Hope v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 26

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION The Commissioners decision is hereby affirmed. Signed by Honorable Terry L Wooten on 03/25/2019. (cpeg, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Dawn Saylor Hope,

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

Civil Action No.: 9:17-cv-2645-TLW

ORDER
Plaintiff Dawn Saylor Hope 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 claims for Disability Insurance Benefits. This matter is before the
Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (the Report) filed on December 7, 2018, by
United States Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant, to whom this case had previously been 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). ECF No. 19. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends affirming the
Commissioner’s decision. Id. Plaintiff filed objections to the Report, to which the Commissioner
replied. ECF Nos. 23, 24. 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:
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 her objections, Plaintiff argues that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) failed to
consider the evidence in the record that Plaintiff’s pain and fatigue render her disabled. However,
after reviewing the record and the ALJ Report, the Court concludes that the ALJ supported her
decision with sufficient evidence. The ALJ follows a two-step analysis to consider subjective
statements about impairments and symptoms. Lewis v. Berryhill, 858 F.3d 858, 865–66 (4th Cir.
2017). First, she considers medical evidence showing a condition that could reasonably produce
the symptoms. Id. Second, she evaluates intensity, persistence, and limiting effects to determine
the claimant’s ability to perform work. Id. In this case, the ALJ considered the objective medical
evidence, opinion evidence from physicians, and medical test results to determine that there are
conditions that could produce Plaintiff’s symptoms. ECF No. 10-2 at 16–18. The ALJ then
reviewed Plaintiff’s own statements, including those made to physicians, made by Plaintiff
regarding her daily activities, and about how medication managed her pain, to determine the
intensity, persistence, and limiting effects in creating the RFC. Id. at 18–21. For these reasons, the
Court finds that the ALJ supported her findings with sufficient evidence in the record of the
intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of Plaintiff’s pain and fatigue.

To the extent that Plaintiff disagrees with the ALJ’s final determination in light of the
evidence, that question is not before the Court. The role of this Court is to decide (1) whether the
ALJ has supported her decision with sufficient 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 Report of the Magistrate Judge, which concludes that the ALJ properly supported
Plaintiff’s RFC by including a narrative discussion of the relevant medical and nonmedical
evidence.
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. 23, 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
March 25, 2019
Columbia, South Carolina