Fray v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 19 Report and Recommendation. The Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 3/9/18. (alew, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Kenneth B. Fray, II,
Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner
of Social Security,
Civil Action No. 6:16-2916-TMC
The plaintiff, Kenneth B. Fray, II, (“Fray”), brought this action pursuant to the Social
Security Act (“SSA”), 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of a final decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”),1 denying his claim for Disability Insurance
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule
73.02(B)(2)(a), D.S.C., this matter was referred to a magistrate judge for pretrial handling.
Before this court is the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”),
recommending that the court affirm the Commissioner’s decision. (ECF No. 19).2 In the Report,
the magistrate judge sets forth the relevant facts and legal standards, which are incorporated
herein by reference. Fray filed objections to the Report (ECF No. 22), and the Commissioner
filed a response to those objections (ECF No. 23). Accordingly, this matter is now ripe for
Nancy A. Berryhill became the Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration on
January 23, 2017. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d), Berryhill should be substituted for Carolyn W.
Colvin as the defendant in this action.
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).
Fray applied for DIB on March 11, 2014, alleging disability beginning on March 5, 2009.
(ECF No. 19 at 1). Fray’s application was denied initially and on reconsideration. On May 29,
2015, an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) heard testimony from Fray and a vocational expert.
On July 28, 2015, the ALJ issued a decision denying Fray’s claim.
Fray sought review of his case by the Appeals Council. On October 16, 2015, the
Appeals Counsel remanded the case for further administrative proceedings. On January 8, 2016,
the ALJ held another hearing at which Fray and a vocational expert testified. Fray amended his
alleged onset date of disability to August 2, 2013. On February 8, 2016, the ALJ issued a second
decision denying Fray’s claim. In his decision, the ALJ found that Fray suffered from the
following severe impairments: degenerative disk disease, degenerative joint disease, carpal
tunnel syndrome, obstructive sleep apnea, and peptic ulcer disease requiring surgery. Id. at 2.
The ALJ found that, despite Fray’s limitations, jobs existed in significant numbers in the national
economy that he could perform. Id. Fray sought review of his case by the Appeals Council.
The Appeals Council denied Fray’s second request for review, making the ALJ’s decision the
final decision of the Commissioner. The present action followed.
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.
In his objections, Fray contends that the magistrate judge erred by finding that substantial
evidence supported the ALJ’s assessment of: (1) medical opinion evidence (including the
Department of Veteran Affairs’ (“VA”) disability rating, the opinion of consultative examiner
Dr. Scott Shaffer, Ph.D., and the lay witness statements) and (2) Fray’s residual functioning
capacity (“RFC”) with respect to his mental impairments and dumping syndrome.
I. Medical Opinion Evidence
First, Fray argues that the ALJ failed to properly consider the VA’s disability rating.
Fray acknowledges that the VA’s rating, decided April 22, 2011, occurred prior to the relevant
period of time, August 2, 2013, to September 30, 2014, but argues that the findings are relevant
because they were “chronic” and persisted throughout the relevant time period. (ECF No. 22 at
However, as the magistrate judge discussed and quoted at length, the ALJ adequately
considered the VA’s rating and complied with the holding of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
in Bird v. Commissioner, 699 F.3d 337 (4th Cir. 2012) by giving substantial reasons for
deviating from the VA’s findings. (ECF No. 19 at 20–23). Specifically, the ALJ did not find the
VA rating to be credible in light of the lack of positive objective findings during the relevant
period and because Fray was not receiving treatment for any of the VA mentioned problems
except for hypertension, which was being controlled with medication. Id. at 20.
Further, Fray’s argument in his objection that the VA’s findings from over two years
before the relevant time period remained relevant is based on a statement by Dr. Jomar Roberts,
M.D. that Fray’s stomach issues were chronic. (ECF No. 22 at 2). However, the ALJ explained
his reasoning for the limited weight given to Dr. Roberts’ statement: “Dr. Roberts documented
that the claimant’s stomach issues were chronic and without significant alleviation with his
current regimen; however, that appears to be based upon the claimant’s subjective statements and
not objective findings.
The claimant’s physical examination was generally unremarkable.”
