Walsh v. Commissioner, SSA

Filing 25

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE, for 20 Report and Recommendation. Finding that Plaintiff's objections are without merit, the Court hereby adopts the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge as the findings and conclusions of this Court. It is, therefore, ORDERED that the decision of the Administrative Law Judge is AFFIRMED. Signed by Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 8/22/2016. (kls, )

United States District Court
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION

JAMES P. WALSH
V.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

§
§
§
§
§
§

CASE NO. 4:14-CV-729
(Judge Mazzant/Judge Bush)

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Came on for consideration the report of the United States Magistrate Judge in this action, this
matter having been heretofore referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636.
On June 29, 2016, the report of the Magistrate Judge was entered containing proposed
findings of fact and recommendations that the decision of the Administrative Law Judge be
AFFIRMED.
On July 7, 2016, Plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s report (see Dkt. #22), and
Defendant filed its response to those objections on July 19, 2016 (see Dkt. #24).
The Court has made a de novo review of the objections raised by Plaintiff and Defendant’s
response and is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct
and the objections are without merit as to the ultimate findings of the Magistrate Judge.
Although Plaintiff fails to clearly object to any specific finding or conclusion of the
Magistrate Judge, the Court briefly addresses his arguments herein. Essentially, Plaintiff disagrees

1

with the Magistrate Judge’s ultimate recommendation to affirm the ALJ’s decision finding that
Plaintiff was not disabled. The Court addresses Plaintiff’s arguments nonetheless.
The Court first addresses Plaintiff’s argument that Dr. Jagdish Shah’s opinion does not
support the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff can perform the standing/walking requirements of light work.
The Magistrate Judge found that Dr. Shah’s examination findings and opinion provide substantial
evidence supporting the ALJ’s physical RFC determination.
Light work is defined by the applicable regulations as follows:
lifting no more than 20 pounds at a time with frequent lifting or carrying of
objects weighing up to 10 pounds. Even though the weight lifted may be very
little, a job is in this category when it requires a good deal of walking or standing,
or when it involves sitting most of the time with some pushing and pulling of arm
or leg controls. To be considered capable of performing a full or wide range of
light work, you must have the ability to do substantially all of these activities.
20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(b).
“[T]he full range of light work requires standing or walking, off and on, for a total of approximately
six hours of an eight-hour workday.” Social Security Ruling (SSR) 83-10, 1983 WL 31251, at *6.
Because Dr. Shah’s report provides that Plaintiff can stand for four hours in an eight-hour workday
and walk for three hours in an eight-hour workday (Tr. 337-38), the Court agrees with Defendant that
the record shows that Plaintiff can stand or walk for a total of seven hours in an eight-hour workday
(Tr. 337-38). The Magistrate Judge did not err in finding that Dr. Shah’s examination findings and
opinion provide substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s physical RFC determination that Plaintiff
can perform less than the full range of light work. That the ALJ found that Plaintiff could perform
“less than the full range of light work” does not mean (nor do the regulations support a finding) that

2

he cannot do any light work tasks. Plaintiff’s objections in this regard are overruled.
Next, the Court turns to Plaintiff’s argument that, because he has moderate difficulties with
concentration, persistence or pace (CPP), he is disabled. The Court finds that the record supports
the Magistrate Judge’s analysis on this issue.
The Magistrate Judge addressed the testimony in the record regarding Plaintiff’s mental
impairments but noted that testimony in the record indicated that the CPP could be accommodated
by limiting Plaintiff’s mental RFC to “simple routine tasks consistent with unskilled work, no
requirement for the reading of written instructions or preparation of written reports or mathematical
computations” See Dkt. # 20 at 8 (citing Tr. 60). The Magistrate Judge further found that, although
the available jobs were limited in nature, there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the
ALJ’s findings regarding Plaintiff’s mental RFC.
The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that, even after taking into account Plaintiff’s
moderate difficulties with CPP, the record supports the ALJ’s mental RFC determination. Plaintiff’s
arguments regarding the ALJ’s consideration of the opinions of Dr. Grant Hellyer, who conducted
a mental health examination of Plaintiff, and the VE regarding his “mental problems” are without
merit and his objections in this regard are overruled. The Magistrate Judge correctly found that there
is substantial evidence and relevant legal precedent to support the ALJ’s decision denying Plaintiff’s
application for benefits.
Finding that Plaintiff’s objections are without merit, the Court hereby adopts the findings and
conclusions of the Magistrate Judge as the findings and conclusions of this Court.

3

.
It is, therefore, ORDERED that the decision of the Administrative Law Judge is
AFFIRMED.
It is SO ORDERED.
SIGNED this 22nd day of August, 2016.

___________________________________
AMOS L. MAZZANT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4