Menne v. Michael J. Astrue

Filing 16

ORDER Denying 9 Motion for Summary Judgment; Granting 11 Motion for Summary Judgment; Adopting Report and Recommendations re 14 Report and Recommendations. Plaintiffs objections (ECF No. 15) must be overruled, and the Court ADOPTS the f indings and recommendations set forth in the underlying Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 14). 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 9) is DENIED, the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 11) is GRANTED, and the case is DISMISSED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen and filed on 2/24/14. Copies distributed to all parties 2/24/14. (ldab, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Norfolk Division

DAWN MARIE MENNE,

Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. 2:13cv48

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration,
Defendant.

ORDER

Plaintiff brought this action seeking judicial review of the final decision of the Acting
Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiffs applications for disability insurance
benefits. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to the provisions
of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as
well as Rule 72 of the Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of

Virginia. United States Magistrate Judge Douglas E. Miller considered the Motion for Summary

Judgment filed by Plaintiff and the Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the Acting
Commissioner of Social Security. The Report and Recommendation (R&R) of the Magistrate
Judge recommended denying Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment, and granting the
Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment. The R&R recommended dismissing the case.
Each party was advised of the right to file written objections to the findings and
recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate

Judge's R&R. The Commissioner has filed no objections, and has elected to waive any response

to Plaintiffs objections.

This Court took Plaintiffs objections under advisement and has

considered them, and the entire record, carefully.

Plaintiff contends that the Magistrate Judge erred when he concluded that substantial
evidence supported the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) that Plaintiff was not
disabled to the extent warranting disability benefits between August 1, 2007 and September 30,
2008. Plaintiff argues that the ALJ failed to obtain evaluations from medical professionals on

behalf of the Commissioner, and that no medical professionals interviewed Plaintiffs health care

providers on behalf of Commissioner. Instead, Plaintiff contends, the ALJ erred by giving "great
weight" to the findings of State agency Single Decision Maker (SDM) Robert Chaplin, who is
not a medical

professional and

who

never

interviewed

Plaintiff.

See Penley v.

/!^rwe,l:08CV534, 2011 WL 2748609, at *2 n.l (W.D.N.C. July 13, 2011) (noting that the
acronym "SDM" does not "connote[]... medical credentials").
Plaintiffs objections include a review of medical treatment that Plaintiff received

between the alleged onset date of August 1, 2007, and the last insured date of September 30,
2008, and concludes, after this review, that "[n]o evidence exists to the contrary concerning the

severity of [Plaintiffs] seizures and headaches." Obj. 3, ECF No. 15. As the R&R recognizes,
however, the evidence that Plaintiff presented, as well as the entire record before the ALJ, failed
to establish that Plaintiffs severe impairments during the insured period were sufficient to

warrant eligibility for disability benefits.
The R&R provided comprehensive summaries of the applicable factual background and
legal standards, and these summaries are adopted. The Magistrate Judge addressed assertions
that are similar to those presented in Plaintiffs objections-general allegations that the ALJ
overlooked the records of multiple health care providers concerning Plaintiffs medical

condition-by concluding that Plaintiff failed to specify medical records that contradict the ALJ's

findings. R&R 12, ECF No. 14. The Magistrate Judge found correctly that the ALJ's evaluation

of Plaintiffincluded a "lengthy review of Plaintiff s treatment record including emergency room
and general hospital records, and the records of treating physicians Dr. Zhu, Dr. ChristianTaylor, Dr. Dixit, and psychologist Ann D. Mingione. Importantly, none ofthese providers ever
opined that [Plaintiffs] condition was disabling or work-limiting in any capacity." Id. at 14

(citations omitted) (emphasis added).

The Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that after

reviewing the entire record, "the ALJ determined that the 'medical evidence from the period of
August 2007 through September of 2008, does not support disability' because '[t]he frequency,
duration, location, and intensity of symptoms and limitations alleged by the claimant are
unsupported by the objective medical findings of record and treatment notes.' [Plaintiff] has not
identified an objective medical record inconsistent with this finding." Id. (citations omitted).
The Magistrate Judge's thorough review of the ALJ's evaluation confirms that there were

no errors in the consideration of the medical evidence Plaintiff presented, or in the scope of that
consideration. The ALJ credited Plaintiffs reports that she had suffered from recurrent transient

ischemic attacks during the relevant insured period, but after conducting a careful review of the
medical evidence, found that the reports were inconsistent and contradictory with that evidence.
Id.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs objections regarding the weight the ALJ placed on the

assessments performed by Mr. Chaplin must be overruled. The R&R recognized that exclusive
reliance upon the assessments of a SDM fails to constitute sufficient substantial evidence upon

which the Commissioner may rely in rejecting a claim for disability benefits: "there is authority
that the opinion of an SDM, standing alone, is not substantial evidence on which the ALJ can

rely to satisfy . . . obligations to develop an RFC." Id. at 15 (internal quotation marks omitted)

(quoting Fisher v. Astrue, l:10cv073, 2011 WL 4965030, at *3 (W.D.N.C. October 13, 2011)).

However, the R&R also recognized plainly that the ALJ considered a much wider scope of
evidence beyond Mr. Chaplin's assessments. This scope is detailed in the R&R thoroughly and
persuasively.

Id. at 16.

Moreover, the R&R further notes that neither Plaintiff, nor an

independent examination of the medical record, presents "any other opinion evidence from a

treating or examining physician that suggests [that Plaintiff] suffered from any greater
impairment than what the ALJ noted." Id. at 17. This Court agrees.
After reviewing the record de novo, this Court must conclude that substantial evidence in
the record supports the ALJ's determinations in this case, and that the neither the ALJ nor the

Magistrate Judge committed errors compelling reversal or remand.
Plaintiffs objections (ECF No. 15) must be overruled, and the Court ADOPTS the

findings and recommendations set forth in the underlying Report and Recommendation (ECF
No. 14). 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 9) is DENIED, the Commissioner's
Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 11) is GRANTED, and the case is DISMISSED.

The Clerk is REQUESTED to forward a copy of this Order to all parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Arenda L

_ff**~
February <y

,2014

Norfolk, Virginia

0

_..

United States District Judge