Bennett v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 29

ORDER RULING ON 23 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The court adopts the Report and Recommendation in full and affirms the Commissioner's decision. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 09/23/2014. (egra, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Betty Bennett,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Carolyn W. Colvin, Commissioner of Social
)
Security,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_______________________________________)

C/A No.: 9:13-669-JFA-BM

ORDER

The plaintiff, Betty Bennett, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the
Social Security Act, as amended, to obtain judicial review of the final decision by the
Commissioner of Social Security denying plaintiff’s claim for disability insurance benefits
(DIB).
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 has prepared a Report and
Recommendation wherein he suggests that the Commissioner’s decision to deny benefits
should be affirmed. The Magistrate Judge provides a detailed discussion of the undisputed
and relevant medical evidence and the standards of law which this court incorporates without

1

The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02. 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 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 the Magistrate
Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

1

a recitation.
The parties were advised of their right to submit objections to the Report and
Recommendation.

The plaintiff has responded with various objections and the

Commissioner has replied thereto. The court will discuss its de novo review of the objections
herein.
The facts are fully set forth in the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) and
the administrative record, briefly summarized as follows. The plaintiff applied for DIB and
in December 2009 alleging an onset of disability beginning April 2008. The ALJ denied the
claim and the Appeals Council denied plaintiff’s request for review. The plaintiff then
sought judicial review of the decision with a complaint filed in this court on March 12, 2013.
The plaintiff was 47 years old as of her alleged onset of disability. She has a high
school education and a post high school certificate in home health care. She has past relevant
work as a home health aide, seamstress, and sales person. Plaintiff alleges disability due to
disorders of the back, osteoarthritis, and fibromyalgia.
At step one, the ALJ found that plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful
activity since April 18, 2008, her amended onset date.2 At steps two and three, the ALJ
found that Plaintiff had severe impairments—cervical spondylosis, degenerative disc disease
of the lumbar spine with radiculopathy, fibromyalgia, degenerative joint disease of the right
shoulder and left knee, history of left knee and left shoulder arthroscopy, degenerative

2

Plaintiff had previously applied for DIB on several occasions and her most recent application was
denied on April 17, 2008. Therefore, plaintiff is precluded from alleging disability for any time prior to April
18, 2008.

2

changes of the ankles, left carpal tunnel syndrome, and diabetes with neuropathy—that did
not meet or equal any impairment listed in the regulations.
The ALJ then determined that plaintiff had the residual functional capacity (RFC) to
perform a reduced range of sedentary work: lift or carry up to 10 pounds occasionally and
less than 10 pounds frequently; could only occasionally stoop, twist, crouch, kneel, balance,
or climb stairs and ramps; could never climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; and could only
occasionally reach overhead with both upper extremities. Based on this RFC and the
testimony of the vocational expert (VE), the ALJ found that plaintiff was not capable of
performing any past relevant work, but that she could perform other jobs existing in
significant numbers in the national economy. Accordingly, the ALJ concluded that plaintiff
was not disabled within the meaning of the Act at any time between April 18, 2008 and
December 31, 2008, the date she was last insured for benefits.
In her brief before the court, plaintiff sets forth various arguments to support her
position that this case should be remanded, basing them on errors in the ALJ’s determination
of plaintiff’s RFC and credibility finding. The Commissioner contends otherwise and
suggests that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination that plaintiff was not
disabled.
In objecting to the Magistrate Judge’s Report, the plaintiff has advanced two
arguments which repeat those made before the Magistrate Judge. First, the plaintiff contends
that although the ALJ specifically noted that the plaintiff could not perform a full range of

3

sedentary work,3 the ALJ failed to clarify the additional restriction in his decision or describe
the sedentary work in the RFC as is required under SSR 96-8p. In particular, the plaintiff
asserts that the ALJ did not discuss any limitations in sitting, walking or standing, and any
manipulative limitations due to left carpal tunnel syndrome and left trigger thumb.
The Magistrate Judge notes, however, that the ALJ did discuss the effect the
plaintiff’s impairments had on her ability to work during the relevant time period. The
Magistrate Judge also notes that the ALJ’s restrictions for plaintiff’s sedentary work were
consistent with the medical evidence, and were even more restrictive that the RFC placed on
the plaintiff by the state agency physicians, both of whom had opined that the plaintiff could
perform light work activity with postural limitations. This court agrees with the Magistrate
Judge that the ALJ set forth a comprehensive discussion and analysis in his decision as to
why he reached the RFC and therefore no reversible error occurred.
The ALJ found that the plaintiff’s allegations regarding the extent of her symptoms
were not entirely credible. Specifically, the plaintiff contends that the ALJ overlooked and
failed to discuss inconsistencies and evidence in the record of plaintiff’s reported symptoms
and the side effects of her medication. In addition, the plaintiff suggests that the Magistrate
Judge has used post hoc rationale to support the ALJ’s findings.

3

Sedentary work is defined as lifting no more than 10 pounds at a time and occasionally lifting and
carrying articles like docket files, ledgers and small tools. Although a sedentary job is defined as one which
involves sitting, a certain amount of walking and standing is often necessary in carrying out job duties. Jobs
are sedentary if walking and standing are required occasionally and other sedentary criteria are met. 20
C.F.R. § 404.1567(a) (2005). Under SSR 96-9p, sedentary work typically involves lifting no more than 10
pounds and standing and/or walking for a total of no more than 2 hours in an 8-hour workday, and sitting for
the rest of the time with breaks approximately every 2 hours.

4

The Magistrate Judge notes in his Report that, to the contrary, the ALJ found that the
record failed to show the plaintiff had reported significant medication side effects to her
treating physicians. The Magistrate Judge did not find that the ALJ conducted an improper
credibility analysis in reaching his conclusions, or that the decision otherwise reflects a
failure to properly consider the record and evidence in this case. This court agrees with the
Magistrate Judge’s conclusions.
It is the duty of the ALJ reviewing the case, and not the responsibility of the courts,
to make findings of fact and resolve conflicts in the evidence. This court’s scope of review
is limited to the determination of whether the findings of the Commissioner are supported
by substantial evidence taking the record as a whole, Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 589 (4th
Cir. 1996), and whether the correct law was applied,” Walls v. Barnhart, 296 F.3d 287, 290
(4th Cir. 2002).
After a careful review of the record, including the findings of the ALJ, the briefs from
the plaintiff and the Commissioner, the Magistrate Judge’s Report, and the plaintiff’s
objections thereto, the court adopts the Report and Recommendation in full and affirms the
Commissioner’s decision.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

September 23, 2014
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District

5