(ECF No. 10-2 at 34); see Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 590 n.2 (4th Cir. 1996) (“[Claimant]
argues that the fact that [the doctor] observed [the claimant] (when she complained about the
pain) transforms his observations into “clinical evidence.” If this were true, it would completely
vitiate any notion of objective clinical medical evidence. There is nothing objective about a
doctor saying, without more, “I observed my patient telling me she was in pain.”). Again, as
noted by the magistrate judge, the lack of positive objective findings regarding Fray’s stomach
condition during the relevant time period and the fact that Fray did not receive treatment for
gastrointestinal issues during the relevant time period support the ALJ’s decision. (ECF No. 19
Moreover, treatment notes at Sea Island Medical Practice in September and October 2013
noted no complaints of abdominal pain, no abdominal distention, no bloating, no changes in
bowel habits, no food intolerance, no heartburn, no indigestion, no jaundice, no loss of appetite,
no weight loss, no nausea, no regurgitation, normal stools, no difficulties swallowing, and no
vomiting. (ECF No. 10-10 at 7–8, 14–15, 20–21). Further, while Fray reported frequent stools
at a September 2013 appointment at the VA, upon examination, he had a soft, non-tender
abdomen with no masses, no distention, bowel sounds present, and no hepatosplenomegaly. (111 at 84). In fact, as the magistrate judge noted, Fray did not report gastrointestinal problems to a
treating provider again until 2015, after the end of the relevant period. (ECF No. 11-3 at 33).
Accordingly, based on the foregoing in addition to the magistrate judge’s more extended
reasoning, the court agrees with the magistrate judge’s finding that the ALJ’s decision to deviate
from the VA’s disability rating is supported by substantial evidence.
Second, Fray argues that the magistrate judge erred by granting significant weight to Dr.
Shaffer’s opinion but failing to explain why he did not accept a portion of the opinion in which
Dr. Shaffer wrote, “[P]robably any such work situations should be of low stress.” (ECF No. 22
at 4). However, Fray’s second objection restates the same argument that was presented to and
addressed in depth by the magistrate judge. (ECF Nos. 16 at 14–18 and 19 at 18–21). See 42
U.S.C. § 405(g); Craig, 76 F.3d at 589; Nichols v. Colvin, No. 2:14-cv-50, 2015 WL 1185894, at
*8 (E.D. Va. Mar. 13, 2015) (stating that “a mere restatement of the arguments raised in the
summary judgment filings does not constitute an ‘objection’ for the purposes of district court
review.” (citation omitted)).
Fray’s argument was adequately addressed in the clear and well-reasoned Report. Like
the magistrate judge, the court finds that the ALJ was not required to tailor the RFC to include
every limitation in Dr. Schaffer’s opinion, provided the decision sufficiently reflects the ALJ’s
reasoning and is supported by substantial evidence. Armentrout v. Astrue, No. 10-504, 2011 WL
4625931, at *7 (E.D. Va. June 2, 2011) (“While the ALJ assigned ‘significant' probative weight
to the opinion, the ALJ was not then required to adopt every limitation and incorporate them into
the RFC analysis”); Burge v. Colvin, No. 7:15-CV-00249-D, 2016 WL 6902118, at *7 (E.D.N.C.
Oct. 24, 2016), adopted by 2016 WL 6905936 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 23, 2016) (“[I]n according
significant weight to a medical opinion, an ALJ is not bound to accept or adopt all the limitations
set forth therein . . . ”).
Further, while Fray conclusively argues that the ALJ rejected Dr. Shaffer’s statement by
not explicitly including it in his report, “there is no rigid requirement that the ALJ specifically
refer to every piece of evidence in his decision.” See Reid v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 769 F.3d 861,
865 (4th Cir. 2014). Rather, an ALJ “need only ‘minimally articulate’ his reasoning so as to
‘make a bridge’ between the evidence and his conclusions.” Jackson v. Astrue, C.A. No. 8:08–
cv–2855, 2010 WL 500449, at *10 (D.S.C. Feb. 5, 2010) (quoting Fischer v. Barnhart, 129 Fed.
