Lee v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 17

ORDER adopting 15 the Report and Recommendation; Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED; Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED; the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED; this action is DISMISSED. Signed by Judge Michael H. Watson on 3/18/13. (jk1)

.

•

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

Brazil M. Lee,

Plaintiff,

Civil Action 2:11-cv-01149

v.
Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner
of Social Security,

Judge Michael H. Watson

Defendant.

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff Brazil M. Lee's objections to
Magistrate Judge Abel's Report and Recommendation. The Court, having
reviewed the record de novo, determines that there is substantial evidence
supporting the administrative law judge's determination that plaintiff Brazil M. Lee
is not disabled within the meaning of the Act. The Court further finds for the
reasons set out below that plaintiff's objections to the Report and
Recommendation are without merit.
Plaintiff argues the administrative law judge failed to properly define
"moderate limitations." Specifically, Plaintiff maintains the administrative law
judge's attempts to define "moderate" were fundamentally inconsistent. She
contends the administrative law judge only viewed limitations as either disabling

or not disabling. Under such a view, a claimant's moderate impairments cannot
fairly be reflected in a hypothetical question. Plaintiff argues based on the
confused attempts by the administrative law judge to define moderate, there is no
way to know what standard the vocational expert believed was the operative
definition when he answered the question.
Plaintiff also argues the administrative law judge erred by not recognizing
Raynaud's phenomenon as a severe impairment. At the hearing, plaintiff testified
to worsening symptoms related to Raynaud's phenomenon, which limited her
daily activities. Plaintiff maintains that the administrative law judge relied on old
evidence and minimized more recent evidence. Plaintiff, who was limited to a
range of sit-down jobs, cannot perform repetitive actions such as handling,
grasping, and fingering, and says the administrative law judge's refusal to
acknowledge her limitations with respect to her hands constitutes reversible error.
Discussion. The administrative law judge adequately distinguished
between slight, moderate and marked limitations when posing her hypothetical
question to the vocational expert. At the hearing, the administrative law judge
stated, "moderate means that she could be doing repetitive tasks for at least up to
a third of the workday or more .... I think that's how Social Security defines it."
(R. 109.) She further elaborated by saying that an individual with moderate
limitations would still be able to function satisfactorily. There is no indication in
the record that the vocational expert was confused by the administrative law
2

--------------------------

judge's definition of moderate limitations, and he provided testimony regarding
the number of jobs that plaintiff could perform based on that definition. Notably,
plaintiff's counsel failed to object to the definition articulated by the administrative
law judge or seek clarification on the vocational expert's understanding of the
definition at the hearing.
The administrative law judge properly considered plaintiff's allegations
concerning Raynaud's phenomenon when formulating a residual functional
capacity. In particular, the administrative law judge acknowledged that plaintiff
testified that she had suffered constant weakness and numbness in her hands;
however, the administrative law judge also considered other substantial evidence
in the record that contradicted her allegations. In May 2006, plaintiff reported to
her treatment provider that she had numbness in her fingers when she had
Raynaud's phenomenon, but she otherwise denied weakness, numbness or
tingling. An examining physician observed that plaintiff had good capillary refill in
her hands, and a treating physician noted that her ability to do fine and gross
manipulation was "ok". Moreover, the medical expert testified that there was no
objective medical evidence in the record confirming the diagnosis of Raynaud's
phenomenon. The administrative law judge relied on substantial evidence in the
record to determine that plaintiff's alleged impairment did not impact plaintiff's
ability to work.

3

Upon de novo review in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.
§636(b)(1 )(B), the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. Plaintitrs
motion for summary judgment is DENIED. Defendant's motion for summary
judgment is GRANTED. The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED. The
Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter JUDGMENT for defendant. This action is
hereby DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

ICHAEL H. ATSON, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4