Damron v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
Filing
20
OPINION and ORDER adopting and affirming 18 the Report and Recommendation. Signed by Judge Michael H. Watson on 3/21/18. (jk)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
Monica L Damron,
Plaintiff,
V.
Case No. 2:17-gv-44
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
Judge Michael H. Watson
Magistrate Judge Jolson
OPINION AND ORDER
The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") in
this Sociai Security case recommending the Court affirm the Commissioner's
decision that Plaintiff was not disabled prior to September 4, 2012. R&R 13-14,
ECF No. 18. Monica L. Damron ("PiaintifF') timely objected to the R&R, Obj.,
ECF No. 19. For the following reasons, the Court OVERRULES PlaintifTs
objections, ADOPTS the R&R, and AFFIRMS the decision of the Commissioner.
I.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff first filed for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security
income benefits on April 10, 2006. That application was denied initially, upon
reconsideration, and by an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") on December 17,
2007.
Plaintiff then filed again for disability insurance benefits and supplemental
security income on June 21, 2010. Those claims were denied initially and upon
reconsideration. After a hearing, the ALJ issued a partially-favorable decision
finding that Plaintiff was disabled beginning on September 4, 2012, but not
before then. The Appeals Council denied review of that decision, and Plaintiff
filed suit in this Court. Magistrate Judge King, to whom this case was referred
upon consent of the parties, partially reversed the ALJ's decision and remanded
PlaintifPs claims for further consideration. Magistrate Judge King remanded to
the ALJ for consideration of whether optometrist Sarah Yoest's consultative
opinion, which was rendered on September 4, 2012, was relevant to Plaintiffs
vision impairments prior to that date.
On remand, the ALJ once again concluded that Plaintiff was not disabled
prior to September 4, 2012. The Appeals Council denied Plaintiffs request for
review, and Plaintiff again filed suit in this Court.
II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3), when a party timely
objects to an R&R on a dispositive matter, the districtjudge reviews de novo any
portion to which a proper objection was made. The district court "may accept,
reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or
return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions." Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
III.
ANALYSIS
Dr. Yoest examined Plaintiff on September 4,2012. In her report. Dr.
Yoest stated that Plaintiffs 20/40 left eye visual acuity "is misleading" and that
"visual function Is much worse than acuity would indicate." 9/4/12 Yoest Report,
Case No. 2:17-cv-44
Page 2 of 6
ECF No. 10-7, at PAGEID # 705. At bottom, Plaintiff contends that Dr. Yoest's
opinion cails into question ail of the prior visual acuity testing in the fiie, showing
that, while none of the results of prior tests were severe enough to iead to a
finding of disabiiity on their own, her vision was always much worse than any of
that testing Indicated and that Plaintiff was disabied prior to September 4, 2012.
Plaintiff argued in her statement of errors that the ALJ faiied to evaiuate this
portion of Dr. Yoest's opinion when the ALJ conciuded on remand that Dr.
Yoest's opinion did not support a finding of disability prior to September 4, 2012.
As mentioned above, the R&R recommended overruling Plaintiff's statement of
errors and affirming the Commissioner's decision. R&R, ECF No. 18. Piaintiff
objects, arguing that the Magistrate Judge faiied to appreciate PiaintifTs
argument or directiy address it in the R&R. ObJ. 3, ECF No. 19.
PiaintifTs objection is overruied. The Magistrate Judge did appreciate the
argument that Piaintiff was making in her statement of errors and did address
that argument directly. Specifically, the R&R states:
Plaintiff next argues that even if the opinions are not
inconsistent, the ALJ "faiied to evaiuate the most important part of
Dr. Yoest's opinion"—^that Dr. Yoest beiieved the visuai acuity testing
in the ciaim fiie was misieading and worse than the acuity
measurements indicated.
R&R 11, ECF No. 18. The Magistrate Judge thus obviousiy understood Plaintiffs
argument.
Further, the R&R directiyconsidered, and rejected. Plaintiff's argument.
The R&R found that the ALJ actualiy discussed the issue of visual acuity at
Case No. 2:17-cv-44
Page 3 of 6
length, acknowledged Dr. Yoest's opinion that PiaintifTs vision was worse than
the visual acuity would indicate, but uitimateiy concluded that no medical records
suggested that visual acuity results prior to September 4, 2012, were misleading.
