Putman v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

Filing 26

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 20 Report and Recommendation as set out. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 7/30/14. (jsmi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
Laura Putman,
Plaintiff,
v.
Carolyn W. Colvin,
Acting Commissioner of Social
Security,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No.: 6:13-cv-925-MGL-KFM
OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Laura Putman (“Plaintiff”) brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to
obtain judicial review of a final decision of the Defendant, Acting Commissioner of Social Security
(“Commissioner”), denying her claim for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) under Title II of
the Social Security Act. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02(B),
D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald for pretrial
handling. On May 14, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which
he concluded that the findings of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) are supported by substantial
evidence. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge recommends affirming the Commissioner’s decision.
(ECF No. 20.) Plaintiff filed objections to the Report and Recommendation on June 2, 2014. (ECF
No. 21.) The Commissioner filed a reply on June 12, 2014. (ECF No. 22.) For the reasons stated
below, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation and affirms the Commissioner’s decision.

1

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The Report and Recommendation sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law
on this matter, and the Court incorporates them and summarizes below in relevant part. Plaintiff
filed an application for DIB on October 16, 2009, alleging a disability onset date of May 29, 2009.
(Tr. at 15.) Her application was denied initially and upon reconsideration by the Social Security
Administration. (Tr. at 15.) Plaintiff requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge
(“ALJ”) on February 11, 2011. (Tr. at 15.) The ALJ heard testimony from Plaintiff and an impartial
vocational expert, G. Roy Sumpter, at a hearing held on October 27, 2011. (Tr. at 15.) On January
6, 2012, the ALJ issued a ruling and found that Plaintiff was not under a disability as defined by the
Social Security Act. (Tr. at 25.) The Social Security Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request for
review on February 6, 2013 (Tr. at 1), making the ALJ’s decision the final decision of the
Commissioner. Plaintiff subsequently filed an action in this Court on April 8, 2013. (ECF No. 1.)
II. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The Magistrate Judge recommends affirming the ALJ’s decision. (ECF No. 20 at 26.) The
Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no
presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court.
Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination
of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is made, and the
Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge, or recommit the matter to him with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). “However, the Court
is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of
the magistrate judge as to those portions of the report and recommendation to which no objections

2

are addressed. While the level of scrutiny entailed by the Court’s review of the Report thus depends
on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case the Court is free, after review, to accept,
reject, or modify any of the magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations.” Wallace v. Housing
Auth. of the City of Columbia, 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992) (internal citations omitted).
In response to Plaintiff’s arguments, the Magistrate Judge found that the ALJ gave proper
consideration and weight to the medical opinion of Dr. Mario Galvarino in light of the entire record.
(ECF No. 20 at 21-23.). The Magistrate Judge further found that substantial evidence supports the
ALJ’s decision and that the Appeals Council properly treated the statements of Dr. James
Bloodworth which were submitted after the ALJ’s decision was issued. (ECF No. 20 at 23-26.)
III. PARTIES’ RESPONSE
Plaintiff filed objections to the Report and Recommendation (“Objections”) on June 2, 2014.
(ECF No. 21.) Specifically, Plaintiff argues that the Magistrate Judge improperly gave little weight
to the medical opinion of Plaintiff’s treating psychiatrist, Dr. Galvarino. Plaintiff also contends that
remand is warranted so that the ALJ can consider Dr. Bloodworth’s June 2012 opinion. The
Commissioner filed a reply to Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and Recommendation asking this
Court to affirm the final administrative decision. (ECF No. 22.) The Commissioner argues that the
ALJ assigned appropriate weight to the opinions of Drs. Xanthia Harkness and Craig Horn in light
of Dr. Galvarino’s treatment notes. The Commissioner also maintains that the ALJ properly
discounted Dr. Galvarino’s opinion, in part, because Dr. Bloodworth’s treatment records
contradicted the opinion and were inconsistent with a finding of a disabling mental illness. The
Commissioner argues that the ALJ properly considered several factors in evaluating Dr. Galvarino’s
opinion and that she also properly considered the entirety of the record, including Plaintiff’s own

