Scott v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 22

OPINION and ORDER affirming and adopting 20 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge Michael H. Watson on 3/30/17. (ew)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ^ICHAROnfrrP^,).^
CLERf<
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Justina R. Scott,

30 P« 3: 39

CiSrS

-Abl ill COLUMaiiS

Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:15-cv-3085

Judge Michael H. Watson
Magistrate Judge Kemp

V.
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
{"R&R") dated October 31, 2016, EOF No. 21. In the R&R, EOF No. 20.
Magistrate Judge Kemp recommended that the Court overrule PlaintifTs

Statement of Specific Errors, in which Plaintiff challenged the Commissioner of
Social Security's {the "Commissioner") decision to deny Plaintiffs application for
supplemental security income.

For the reasons that follow, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs objections,
AFFIRMS and ADOPTS the R&R, and DISMISSES Plaintiffs complaint.
I.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff applied for benefits on September 25, 2012, alleging that she
became disabled on April 1, 2006. After Plaintiffs initial application was denied,

an administrative iaw judge ("ALJ") held a hearing on Plaintiffs application. The
ALJ found that Plaintiff was not disabled within the meaning of the Social

Security Act (the "Act"). That decision became final on October 30,2015, when

the Appeals Council denied review.
Plaintiff subsequently filed suit for judicial review of the Commissioner's

decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Magistrate Judge Kemp analyzed
PlaintifTs Statement of Specific Errors and recommended that the Court overrule

the same. Plaintiff now objects to Magistrate Judge Kemp's conclusions in the
R&R.
II.

ANALYSIS

A. Standard of Review

When a party objects to an R&R within the allotted time, the Court "shall

make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Upon review, the 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).
It is well settled that, when objecting to an R&R, a party must make
"specific written objections" to the magistrate judge's proposed findings and
recommendations. Fed R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). A general statement that the
magistrate judge erred does not aid judicial efficiency, the purpose "for which the
use of magistrates [was] authorized." Howard v. Sec'y of Health & Human

Serve., 932 F.2d 505,509 (6th Cir. 1991); see also Holl v. Potter, No. C-1-09618, 2011 WL 4337038, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 15, 2011), aff'd, 506 F. App'x 438

Case No. 2:15-cv-3085

Page 2 of 7

(2012) ("Objections that merely restate arguments raised in the memoranda
considered by the Magistrate Judge are not proper, and the Court may consider
such repetitive arguments waived.").

The Court must analyze Plaintiffs objections in light of the standard of
review in social security cases, which Magistrate Judge Kemp correctly set forth
in the R&R:

Under the provisions of 42 U.S.C. Section 405(g), "[t]he findings of
the Secretary [now the Commissioner] as to any fact, if supported by
substantial evidence, shall be conclusive. ..." Substantial evidence

is '"such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion.'" Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S.
389, 401 (1971) (quoting Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305
U.S. 197, 229 (1938)). It is '"more than a mere scintilla.'" id.
LeMaster v. Weinberger, 533 F.2d 337, 339 (6th Cir. 1976). The
Commissioner's findings of fact must be based upon the record as a
whole. Hams v. Heckler, 756 F.2d 431,435 (6th Cir. 1985); Houston
V. Secretary, 736 F.2d 365, 366 (6th Cir. 1984); Fraiey v. Secretary,
733 F.2d 437, 439-440 (6th Cir. 1984). in determining whether the
Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial evidence, the
Court must "'take into account whatever in the record fairly detracts
from its weight.'" Beavers v. Sec'y of Health, Educ. & Welfare, 577
F.2d 383, 387 (6th Cir. 1978) (quoting Universal Camera Corp. v.
NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 488 (1951)); Wages v. Secretary of Health and
Human Servs., 755 F.2d 495, 497 (6th Cir. 1985). Even if this Court
would reach contrary conclusions of fact, the Commissioner's
decision must be affirmed so long as that determination is supported
by substantial evidence. Kinselia v. Schweiker, 708 F.2d 1058,
1059 (6th Cir. 1983).
R&R 8-9, ECF No. 20.

B. Plaintiffs' Objections

Plaintiff makes two objections to the R&R: (1) that Magistrate Judge Kemp

erred by finding that the ALJ's residual functional capacity ("RFC") determination
Case No. 2:15-cv-3085

Page 3 of 7

was supported by substantial evidence and that the ALJ adequately explained

her reasoning; and (2) by rejecting Plaintiffs request to remand this case due to
the ALJ's consideration of state-agency physicians' opinions that reiied on a

medical opinion that was not included in the record. The Court addresses each
objection in turn.
1.

