Volpenhein v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 18

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendation 15 ; Overruling the objections; Affirming the decision of the ALJ. Signed by Judge Sandra S Beckwith on 9/30/14. (mb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
Helen Volpenhein,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Carolyn W. Colvin, Commissioner
of Social Security,
Defendant.

)
)
) Case No. 1:13-CV-235
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Bowman’s Report and
Recommendation of August 1, 2014 (Doc. No. 15) and Plaintiff Helen Volpenhein ’s
objections to the Report and Recommendation. Doc. No. 16. In her Report and
Recommendation, Judge Bowman concluded that the Administrative Law Judge’s
(“ALJ”) determination that Plaintiff is not disabled under the Social Security regulations
was supported by substantial evidence. Judge Bowman, therefore, recommended that
the ALJ’s decision be affirmed. Finding no error in Judge Bowman’s analysis, Plaintiff’s
objections to the Report and Recommendation are not well-taken and are
OVERRULED. The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. The decision of
the ALJ finding that Plaintiff is not disabled is AFFIRMED.
The relevant statute provides the standard of review to be applied by this
Court in reviewing decisions by the ALJ. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The Court is to
determine only whether the record as a whole contains substantial evidence to support
the ALJ’s decision. “Substantial evidence means more than a mere scintilla of
evidence, such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a

conclusion.” LeMaster v. Secretary of Health & Human Serv., 802 F.2d 839, 840 (6th
Cir. 1986) (internal citation omitted). The evidence must do more than create a
suspicion of the existence of the fact to be established. Id. Rather, the evidence must
be enough to withstand, if it were a trial to a jury, a motion for a directed verdict when
the conclusion sought to be drawn from it is one of fact for the jury. Id. If the ALJ’s
decision is supported by substantial evidence, the Court must affirm that decision even
if it would have arrived at a different conclusion based on the same evidence. Elkins v.
Secretary of Health & Human Serv., 658 F.2d 437, 439 (6th Cir. 1981). The district
court reviews de novo a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation regarding
Social Security benefits claims. Ivy v. Secretary of Health & Human Serv., 976 F.2d
288, 289-90 (6th Cir. 1992).
The Court will not repeat Magistrate Judge Bowman’s thorough analysis of
Plaintiff’s claim and the ALJ’s decision because it is not necessary to resolve Plaintiff’s
objections to the Report and Recommendation. The issue presented by Plaintiff’s
objections is the ALJ’s determination that the she is not disabled under the Social
Security regulations because she has the mental residual functional capacity to perform
her past relevant work as a receptionist.
First, Plaintiff contends that the ALJ erred in rejecting her treating physician’s
opinion that “it would be impossible for [Plaintiff] to find a job” due to impairments with
her equilibrium and memory. The ALJ did not err in rejecting this opinion because the
ultimate issue on disability is reserved for the Commissioner and a treating physician’s
conclusory opinion on this question is not entitled to any deference. Warner v.
Commissioner of Social Sec., 375 F.3d 387, 390 (6th Cir. 2004).
2

Second, Plaintiff contends that the ALJ erred in finding she has the mental
residual functional capacity to perform semi-skilled work, which is a requirement for
performing her past job as a receptionist. Plaintiff notes that the opinion of the
consultative examining psychologist, Dr. Deardorff, to which the ALJ gave “great
weight,” stated that her attention and concentration skills are “marginally adequate” and
that she might have mild limitations performing even simple, repetitive tasks. The Court
finds that the ALJ’s determination that Plaintiff has no significant mental impairments
was supported by substantial evidence. Dr. Deardorff’s addition of the qualifier
“marginally” does not indicate that Plaintiff’s ability to sustain concentration and
attention is insufficient to perform semi-skilled work. In context, the definition of
“marginal” means “close to the lower limit of qualification or acceptability.” WEBSTER’S
THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY 1381 (1971). In other words, “marginally
adequate” abilities are still “adequate.” Dr. Deardorff also described Plaintiff’s ability to
maintain attention, concentration, persistence and pace as being only mildly impaired.
Tr. 340. Contrary to Plaintiff’s argument, Dr. Deardorff did not opine that she would be
mildly limited in performing simple, repetitive tasks. Instead, he stated that she “very
likely” can maintain sufficient concentration, persistence, and pace to perform simple,
repetitive tasks. Id. The ALJ reasonably interpreted Dr. Deardorff’s opinion as
indicating that Plaintiff had no significant limitations in her ability to sustain
concentration, persistence and pace.

3

Conclusion
Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and Recommendation are not well-taken and
are OVERRULED. The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. The
decision of the ALJ is AFFIRMED. THIS CASE IS CLOSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED
Date September 30, 2014

s/Sandra S. Beckwith
Sandra S. Beckwith
Senior United States District Judge

4