App’x 297, 303 (7th Cir. 2005)). “The touchstone for determining what evidence must be
addressed is whether the evidence is so material that failing to address it would prevent the court
from determining if the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence.” Woodbury v.
Colvin, C.A. No. 9:15-CV-2635-DCN, 2016 WL 5539525, at *3 (D.S.C. Sept. 30, 2016). See
also Bowen Transp. Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight Sys., Inc., 419 U.S. 281, 285–86 (1974)
(stating “[w]hile [the court] may not supply a reasoned basis for the agency’s action that the
agency itself has not given, . . . [the court] will uphold a decision of less than ideal clarity if the
agency’s path may reasonably be discerned.”).
In this case, it is sufficiently apparent that by examining the medical record (and
specifically discussing Dr. Shaffer’s opinion multiple times), the ALJ considered Dr. Shaffer’s
complete opinion along with the rest of the discussed medical reports to conclude that, as a
whole, the record supported that Fray had the RFC to perform light work as defined in 20 CFR
404.1567(b) with a few modifications, as laid out by the ALJ.
Even if the ALJ should have mentioned Dr. Shaffer’s statement in his decision, failure to
do so was, as most, harmless error. Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 190 n.8 (4th Cir. 2004)
(“[R]eversal is not required when the alleged error clearly had no bearing on the procedure used
or the substance of the decision reached.”) (internal quotations and citations omitted). The ALJ
explicitly agreed with the conclusion of the state agency psychological consultants regarding
Fray’s lack of severe psychological impairment. (ECF Nos. 10-2 at 34, 19 at 24, and 23 at 6–7).
In their reports, cited by the ALJ, the state agency psychological consultants state that, “although
it is awkwardly written,” they concur with the portion of Dr. Shaffer’s report that states that
cognitive ability would not interfere with the claimant’s productivity. (ECF No. 10-4 at 7, 22).
The reports further state, “We are dismissing the latter portion of [Dr. Shaffer’s report] (i.e.,
‘probably any such work situations should be of low stress’) because the latter portion appears to
be based on the clmt’s physical condition, and the presence of a physical condition and the
severity of a physical condition are more appropriately determined by a physician . . . .” Id.
The court agrees that Dr. Shaffer’s statement is awkwardly worded. It is not readily
apparent whether he refers to mental or physical stress. Further, his quote is not a definite
statement or recommendation—rather, it begins with, “Probably . . . .” (ECF No. 11-3 at 13).
Accordingly, while the ALJ appears to have adequately considered and weighed Dr. Shaffer’s
opinion, if his failure to explicitly address the aforementioned quote was in error, it is harmless
error because consideration of the unclear, non-definite statement would not affect the substance
of the ALJ’s decision.
Finally, Fray reiterates his argument regarding the ALJ’s evaluation of the lay witnesses’
As noted by the magistrate judge, the ALJ cited to substantial evidence in
discounting Fray’s subjective complaints, which were similar to the limitations outlined by the
lay witnesses. See Bazar v. Colvin, No. 9:14-cv-537-TMC, 2015 WL 1268012, at *12 (D.S.C.
Mar. 19, 2015) (“Where a lay witness’s testimony merely repeats the allegations of a plaintiff’s
own testimony and is likewise contradicted by the same objective evidence discrediting the
plaintiff’s own testimony, specific reasons are not necessary for dismissing the lay witness’s
testimony.”). In his objection, Fray questions why Sea Island Medical Practice would have
knowledge of his digestive problems and bathroom needs when it did not treat him for digestive
problems. However, Fray’s argument is unhelpful for his case because as the ALJ noted, there is
a lack of positive objective medical findings during the relevant period to support Fray’s
subjective complaints of frequent stools or dumping syndrome. Accordingly, the reason why a
particular provider would have knowledge of Fray’s alleged condition is immaterial.
significance is the fact that none of the providers visited by Fray during the relevant time period
contributed objective evidence to the record of his alleged digestive issues. As noted in detail
above, substantial evidence in the record supports the ALJ’s decision to discount Fray’s
subjective complaints. (ECF No. 19 at 26).
