Oglesby v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 24

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 18 Report and Recommendation, affirming the decision of the Commissioner. Signed by Honorable J. Michelle Childs on 09/14/2016. (bshr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
AIKEN DIVISION
Catherine Patricia Oglesby,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner )
of the Social Security Administration,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-02071-JMC

ORDER AND OPINION

Plaintiff Catherine Patricia Oglesby (“Plaintiff”) filed this action seeking judicial review
of the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (the
“Commissioner”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3). (ECF No. 1.) This matter is
before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge
Shiva V. Hodges, issued in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule
73.02(B)(2)(a) D.S.C. (ECF No. 18.)
The Magistrate Judge recommended affirming the Commissioner’s final decision denying
Plaintiff’s claim for Period of Disability (“POD”), Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”), and
Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”). (Id. at 30.) Plaintiff timely filed objections to the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 21.) For the reasons set forth below,
the court ACCEPTS the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and AFFIRMS the
Commissioner’s final decision.
I. RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A thorough recitation of the relevant factual and procedural background of this matter is
discussed in the Report and Recommendation. (See ECF No. 18.) The court concludes, upon its

1

own careful review of the record, that the Magistrate Judge’s factual and procedural summation is
accurate and incorporates it by reference. The court will only reference herein facts pertinent to
the analysis of Plaintiff’s claims.
Plaintiff was born on July 23, 1966, and is presently 50 years old. (ECF No. 9-5 at 4, 1112.) On August 10, August 15, and August 23, 2012, respectively, Plaintiff filed applications for
SSI, POD, and DIB, alleging a disability onset date of March 15, 2012, due to osteoporosis, rib
fractures

with

nerve

damage,

osteopenia,

fatigue,

gastroesophageal

reflux

disease,

gastroenteritis/colitis, abdominal pain/hernia, depression, and anxiety. (Id. at 11, ECF No. 9-6 at
6.) Plaintiff’s claims were denied on October 9, 2012, and again on reconsideration on January 17,
2013. (ECF No. 9-4 at 2-4, 9-10.) On November 14, 2013, Plaintiff had a hearing before an
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), who found on January 10, 2014, that Plaintiff was not disabled
under §§ 216(i), 223(d), and 1614(a)(3)(A) of the Social Security Act. (ECF No. 9-2 at 14-24, 27,
33.) 1 Thereafter, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request for review on April 24, 2015,
making the ALJ’s decision the final decision of the Commissioner for purposes of judicial review.
(Id. at 2.)
Subsequently, on May 19, 2015, Plaintiff commenced this action in the United
States District Court for the District of South Carolina, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and
1383(c)(3), to obtain judicial review of the Commissioner’s final decision denying Plaintiff’s claim
for POD, DIB, and SSI. (ECF No. 1.) In her brief, Plaintiff argued that the court should remand
the matter to the Commissioner because the ALJ had failed to consider the combined effects of
her impairments. Specifically, citing Walker v. Bowen, 889 F.2d 47 (4th Cir. 1989), she contended

1

The pages of the administrative record are slightly out of order. Page 12 of the ALJ’s decision is
located at page 27 of ECF No. 9-2.
2

that the ALJ did not consider, or adequately explain his consideration of, the effect of her
impairments’ negative interaction with each other or her medications’ cumulative side effects on
her ability to perform job-related functions. (ECF No. 13 at 16-22.)
On April 7, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued her recommendation that the
Commissioner’s final decision denying Plaintiff’s claim for POD, DIB, and SSI be affirmed. (ECF
No. 14.) In her thorough Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge noted that “the ALJ
explicitly stated that he considered the combined effect of Plaintiff’s impairments in accordance
with the Fourth Circuit’s ruling in Walker” and determined that “[a] review of the [ALJ’s] decision
as a whole yields no evidence to dispute the ALJ’s contention that he considered the combined
effect of Plaintiff’s impairments.” (Id. at 27-28 (citing Reid v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 769 F.3d 861,
865 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The Commissioner, through the ALJ and Appeals Council, stated that the
whole record was considered, and, absent evidence to the contrary, we take her at her word.”);
Hackett v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1168, 1173 (10th Cir. 2005) (“[O]ur general practice . . . is to take
a lower tribunal at its word when it declares that it has considered a matter.”)).) Likewise, the
Magistrate Judge rejected Plaintiff’s argument that the ALJ had reversibly erred by failing to
consider the cumulative side effects from Plaintiff’s medications. (Id. at 29-30.)
Plaintiff timely filed her objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation
on April 19, 2016, listing three objections. (ECF No. 16.) In her objections, Plaintiff repeats her
arguments that the ALJ failed to adequately consider the effect of her impairments in combination
and the cumulative side effects of her medications and states that she “respectfully disagrees” with
the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions. (Id. at 3.) The Commissioner filed a response to Plaintiff’s
objections on May 6, 2016. (ECF No. 21.)

3

II. LEGAL STANDARD AND ANALYSIS
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with this
court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The court reviews de novo only those
portions of a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation to which specific objections are
filed, and reviews those portions which are not objected to—including those portions to which
only “general and conclusory” objections have been made—for clear error. Diamond v. Colonial
Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005); Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th
Cir. 1983); Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). The court may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter
with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The role of the federal judiciary in the administrative scheme established by the Social
Security Act is a limited one. 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 innumerable times
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. See Vitek v. Finch, 438 F.2d 1157
(4th Cir. 1971). The court must uphold the Commissioner’s decision as long as it is supported by
substantial evidence. See Blalock v. Richardson, 483 F.2d 773, 775 (4th Cir. 1972). “From this it
does not follow, however, 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). “[T]he

4

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.
The court has carefully reviewed the record in this case, the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation, Plaintiff’s objections, and Defendant’s response thereto in accordance with the
applicable standard. Because Plaintiff’s objections merely repeat the arguments from her brief,
which the Magistrate Judge thoroughly considered and correctly rejected, the court overrules
Plaintiff’s objections and accepts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation without
elaboration. See In re Brady-Zell, 756 F.3d 69, 71 (1st Cir. 2014) (“[W]hen lower [tribunal]s have
supportably found the facts, applied the appropriate legal standards, articulated their reasoning
clearly, and reached a correct result, a reviewing court ought not to write at length merely to hear
its own words resonate.”); accord Moses v. Mele, 711 F.3d 213, 215-16 (1st Cir. 2013); In re
Curry, 509 F.3d 735, 735 (6th Cir. 2007); Nichols v. Reno, 124 F.3d 1376, 1378 (10th Cir. 1997).
III. CONCLUSION
Upon careful consideration of the entire record, the court ACCEPTS the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation incorporating it by reference, and AFFIRMS the final
decision of the Commissioner denying Plaintiff’s claims for Period of Disability, Disability
Insurance Benefits, and Supplemental Security Income.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court Judge
September 14, 2016
Columbia, South Carolina
5