Carter v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 14

ORDER Adopting 12 Report and Recommendation; denying 5 Motion for Order Reversing the Decision of the Commissioner; granting 7 Motion for Order Affirming the Decision of the Commissioner. Signed by Judge William K. Sessions III on 3/13/2015. (law)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
DISTRICT OF VERMONT

MARINA A. CARTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner, Social
Security Administration
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No. 2:14-cv-46

ORDER
The Report and Recommendation of the United States
Magistrate Judge was filed December 11, 2014.

Plaintiff’s

objections were filed December 29, 2014.
A district judge must make a de novo determination of those
portions of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation to
which an objection is made.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1); Cullen v. United States, 194 F.3d 401, 405 (2d Cir.
1999).

The district judge may “accept, reject, or modify, in

whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the
magistrate."

Cullen, 194 F.3d at 405.

After careful review of the file, the Magistrate Judge's
Report and Recommendation, and the objections, this
Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's recommendations in full.
The Court notes that the Plaintiff has objected to the

Magistrate Judge’s characterization of the relationship between
a claimant’s onset date and date last insured (“DLI”).

It is

true that the authorities cited by the Magistrate Judge require
a claimant’s onset date to predate or equal her DLI and do not
necessarily require a claimant to prove that she retained the
capacity to work but then lost it on a particular date.

To

receive benefits the Plaintiff must demonstrate that on or
before her DLI, June 30, 2005, she was unable “to engage in any
substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically
determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected
to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to
last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.”

42

U.S.C. § 423(d).
The Magistrate Judge focused on a single day but the
Plaintiff alleges that substantial evidence in the record
demonstrates that she was disabled prior that date.

For

example, the Plaintiff presented evidence that her posttraumatic stress disorder and anxiety disorders met the Listing
12.06 criteria from 1996 through 2002 and then again in 2010,
which the Magistrate Judge credited.

See ECF No. 12 at 9

(“There is little dispute that Carter’s impairments were severe,
i.e. resulted in significant limitations in her ability to do
basic work activities, from approximately 1996 through 2001 and
then again starting in approximately 2010.”).
2

However, there is

competing evidence in the record suggesting that the Plaintiff’s
condition materially improved between approximately 2002 and
2010 to the point that she was no longer disabled.
The Plaintiff has not demonstrated that any alleged
disability she experienced before 2005 continued after 2002
through the period in which she alleges onset.

Rather, the

evidence supports a finding that the Plaintiff was not disabled
for at least twelve months before the alleged onset date.

See

ECF No. 12 at 11 (“[T]he evidence demonstrates that, for well
over two years before June 30, 2005, Carter’s physical symptomsincluding fibromyalgia and migraine headaches-were stable; and
she was able to function without significant limitations.”); Id.
at 12-13 (“The record reflects that Carter had no mental health
treatment with a psychiatrist or psychologist for several years
before and several years after her alleged disability onset date
and date last insured of June 30, 2005.”).

The Court therefore

agrees that the Plaintiff has not proven that she had a
medically severe impairment or combination of impairments as of
June 30, 2005 and thus adopts the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation in full.
Defendant’s motion for order affirming the acting
commissioner’s decision (ECF No. 7) is GRANTED and plaintiff’s
motion to reverse the same (ECF No. 5) is DENIED.
This case is dismissed.
3

Dated at Burlington, in the District of Vermont, this 13th
day of March, 2015.
/s/ William K. Sessions III
William K. Sessions
District Court Judge

4