3

accounts of her condition and abilities. Finally, the Commissioner maintains that substantial
evidence supports the ALJ’s decision (despite Dr. Bloodworth’s post-decision opinion) because the
ALJ accounted for the impairments Dr. Bloodworth mentioned and because Dr. Bloodworth’s
assertion that Plaintiff is disabled does not require remand.
IV. DISCUSSION OF THE LAW
A.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The role of the federal judiciary in the administrative scheme established by the Social
Security Act is a limited one. Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the court may only review whether the
Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and whether the correct law was
applied. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (“The findings of the Commissioner of Social Security as to any
fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive . . .”); Myers v. Califano, 611 F.2d
980, 982 (4th Cir. 1980). “Substantial evidence has been defined innumerable times as more than
a scintilla, but less than preponderance.” Thomas v. Celebrezze, 331 F.2d 541, 543 (4th Cir. 1964);
see, e.g., Daniel v. Gardner, 404 F.2d 889 (4th Cir. 1968); Laws v. Celebrezze, 368 F.2d 640 (4th
Cir. 1966); Tyler v. Weinberger, 409 F. Supp. 776 (E.D. Va. 1976). In order for a reviewing court
to determine whether the Commissioner based a decision on substantial evidence, “the decision must
include the reasons for the determination . . . .” Green v. Chater, 64 F.3d 657, 1995 WL 478032,
*2 (4th Cir. 1995) (citing Cook v. Heckler, 783 F.2d 1168, 1172 (4th Cir. 1986)). The statutorily
mandated standard precludes a de novo review of the factual circumstances that substitutes the
Court’s findings for those of the Commissioner. See, e.g., Vitek v. Finch, 438 F.2d 1157 (4th Cir.
1971); Hicks v. Gardner, 393 F.2d 299 (4th Cir. 1968). Accordingly, “the court [must] uphold the
[Commissioner’s] decision even should the court disagree with such decision as long as it is

4

supported by ‘substantial evidence.’” Blalock v. Richardson, 483 F.2d 773, 775 (4th Cir. 1972).
As noted by Judge Sobeloff in Flack v. Cohen, 413 F.2d 278 (4th Cir. 1969), “[f]rom 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 action.” Id. at 279. “[T]he 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 his conclusion is rational.” Vitek, 438 F.2d at 1157-58.
B.

ANALYSIS

Upon consideration of Plaintiff’s objections, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge
performed a thorough analysis of the record in reaching the conclusion that substantial evidence
supports the Commissioner’s decision that Plaintiff was not disabled within the meaning of the
Social Security Act. Plaintiff’s objections primarily rehash arguments previously considered and
rejected by the Magistrate Judge. The Magistrate Judge’s recommendation indicates proper
consideration and application of the facts and evidence in accordance with the relevant standards
and the Court will not re-write the discussion here. Simply put, the ALJ is to make the ultimate
determination as to whether a claimant meets the statutory definition of disability. This Court’s role
is to determine whether the ALJ’s findings are supported by substantial evidence.

If there is

substantial evidence to support the decision of the Commissioner, that decision must be affirmed.
Blalock v. Richardson, 483 F.2d 773, 775 (4th Cir. 1972).
The ALJ’s assessment is to be based on all relevant evidence in the case record. See 20
C.F.R. 404.1545(a). Here, the ALJ’s decision clearly demonstrates compliance with the regulatory
scheme and confirms that proper weight, treatment, and consideration was given to the medical

5

opinions in this case. Further, the Court finds no error in the Commissioner’s treatment of Dr.
Bloodworth’s post-decision opinion submitted to the Appeals Council. The submission was
reviewed and considered in accordance with the directives of Meyer v. Astrue, 662 F.3d 700,
705-706 (4th Cir. 2011) and the Court agrees that the new evidence does not provide a basis for
remand or changing the ALJ’s decision. As fully explained in the Report and Recommendation,
reviewing the entire record, the Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence.
Plaintiff’s objections fail to add any new arguments that would cause the Court to reject the
Magistrate Judge’s analysis and recommendation. Plaintiff’s objections are therefore overruled.
V.

CONCLUSION
After a thorough review of the record and the objections, the Court finds no error and no

cause for remand in this matter. Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision. The Court
concurs in the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and adopts the Report and Recommendation
and incorporates it herein by reference. The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge
July _____, 2014
30
Spartanburg, South Carolina

6