Hockenberry vs. Colvin

Filing 26

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: adopting 23 Report and Recommendation; the decision of the Commissioner is affirmed; clerk directed to enter judgment in favor of the Commissioner and against the plaintiff; clerk directed to close the case. Signed by Honorable Matthew W. Brann on 12/14/16. (lg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
LORI HOCKENBERRY,

Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of
Social Security,

Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Civil Action No. 4:15-CV-0793

(Judge Brann)

(Magistrate Judge Cohn)

ORDER
December 14, 2016
This matter is an action for social security benefits which have been denied
by both the Acting Commissioner of Social Security and, before that, by an
administrative law judge. Plaintiff filed the instant action on April 22, 2015, and it
was assigned jointly to the undersigned and to a magistrate judge.
Upon designation, a magistrate judge may "conduct hearings, including
evidentiary hearings, and . . . submit to a judge of the court proposed findings of
fact and recommendations."1 Once filed, this Report and Recommendation is

1

28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B).
1

disseminated to the parties in the case who then have the opportunity to file written
objections.2 On September 12, 2016, Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn, to whom
this matter is jointly assigned, issued a thorough report and recommendation
recommending that the undersigned affirm the decision of the Commissioner of
Social Security denying Plaintiff social security benefits.
Plaintiff filed an objection to the report and recommendation on September
27, 2016.3 When objections are timely filed, the District Court must conduct a de
novo review of those portions of the report to which objections are made.4
Although the standard of review for objections is de novo, the extent of review lies
within the discretion of the District Court, and the Court may otherwise rely on the
recommendations of the magistrate judge to the extent it deems proper.5 For
portions of the report and recommendation to which no objection is made, the
Court should, as a matter of good practice, "satisfy itself that there is no clear error
on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation."6 Regardless of

2

28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1).

3

ECF No. 24.

4

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Brown v. Astrue, 649 F.3d 193, 195 (3d Cir.2011).

5

Rieder v. Apfel, 115 F.Supp.2d 496, 499 (M.D.Pa. 2000) (citing United States v.
Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980)).
6

Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), advisory committee notes; see also Univac Dental Co. v. Dentsply
Intern., Inc., 702 F.Supp.2d 465, 469 (M.D.Pa.2010) (citing Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d
2

whether timely objections are made by a party, the District Court may accept, not
accept, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by
the magistrate judge.7
Because I write solely for the parties, I will not restate the facts, but adopt
the recitation of facts as set forth by the magistrate judge and will address Plaintiffs
two objections only.
First, “Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s interpretation of “medical
opinion” and “treating source” as they are addressed in 20 CFR § 404.1527.”
Specifically, Plaintiff objects to the magistrate judge’s finding that the
administrative law judge should be allowed to reject treating physician Sandra
Fowler, M.D.’s written statement that Plaintiff was “working well beyond her
physical capacity to provide for her family” as a medical opinion.
The magistrate judge indicated that the type of opinion contained in Dr.
Fowler’s statement is a conclusion as to disability, a conclusion which is reserved
for the Commissioner pursuant to 20 C.F.R. 404.1527(d).8 I agree.
874, 878 (3d Cir.1987) (explaining that judges should give some review to every report and
recommendation)).
7

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.31.

8

The text of that section is as follows:

(d) Medical source opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner. Opinions on some issues,
such as the examples that follow, are not medical opinions, as described in paragraph (a)(2) of
3

Dr. Fowler’s opinion as to disability does not mean that the Commissioner is
required to find that the Plaintiff is disabled as defined by the Social Security Act.
There was substantial evidence for Defendant to rely on in finding that Plaintiff
was not, in fact, disabled under the Act.
Plaintiff’s second objection is “the Magistrate Judge’s failure to consider the
Plaintiff’s waxing and waning symptom of fatigue in evaluating her credibility.”
Plaintiff did not expound on her objection, aside from the text that I have noted
here. For that reason, I respectfully disagree. Both the magistrate judge and the
administrative law judge considered both Plaintiff’s subjective testimony of fatigue
together with the medical records in which it is noted, frequently, that Plaitniff
denied having fatigue. Therefore, without more from Plaintiff, I am satisfied after
this section, but are, instead, opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner because they are
administrative findings that are dispositive of a case; i.e., that would direct the determination or
decision of disability.(1) Opinions that you are disabled. We are responsible for making the
determination or decision about whether you meet the statutory definition of disability. In so
doing, we review all of the medical findings and other evidence that support a medical source's
statement that you are disabled. A statement by a medical source that you are “disabled” or
“unable to work” does not mean that we will determine that you are disabled.(2) Other opinions
on issues reserved to the Commissioner. We use medical sources, including your treating source,
to provide evidence, including opinions, on the nature and severity of your impairment(s).
Although we consider opinions from medical sources on issues such as whether your
impairment(s) meets or equals the requirements of any impairment(s) in the Listing of
Impairments in appendix 1 to this subpart, your residual functional capacity (see §§ 404.1545
and 404.1546), or the application of vocational factors, the final responsibility for deciding these
issues is reserved to the Commissioner.(3) We will not give any special significance to the
source of an opinion on issues reserved to the Commissioner described in paragraphs (d)(1) and
(d)(2) of this section.
20 C.F.R. § 404.1527
4

conducting a de novo review of the record that there was no error in denying her
social security benefits.
Accordingly, the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge is
ADOPTED IN FULL. September 12, 2016, ECF No. 23. The decision of the
Commissioner is AFFIRMED. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of
the Commissioner and against the Plaintiff. The Clerk is further directed to close
the case file.
BY THE COURT:

s/ Matthew W. Brann
Matthew W. Brann
United States District Judge

5