Lhamon v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 25

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION accepting 19 Report and Recommendation, Signed by Honorable Terry L Wooten on 9/20/19. (jsmi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Marissa Janell Lhamon,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner, )
Social Security Administration,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________ )

Civil Action No. 6:18-cv-1376-TLW

ORDER
Plaintiff Marissa Janell Lhamon brought this action pursuant to Section 205(g) and
1631(c)(3) of the Social Security Act to obtain judicial review of a final decision of the
Defendant, Acting Commissioner of Social Security (Commissioner), denying her claims for
Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income Benefits under Titles II and
XVI of the Social Security Act. This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and
Recommendation (Report) filed by United States Magistrate Judge Kevin McDonald (MJ), to
whom this case was previously assigned pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(a), (D.S.C). In the Report, the Magistrate
Judge recommends affirming the Commissioner’s decision. ECF No. 19. Plaintiff filed
objections to the Report, to which the Commissioner replied. ECF Nos. 21, 23. This matter is
now ripe for disposition.
The Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation to which a specific objection is registered,
and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that
report. 28 U.S.C. § 636. In conducting this review, the Court applies the following standard:
1

The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the Court, to which any
party may file written objections…. The Court is not bound by the
recommendation of the magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for
the final determination. The Court is required to make a de novo determination
of those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to
which an objection is made. 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 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)
(citations omitted).
The Court has carefully reviewed the Report, the objections thereto, and all other
relevant filings. In this case, Plaintiff injured her ankle in a workplace accident and has
suffered ongoing pain and discomfort resulting from reflex sympathetic syndrome. The Court
accepts the Report of the MJ which finds that the ALJ gave good reason for limiting Plaintiff
to sedentary work with the limitation that she can walk for up to one hour per day. The ALJ
supported his decision with the medical evidence of record, including the most recent medical
examination which showed minimal edema, no erythema, some decreased range of motion,
and reported discomfort, but successful ambulation without an assistive device.
In her objections, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred in considering and giving weight
to the opinion of Dr. Ritz, a psychologist. The ALJ considered the opinion of Dr. Ritz to rate
the severity of Plaintiff’s mental impairment, ultimately determining that Plaintiff’s medically
determinable mental impairments cause no more than “mild limitation.” (R. at p. 21). In
making this determination, the ALJ conducted a thorough analysis guided by the four broad
areas of mental functioning set out in the disability regulations for evaluating mental disorders
at 20 CFR, Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. (R. at p. 20). The Court accepts the Report of
2

the MJ which concludes that the ALJ appropriately considered the opinion of Dr. Ritz as
required by the regulations.
After careful consideration, the Court finds that there is substantial evidence to support
the ALJ’s decision to deny benefits. As the MJ noted in his report, the ALJ performed a
significant review of the record and outlined Plaintiff’s medical conditions from the alleged
onset date until the date of the decision. The role of this Court is to decide (1) whether the
ALJ has supported his decision with substantial evidence, and (2) whether the conclusions
reached by the Commissioner are legally correct. Hays v. Sullivan, 907 F.2d 1453 (4th Cir.
1990). The Court accepts the detailed analysis set forth in the Report of the MJ, which
concludes that the ALJ’s RFC assessment and determination that the Plaintiff could stand and
walk for one hour a day are based upon substantial evidence and without legal error.
For these reasons and those stated in the Report, it is hereby ORDERED that the
Report, ECF No. 19, is ACCEPTED, and Plaintiff’s objections, ECF No. 21, are
OVERRULED. For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, the Commissioner’s
decision is hereby AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_s/ Terry L. Wooten_____________
TERRY L. WOOTEN
Senior United States District Judge
September 20, 2019
Columbia, South Carolina

3