Tremblay v. Berryhill

Filing 23

ORDER: The Court fully ACCEPTS the R&R, ECF No. 20 , and adopts its reasoning. Plaintiff's Motion to Reverse the Decision of the Commissioner, ECF No. 13 , is DENIED and the Defendant's Motion to Affirm the Decision of the Commissioner, ECF No. 15 , is GRANTED - So Ordered by Chief Judge William E. Smith on 9/12/2019. (Urizandi, Nisshy)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
___________________________________
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
ANDREW M. SAUL,
)
Commissioner of the Social
)
Security Administration,
)
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________________)
ROGER T.,

C.A. No. 18-053 WES

ORDER
WILLIAM E. SMITH, Chief Judge.
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Lincoln D. Almond’s
Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), ECF No. 20, which recommends
that the Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Reverse the Decision of
the Commissioner, ECF No. 13, and grant the Defendant’s Motion to
Affirm the Decision of the Commissioner, ECF No. 15.

Plaintiff

filed a timely objection (“Pl. Obj.”) to the R&R, ECF No. 21.

For

the reasons that follow, the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the R&R, ECF
No.

20,

over

Plaintiff’s

objection,

and

therefore

DENIES

Plaintiff’s Motion to Reverse the Decision of the Commissioner,
ECF No. 13, and GRANTS the Defendant’s Motion to Affirm the
Decision of the Commissioner. ECF No. 15.
Plaintiff’s main objection is that the Administrative Law
Judge (“ALJ”), in evaluating the disability claim that is the

subject of this appeal, failed to adequately consider evidence
developed

during

application

for

Plaintiff’s

benefits.

Pl.

subsequent,
Obj.

and

1-2.

successful,

Plaintiff

argues

specifically that the ALJ did not give sufficient weight to the
opinion of Dr. Susan Killenberg, a state agency psychologist.

Id.

The Court does not find this persuasive, where Dr. Killenberg
“offered

no

express

retrospective

opinion

about

the

relevant

period under consideration in this appeal,” and her evaluation was
based

mainly

on

Plaintiff’s

hospitalizations

after

that

time

period. R&R 16.
Accordingly, the Court fully ACCEPTS the R&R, ECF No. 20, and
adopts its reasoning.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Reverse the Decision

of the Commissioner, ECF No. 13, is DENIED and the Defendant’s
Motion to Affirm the Decision of the Commissioner, ECF No. 15, is
GRANTED.

William E. Smith
Chief Judge
Date: September 12, 2019