Id. The R&R also determined that the ALJ gave greater weight to Dr. Simmon's
opinion regarding whether limitations existed prior to September 4,2012, than to
Dr. Yoest's opinion on that issue (assuming for the sake of argument that Dr.
Yoest's report could even be read to Include such an opinion). Accordingly,
PiaintifTs objection—that the R&R failed to appreciate and address her
argument—is OVERRULED.
To the extent Plaintiffs objection can be read as a challenge to the
Magistrate Judge's conclusion on the issue (as opposed to merely whether the
Magistrate Judge understood and directly addressed the issue), the Court has
performed a de novo review and agrees that the ALJ did address Dr. Yoest's
opinion as to the misleading nature of the visual acuity.
On page thirteen of the ALJ's opinion, the ALJ discussed Dr. Yoest's
September 4, 2012, opinion, including the fact that Dr. Yoest opined that the
20/40 visual acuity in PiaintifTs left eye was misleading and that PiaintifTs vision
was much Worse than her acuity would indicate. 11/12/15 ALJ Decision, EOF
No. 10-8, at PAGEID # 743. The ALJ discussed Dr. Yoest's opinions on the
limitations this would cause to Plaintiffs ability to work. Id.
The ALJ then concluded, however, that the medical documentation that
existed priorto Dr. Yoest's September 4, 2012, exam and report did not support
Case No. 2:17-cv-44
Page 4 of 6
a conclusion that the limitations Dr. Yoest suggested in that report were present
prior to the date of the exam. Id. As a preliminary matter, the ALJ specifically
referenced the fact that nothing in the report itself actually states that Dr. Yoest
concluded that prior visual acuity tests were misleading (as opposed to only the
acuity testing that she performed in September of 2012 being misleading). Id. at
PAGEID # 744 ("Accordingly, I give little weight to Dr. Yoest's assessment to the
extent it could be construed to be more restrictive than the above-identified
residual functional assessment for the period prior to September 4,2012."). The
ALJ went further, though, and concluded that, even if Dr. Yoest was opining that
the prior visual acuity tests were misleading, such that her opinion on limitations
could be construed as applying to a period before September 4,2012, that
opinion was not supported by the medical documentation. Specifically, the ALJ
noted that while Dr. Yoest reported that Plaintiff would need 18-20 point print with
contrast enhancement for fluency in reading, id. at PAGEID # 743, an evaluation
as recent as October of 2012 stated that Plaintiff could discriminate 6 point print.
Id. at PAGEID # 744. Finally, the ALJ determined to give greater weight to
opthamologist Dr. Simmon's opinion on the issue of "functional limitations three
years prior to the date of Dr. Yoest's examination. Id. The paragraph in which
the ALJ discusses Dr. Simmon's and Dr. Yoest's opinion makes clear that he
adopts Dr. Simmon's opinion over Dr. Yoest's opinion regarding the misleading
nature of the visual acuity testing due to the facts that: (1) Dr. Simmons is an
opthamologist and Dr. Yoest is an optometrist, and (2) Dr. Yoest's opinion was
Case No. 2:17-cv-44
Page 5 of 6
not supported by contemporaneous medical or visual evidence, including the
2010 and 2011 reports of Dr. Pappa, who failed to submit any contemporaneous
visual limitations with his reports. Id. Thus, Plaintiffs argument that the ALJ
"failed to spell out" that he was adopting Dr. Simmon's opinion over Dr. Yoest's
visual acuity opinion is incorrect.
IV. CONCLUSION
in sum, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge understood
Plaintiffs argument and addressed that argument in the R&R. Moreover, the
Court further concludes upon de novo review that the Magistrate Judge was
correct in finding that the ALJ considered the visual acuity portion of Dr. Yoesfs
opinion. Accordingly, Plaintiffs objection is OVERRULED, the R&R is
ADOPTED, and the Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED. The Clerk shall
enter judgment for the Commissioner and terminate this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
MICHAEL H. WATSON, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case No. 2:17-cv-44
Page 6 of 6
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?