Hall et al v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 31

ORDER ADOPTING 25 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS, affirming the decision of the Commissioner. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 1/26/10. (rpol, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

R a c h e l Hall o/b/o John F. Hall,

) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) ) Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of ) S o c ia l Security, ) ) D e f e n d a n t. ) ______________________________________ )

C /A No. 9:08-3440-JFA-BM

ORDER

T h e pro se plaintiff, John F. Hall,1 brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to obtain judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (C o m m is s ion er) denying his claim for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) and Supplemental S e c u rity Income (SSI) benefits under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § § 401-433, 1381-1383c. The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action 2 has prepared a Report and R e c o m m e n d a tio n wherein he suggests that the Commissioner's decision to deny benefits s h o u ld be affirmed. The Magistrate Judge provides a detailed discussion of the undisputed a n d relevant medical evidence and the standards of law which this court incorporates without a recitation. T h e parties were advised of their right to submit objections to the Report and
1

The pleadings in this case are signed by Rachel Hall, acting under a power of attorney for her son, John F. Hall, w h o is referred to herein as the "plaintiff." The Magistrate Judge's review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02. T h e Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, a n d the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 ( 1 9 7 6 ) . The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which specific o b j e c tio n is made and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the M a g i s tr a te Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

2

1

R e c o m m e n d a tio n which was filed on December 3, 2009. The plaintiff has filed objections to the Report and the Commissioner has replied to plaintiff's objections. P ROCEDURAL HISTORY T h e plaintiff applied for DIB and SSI on April 30, 2004 alleging disability as of June 1 5 , 1999 due to obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), attention-deficit hyperactivity d is o rd e r (ADHD), bipolar disorder, and seizures. The plaintiff was 23 years old when he alleg es he became disabled. He has a tenth grade education with past relevant work e x p e rie n c e as a tow truck driver and a set-up technician. T h e plaintiff's DIB and SSI applications were denied initially and on reconsideration. T h e Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) held a hearing on January 28, 2008 with plaintiff and h is counsel present and issued a decision on May 30, 2008, concluding that claimant was not d is a b le d . Once approved by the Appeals Council, the ALJ's decision became the final d e c is io n of the Commissioner. Plaintiff thereafter filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 4 0 5 (g ) seeking judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner. STANDARD OF REVIEW T h e role of the federal judiciary in the administrative scheme established by the Social S ec u rity Act is a limited one. The Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c)(3), lim its this Court's review of a final decision of the Commissioner to (1) whether substantial e v id e n c e supports the Commissioner's findings, and (2) whether the findings were reached th ro u g h application of the correct legal standard. Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 589 (1996) (c itin g Coffman v. Bowen, 829 F.2d 514, 517 (4th Cir. 1987). Substantial evidence is "`such relev an t evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion,'"

2

R ic h a rd s o n v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971) (quoting Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 3 0 5 U.S. 197, 229 (1938); it is "more than a scintilla, but less than a preponderance." T h o m a s v. Celebrezze, 331 F. 2d 541, 543 (4th Cir. 1964). This standard precludes a de novo re v ie w of the factual circumstances that substitutes the court's findings for those of the C o m m i s s io n e r. Vitek v. Finch, 438 F.2d 1157, 1157 (4th Cir. 1971). "[T]he court [must] u p h o ld the [Commissioner's] decision even should the court disagree with such decision as lo n g as it is supported by `substantial evidence.'" Blalock v. Richardson, 483 F.2d 773, 775 (4th Cir. 1972) (citation omitted). " F ro m 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 th a n an uncritical rubber stamping of the administrative action." Flack v. Cohen, 413 F.2d 2 7 8 , 279 (4th Cir. 1969). "[T]he courts must not abdicate their responsibility to give careful s c r u tin y to the whole record to assure that there is a sound foundation for the [ C o m m is s io n e r's ] findings, and that his conclusion is rational." Vitek, 438 F.2d at 1157-58. D ISCUSSION A. T h e ALJ's Findings

In his decision of May 30, 2008, the ALJ made the following findings. The ALJ f o l lo w e d the Commissioner's five-step sequential evaluation process (see 20 C.F.R. § 4 0 4 .1 5 2 0 ) and concluded that Plaintiff's impairments were not disabling. First, he found that P la in tif f had not performed substantial gainful activity since the alleged onset date of d is a b ility, and that he had severe impairments that did not meet or equal a listed impairment s o as to be presumptively disabling. Next, the ALJ found that Plaintiff's subjective

3

c o m p la in ts of disabling limitations were not fully credible and determined that he had the re sid u a l functional capacity to perform light work that was entry level and consisted of sim p le, repetitive tasks; did not require close interaction with co-workers or working with th e public; and would not expose the individual to hazards such as heights and dangerous m a c h in e ry. The ALJ then found that Plaintiff's residual functional capacity would preclude h is past relevant work. Finally, the ALJ determined, based on the vocational expert's testim o n y, that Plaintiff could perform the jobs of small parts assembler, electrical assembler, s e d e n ta ry assembler, and bench hand worker. Accordingly, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff w a s not disabled within the meaning of the Act. E s s e n tia lly, ALJ found that although he could not perform his past relevant work, the p la in tif f retained the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform a restricted range of light w o rk and was not disabled. B. A rg u m en ts of the Plaintiff and Commissioner; and the Magistrate Judge's R e c o m m e n d a t io n s As the Magistrate Judge notes, it is unclear from the plaintiff's filings exactly what h e considers as error on behalf of the ALJ. Therefore, the Magistrate Judge has reviewed the e n tire record to determine whether the Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial e v id e n c e and is legally correct under controlling laws. Hays v. Sullivan, 907 F.2d 1453, 1456 (4th Cir. 1990). In the handwritten objections to the Report, plaintiff appears to assert the same a rg u m e n ts made in his complaint and earlier briefs, with the addition of copies of various m a g a zin e and newspaper articles dealing with ADHD. As such, the court must overrule the p l a in t if f ' s objections. 4

T h e Magistrate Judge opines that there is substantial evidence that supports the C o m m issio n er' s decision that plaintiff was not disabled within the meaning of the Act. If th e record contains substantial evidence to support the decision, then this Court is required to uphold the Commissioner's decision. A s to the additional 187 pages of evidence the plaintiff submitted to the court, this c o u rt may not consider newly submitted evidence that was never before the Commissioner in determining whether the Commissioner's decision was supported by substantial evidence. E v e n though Section 405(g) of the Act provides that remand be appropriate in limited c irc u m sta n c e s, this court does not find the new evidence to be material and good cause is la c k in g to incorporate the evidence into the record. Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 98 (1 9 9 1 ); Borders v. Heckler, 777 F.2d 954 (4th Cir. 1985). C O N C LU S IO N A f te r a careful review of the record, including the findings of the ALJ, the briefs from th e plaintiff and the Commissioner, the Magistrate Judge's Report, and the objections th e re to , the court finds the Report provides an accurate summary of the facts in the instant c a se and that the conclusions are proper. The Magistrate Judge's findings are hereby s p e c if ic a lly incorporated herein by reference. Accordingly, the Commissioner's decision is hereby affirmed. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Jan u ary 26, 2010 C o lu m b ia , South Carolina

J o s e p h F. Anderson, Jr. U n ite d States District Judge

5