Further, the court agrees with the magistrate
judge’s finding that failure to mention the opinion of James Petersen’s, Fray’s former employer,
regarding consequences of his frequent bathroom breaks, was harmless error because the ALJ
adequately addressed and provided numerous specific reasons for discounting Fray’s similar
statements.3 Additional reasons for discounting the duplicative statement of Mr. Petersen was
unnecessary. Bazar, 2015 WL 1268012, at *12; Mickles v. Shalala, 29 F.3d 918, 921 (4th Cir.
1994) (finding the ALJ’s error harmless where the ALJ would have reached the same result
notwithstanding). Accordingly, the court overrules Fray’s objection.
II. Residual Functioning Capacity
Next Fray alleges that the ALJ’s RFC analysis was erroneous. He largely restates the
arguments from his brief and asks the court to reweigh Fray’s credibility.4
objection asserts that the magistrate judge failed to address a mental health treatment note from
August 6, 2015, which he alleges was incorrectly summarized by the ALJ. (ECF No. 22 at 7).
As the magistrate judge noted in his Report, during the relevant time period, Fray
received no mental health treatment. (ECF No. 19 at 27). The ALJ acknowledged that Fray
resumed mental health treatment in August 2015, one year after the end of the relevant period,
but noted that the examination findings were “rather unremarkable.”5 (ECF No. 10-2 at 33).
In evaluating Fray’s subjective complaints, the ALJ noted that the treatment notes from Sea Island
Medical Practice reflect no gastrointestinal problems; the record also lacked reports of malabsorption
syndrome, fecal incontinence, electrolyte imbalances, or unexplained weight loss; Fray’s subjective
complaints were inconsistent with his activities of daily living which included working on his boat,
household tasks, caring for his dog, cooking, cleaning, laundry, shopping, driving, yard work,
managing finances, personal care, watching television, using the internet, and doing “most” of the
household chores and some cooking because his wife was a student. (ECF No. 19 at 26).
Such reweighing of the evidence is not within the province of this court. See Johnson, 434 F.3d at
653 (holding that a reviewing court should not undertake to reweigh conflicting evidence, make
credibility determinations, or substitute its judgment for that of the ALJ). A reviewing court gives
great weight to the ALJ's assessment of a claimant's credibility, and should not interfere with that
assessment where the evidence in the record supports the ALJ's conclusions. See Shivley v. Heckler,
739 F.2d 987, 989–90 (4th Cir. 1984). In his report, the ALJ considered Fray’s activities of daily
living to be inconsistent with his allegations of his functional limitations (ECF No. 10-2 at 33) and
found his subjective complaints and limitations to be overstated compared to what the record
objectively showed, id. at 32. The ALJ’s analysis of Fray’s credibility was supported by substantial
The ALJ noted that Fray “denied the intent of his evaluation was to provide recent documentation
to the Social Security Administration regarding his mental health concerns.” (ECF No. 10-2 at 33).
The progress notes, cited by the ALJ, stated consistently that despite a depressed and anxious
mood, Fray had appropriate grooming and hygiene; normal speech; no hallucinations or
delusions; logical thought process; intact association; intact memory; full orientation; intact
attention/concentration; and fair insight and judgment. (ECF Nos. 11-5 at 40–41, 60–61, 63–64,
72–73 and 11-6 at 3–4). The fact that these progress notes occurred over a year after the relevant
period, the fact that Fray’s objection relies on a PHQ9 exam (which is a self-administered
diagnostic exam for depression) (ECF No. 17 at 32 n.10), and the fact that Fray points to his
behavior in just one of the several meetings does not serve to contradict the fact that substantial
evidence supported the ALJ’s analysis.
Considering the conclusions of the state agency
psychologists and Dr. Shaffer, as well as Fray’s activities of daily living, there is substantial
evidence in the record to support the ALJ’s mental health finding with regard to Fray’s RFC.
Accordingly, the court finds Fray’s objection to be without merit.
Having conducted the required de novo review of the issues to which Fray has objected,
the court finds no basis for disturbing the Report. The court concurs with both the reasoning and
the result reached by the Magistrate Judge in his Report, and finds that the ALJ’s decision is
supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, the court adopts the Report (ECF No. 19) and the
Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
Anderson, South Carolina
March 9, 2018
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?