First Objection

The ALJ found that Plaintiff has the RFC "to perform simple, routine,
repetitive tasks with oniy routine changes in the work setting and could not be
held to strict production quotas or do fast-paced work, and she could have only
occasional interaction with the pubiic and coworkers." R&R 6, ECF No. 20.
Piaintiff argued in her Statement of Specific Errors that the RFC failed to account
for consultative examiner Dr. Sisson's comments that "Plaintiff couid oniy
maintain attention and concentration, and avoid anger outbursts, on a time-

iimited basis, and needed to be redirected to her tasks by appropriate

supervision." id. at 8 (summarizing Statement of Specific Errors at 8-9, ECF No.
11). Piaintiff specifically argued that the ALJ purported to give Dr. Sisson's
opinions great weight but did not explain her reasoning in disregarding these
specific findings. The Commissioner responded to Piaintiff s argument by noting
that the ALJ gave "great weight" rather than "controiling weight" to Dr. Sisson's
opinion, such that the ALJ never indicated that she was adopting Dr. Sisson's

report in its entirety, and that Plaintiff misinterprets Dr. Sisson's opinion in
Case No. 2:15-cv-3085

Page 4 of 7

arguing that the ALJ failed to incorporate certain parts of that opinion. Stated
differently, the Commissioner argued that the ALJ reasonably interpreted Dr.
Sisson's opinion in making the RFC determination.

Magistrate Judge Kemp agreed with the Commissioner, finding that the
ALJ properly articulated her reasoning and that substantial evidence supports the
ALJ's RFC determination. The Court agrees. As Magistrate Judge Kemp noted,

the ALJ specifically discussed Dr. Sisson's opinion in the specific RFC section of
her written opinion. See R. 74, ECF No. 8. The Court agrees with Magistrate
Judge Kemp that the ALJ's written opinion adequately articulates her reasoning
path. At bottom, PlaintifTs argument is not that the ALJ ignored certain portions
of Dr. Sisson's report but that the ALJ misinterpreted Dr. Sisson's opinions as a

whole when making her RFC determination. Because substantial evidence
supports the RFC determination, including but not limited to the state-agency
reviewers' interpretation of Dr. Sisson's report, the Court finds no error by
Magistrate Judge Kemp in this regard.
The Court accordingly OVERRULES Plaintiffs first objection to the R&R.
2. Second Objection
Plaintiff next objects on the ground that Magistrate Judge Kemp erred by
failing to remand this case because the state-agency reviewers relied, at least in
part, on an earlier opinion by Dr. Sisson that was not included in the

administrative record. Magistrate Judge Kemp found that the ALJ's failure to

Case No. 2:15-cv-3085

Page 5 of 7

include Dr. Sisson's earlier report in the record was harmless because it is was
unlikely to affect the ALJ's ultimate RFC determination. In objecting to this

conclusion, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ should have included Dr. Sisson's earlier

report in the record. Plaintiff does not directly address in her objection the issue
of whether the ALJ's failure to do so was harmless error.

Having reviewed the relevant portions of the record and Plaintiffs
argument in her Statement of Specific Errors, the Court finds no error by
Magistrate Judge Kemp on this issue. Dr. Sisson authored two reports in one

year (February 6, 2012, and December 3, 2012), only the second of which was
included in the record. The state-agency reviewers summarized Dr. Sisson's

opinions in their reports. See R. 108,126, ECF No. 8. Plaintiff does not identify
any material differences between Dr. Sisson's February report and December
report that is likely to have changed the ALJ's RFC determination. Nor does
Plaintiff persuasively respond to the Commissioner's argument that, even if the

February report was more restrictive than the December report, that fact would
support a finding that Plaintiffs symptoms were improving and did not last for
twelve months beyond the application date.
In short. Plaintiffs form-over-substance argument does not support
remand in this case. The Court accordingly OVERRULES Plaintiffs second

objection to the R&R.
III.

Case No. 2:15-cv-3085

CONCLUSION

Page 6 of 7

For the foregoing reasons, the Court OVERRULES Plaintifrs objections to
the R&R, EOF No. 21, AFFIRMS AND ADOPTS the R&R, EOF No. 20, and

DISMISSES Plaintiffs complaint. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment in
the Commissioner's favor and terminate this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

MICHAEL H. WATSON, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case No. 2:15-cv-3085

Page 7 of 7