Coston v. Astrue

Filing 15

ORDER ADOPTING and AFFIRMING the REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 13 in that the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED and this action is hereby DISMISSED. Signed by Judge Gregory L Frost on 2/23/09. (sem1, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION DONNA J. COSTON, Plaintiff, vs. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. Civil Action 2:07-CV-1270 Judge Frost Magistrate Judge King

OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Donna J. Coston applied for supplemental security income. In a prior action filed by her, Coston v. Social Security, 2:05-

CV-1058 (S.D. Ohio, November 23, 2005), this Court remanded the matter to the Commissioner for further consideration of plaintiff's mental impairment. On remand, plaintiff was again found to have the residual

functional capacity to perform work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy. 16, 2009, the United In a Report and Recommendation issued January States Magistrate Judge concluded that the

Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial evidence. Report and Recommendation, Doc. No. 13. This matter is now before the Court on

plaintiff's objections to that Report and Recommendation, which the Court will consider de novo. See 28 U.S.C. §636(b).

Plaintiff's mental impairments are critical to the resolution of this action. In a lengthy, detailed and thorough decision, the

administrative law judge found that plaintiff suffers from depression but concluded that the condition does not meet or equal a listed impairment and leaves plaintiff with the residual functional capacity to perform simple and moderately complex jobs that require no more than limited contact with others and no more than low stress work. making A.R. 406-07. In

these findings, the administrative law judge relied on the

testimony of the psychological expert, Cynthia J. Wyatt, Ph.D., as well as a reviewing state agency psychologist. The administrative law judge

rejected the more restrictive residual functional capacity assessments articulated by plaintiff's treating psychiatrist, Darrell Smith, M.D., A.R. 328-30, and by the consultative psychological evaluator Margaret G. Smith, Ph.D., A.R. 194-202. In her Report and Recommendation, the United States Magistrate Judge rejected plaintiff's contention that the reports of the two Drs. Smith compel the conclusion that plaintiff's depression meets Listing 12.04: A fair reading of plaintiff's mental health treatment records and records from her primary care physician, Dr. Forrestal, suggests that plaintiff's depression and anxiety have been relatively stable. Plaintiff's condition was responsive to medication notwithstanding some issues of compliance. Even in May 2005, plaintiff reported to Dr. Darrell Smith that the increased dose of Wellbutrin made her worse, so she discontinued it and "feels much better." A.R. 614. In August 2004, plaintiff reported to Dr. Darrell Smith that "her depression is largely resolved because of changes in her living situation." A.R. 605. The finding of the administrative law judge, i.e., that plaintiff's mental impairment neither meets nor equals Listing 12.04, enjoys substantial support in the record. Report and Recommendation, at 12-13. The Report and Recommendation also

rejected plaintiff's contention that the administrative law judge failed to properly evaluate the reports and opinions of plaintiff's treating psychiatrist: [P]laintiff saw Dr. Darrell Smith from April 2003 through at least April 2006. A.R. 203-09, 282-85, 326-30, 603-17. In addition, Dr. Darrell Smith's treatment notes reflect that plaintiff's sessions focused on situational stress and interpersonal relationships involving an ex-husband and exboyfriend, Id., relationships that have been resolved. A.R. 438. Dr. Darrell Smith's opinion of disability is inconsistent with other evidence of record. For example, the record reveals that plaintiff engages in a variety of activities, including driving, taking care of her personal needs and her household chores such as cooking,

2

washing dishes, laundry and grocery shopping; she attends church every week, goes out to eat and plays computer games. In addition, Dr. Darrell Smith's opinion is inconsistent with that expressed by Dr. Wyatt as well as those of the reviewing mental health experts. A.R. 212, 577-94. Under these facts, the Commissioner did not err by failing to give controlling weight to Dr. Darrell Smith's opinion. Id., at 13-14. The Report and Recommendation went on to conclude that

the administrative law judge reasonably relied on the testimony of the psychological expert, Dr. Wyatt. concluded, In this case, the administrative law judge provided a detailed and comprehensive discussion and analysis of all the evidence in the record and appropriately weighed the medical opinions of record. His findings enjoy substantial support in the record. Id., at 14-15. In presented in her her objections, Statement of plaintiff Errors raises and the same to arguments Id., at 14. The Magistrate Judge

Response

Defendant's

Memorandum in Opposition. This Court concludes that there is substantial evidence in the record to support the findings and conclusions of the Commissioner and that the administrative law judge appropriately

considered that evidence by reference to the appropriate standards. Under these circumstances, the decision of the Commissioner must be affirmed. Plaintiff's objections to the Report and Recommendation are DENIED. The Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. The

decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED and this action is hereby DISMISSED.

3

The Clerk shall enter FINAL JUDGMENT in this action pursuant to Sentence 4 of 42 U.S.C. §405(g).

/s/ Gregory L. Frost Gregory L. Frost United States District Judge

4