Kelly v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 27

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 23 Report and Recommendation, affirming the decision of the Commissioner. Signed by the Honorable Timothy M. Cain on 03/03/2014. (bshr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
Dylane Thomas Kelly,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Carolyn W. Colvin,1
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 0:12-3325-TMC

ORDER

Plaintiff, Dylane Thomas Kelly (“Kelly”), brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g),
seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security
(“Commissioner”) denying her claim for disability insurance benefits under the Social Security
Act (“SSA”). This matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation
(“Report”) of the United States Magistrate Judge, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(a), D.S.C., concerning the disposition of social
security cases in this district. (ECF No. 23).2 The Report recommends that the Commissioner’s
decision be affirmed.
I. Background
Kelly filed an application for disability insurance benefits in July 2007, alleging that she
became unable to work on June 1, 2006, due to lower mechanical back pain, sciatica, lupus,
arthritis, bursitis, carpal tunnel syndrome in both hands, migraine headaches, muscle pain, stress,
depression, anxiety, fatigue, short term memory loss, asthma, bronchitis, pluerisy, hip pain,
1

Carolyn W . Colvin became the Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration on February 14, 2013.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), Colvin should be substituted for Michael J. Astrue as the
defendant in this action.

2

The magistrate judge’s recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final
determination remains with the United States District Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The
court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which specific objection is
made. The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the magistrate
judge or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

arteria tear, distorted bone in right hip, dyshidrosis-blisters on hands and feet, knee pain and
swelling, and tendinitis.3 Her application was denied initially and on reconsideration by the
Social Security Administration. She requested a review by an administrative law judge (“ALJ”),
and an ALJ conducted a hearing on August 6, 2009.
On September 17, 2009, the ALJ issued a decision, finding that Kelly was not disabled as
defined in the SSA. The ALJ found that Kelly suffered from a combination of severe
impairments of systemic lupus erythematosus, degenerative joint disease of the left knee,
degenerative disc disease, carpal tunnel syndrome, osteoarthritis of the hips, obesity, and
depression with memory loss.4 The ALJ went on to find that Kelly’s impairments did not meet
or medically equal the criteria for any of the listed impairments through the date last insured of
September 30, 2006. Accordingly, the ALJ proceeded to assess Kelly’s residual functional
capacity (“RFC”), finding that Kelly could perform a significant range of sedentary work. The
ALJ concluded that Kelly could not perform her past relevant work, but that she could perform
other jobs in existence in the national economy in significant numbers and, therefore, denied her
claim.
Kelly sought review by the Appeals Council and she submitted additional evidence. On
July 29, 2010, the Appeals Council granted Kelly’s request for review, vacated the ALJ’s
decision, and remanded the matter to the ALJ for a new hearing. On February 1, 2011, the ALJ
conducted a second hearing. After the hearing, the ALJ issued a decision on March 31, 2011,
finding Kelly not disabled and Kelly sough review by the Appeals Council.

3

Kelly has also reported the she has eczema and obstructive sleep apnea.

4

The ALJ specifically found that Kelly’s eczema, obstructive sleep apnea, migraines, asthma, bronchitis, pleurisy,
abdominal condition, folliculitis, and diabetes were not severe impairments. (R. 11).

2

On September 19, 2012, the Appeals Council declined to review the ALJ’s March 31,
2011 decision. Kelly then filed this action for judicial review. The magistrate judge filed her
Report on January 22, 2014. (ECF No. 23). On February 5, 2014, Kelly filed objections to the
Report (ECF No. 25), and on February 24, 2014, the Commissioner filed a reply to those
objections (ECF No. 26). This matter is now ripe for review.
II. Standard of Review
The federal judiciary has a limited role in the administrative scheme established by the
SSA. Section 405(g) of the Act provides, “the findings of the Commissioner of Social Security
as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive . . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
“Substantial evidence has been defined . . . as more than a scintilla, but less than a
preponderance.” Thomas v. Celebrezze, 331 F.2d 541, 543 (4th Cir. 1964). This standard
precludes a de novo review of the factual circumstances that substitutes the court’s findings for
those of the Commissioner. Vitek v. Finch, 438 F.2d 1157 (4th Cir. 1971). Thus, in its review,
the court may not “undertake to re-weigh conflicting evidence, make credibility determinations,
or substitute [its] own judgment for that of the [Commissioner].” Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585,
589 (4th Cir. 1996).
However, “[f]rom this it does not follow . . . that the findings of the administrative agency
are to be mechanically accepted. The statutorily granted right of review contemplates more than
an uncritical rubber stamping of the administrative agency.” Flack v. Cohen, 413 F.2d 278, 279
(4th Cir. 1969). Rather, “the courts must not abdicate their responsibility to give careful scrutiny
to the whole record to assure that there is a sound foundation for the [Commissioner’s] findings,
and that this conclusion is rational.” Vitek, 438 F.2d at 1157-58.

3

III. Analysis
In her objections, Kelly contends that the magistrate judge erred by finding the ALJ
properly: 1) concluded that Kelly did not meet the Listing 14.02; and 2) did not give significant
weight to the opinions of Kelly’s treating physicians.
Kelly’s objections to the Report are duplicative of the issues that were presented to and
addressed in depth by the magistrate judge in her Report. Having reviewed the record in light of
these objections, and under the appropriate standards, the court concurs with both the reasoning
and the result reached by the magistrate judge in her Report. The ALJ’s decision is supported by
substantial evidence. Therefore, the court adopts the Report and the Commissioner’s decision is
AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
March 3, 2014
Anderson, South Carolina

4