the record,
and that Plaintiff is “independent with daily activities and does not require assistance.” (Doc. No.
9-3, p. 25). Dr. Rougeou’s opinion is also inconsistent, as the M&R points out, with other medical
assessments in the record concluding that Plaintiff would have only mild to moderate work-related
impairments. (Doc. No. 14, p. 7). Accordingly, the ALJ did not err in affording Dr. Rougeou’s
opinion limited weight, especially considering that it is “not well-supported by clinical evidence
[and] is inconsistent with other substantial evidence . . . .” Mastro, 270 F.3d at 178.
As to Plaintiff’s second and final argument, Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ disregarded the
Vocational Expert’s (“VE”) determination that Plaintiff could not perform her past relevant work
as indicated by Plaintiff. Plaintiff argues that her past relevant work as a human resources manager
included lifting twenty (20) pounds and that the VE testified before the ALJ that Plaintiff’s residual
functional capacity (RFC) precludes this type of work. (Doc. No. 20, pp. 5-6). However, the Court
notes that the ALJ relied upon the testimony of the VE that the work of a human resources manager
is generally considered sedentary. The VE testified that while Plaintiff may not have been able to
perform her past relevant work as she actually performed it, Plaintiff “could [nevertheless] perform
her past relevant work as a human resources manager as it is performed in the general economy,”
(Doc. No. 9-3, p. 26) (emphasis added). Accordingly, the Court concludes that the ALJ’s decision
that Plaintiff can perform past relevant work was supported by substantial evidence in the record.
CONCLUSION
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the M&R (Doc.
No. 14). Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED, Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment is GRANTED, and the Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: May 1, 2014
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?