Hill v. Colvin

Filing 18

FINAL ORDER denying 11 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 13 Motion for Summary Judgment; adopting Report and Recommendations re 16 Report and Recommendations. This Court has reviewed the R&R of Magistrate Judge Miller and hereby ADOPTS a nd APPROVES in full the findings and recommendations set forth therein. ECF No. 16. It is hereby ORDERED that Mr. Hill's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 11) is DENIED, the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 13) is GRANTED, the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED, and this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Copies distributed as directed. Signed by District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen on 2/2/2015. (bgra)

FILED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

FEB - 2 2015

Norfolk Division

CL ERK,

ALEXANDER EUGENE HILL, JR..

US 1 STF1 CI CGuRT
1 C

Z .K. VA

Plaintiff,

v.

Civil No. 2:13cv637

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,

Acting Commissioner of
Social Security Administration.
Defendant.

FINAL ORDER

Plaintiff Alexander Eugene I lill. Jr. ("Mr. Ilill") brought this action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1383(c)(3)
and 405(g) seeking judicial review of tbe final decision of the Social Security Commissioner

("Commissioner") denying his claim for disability insurance benefits ("DIB") and supplemental security

income ("SSI") pursuant to Title II and Title XVI of the Social Security Act. Pursuant to the provisions
of 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(B) and (C). Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 72 of the

Rules oi' the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, and by order of reference
dated April 17. 2014, this matter was referred to United Slates Magistrate Judge Douglas E. Miller for a
Report and Recommendation.

In a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") filed September 16. 2014. Magistrate Judge Miller

found that the decision by the Administrative Law Judge ("AI..I") to deny Mr. Hill's claim was supported
by substantial evidence. R&R. September 16, 2014, ECF No. 16 at 16. Accordingly, Magistrate Judge
Miller recommended denying Mr. Hill's Motion for Summary Judgment, granting the Commissioner's
Motion for Summary Judgment, and affirming the decision of the Commissioner, hi.

By copy of the Report, each party was advised of the right to file written objections to the findings
and recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. The Court received Mr. Hill's objections to the
Magistrate Judge's R&R. and has considered the objections carefully.
Mr. Hill contends that the R&R erred when it affirmed the ALJ's decision to denv DIB and SSI

I

benefits. Mr. Ilill argues that the ALJ committed reversible error by failing to fully consider his diagnosis
of spinal stenosis rendered by Recta Arora. M.D.. and his diagnosis of sciatica rendered at the Maryview
Medical Center emergency room. Specifically, Mr. Hill alleges that the diagnoses of spinal stenosis and
sciatica were crucial to a determination of whether Mr. Hill could engage in full-time employment.
After reviewing the record de novo, this Court concludes that the record reflects that the ALJ
reviewed Dr. Arora's spinal stenosis diagnosis, R.17, but failed to specifically use the word "sciatica" in
his decision.

This failure was immaterial to the ALJ's overall assessment.

According to Sledman's

Medical Dictionary, sciatica is "[p]ain in the lower back and hip radiating down the back of the thigh into
the leg, initially attributed to sciatic nerve dysfunction." Stldman's Medical DICTIONARY 1602 (27th

ed.). The ALJ considered this symptom1 fully in his assessment.2 'I'he ALJ accounted for Mr. Hill's
symptoms by restricting Mr. Hill to light work with a sil-sland option every thirty minutes to
accommodate Mr. Hill's functional limitations.

This Court has reviewed the R&R of Magistrate Judge Miller and hereby ADOPTS and

APPROVES in full the findings and recommendations set forth therein. ECF No. 16. Accordingly, it is
hereby ORDERED that Mr. Hill's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 11) is DENIED, the
Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 13) is GRANTED, the decision of the
Commissioner is AFFIRMED, and this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

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

Ateqda L, \VqgfrfAllen
United States District Judge

^<£ cPK-**-

201 5

Norfolk. Virginia

1 In the R&R. the Magistrate Judge recognized that sciatica is not a diagnosis, but rather a symptom of an underlying medical
condition. See ECF No. 16 at II (quoting Stephen II. Ilochschuler, VI.D., What You Need to Know About Sciatica, SPINE-

HEALTH (Jan. 3. 2013), http://www.spine-health.com/conditions/sciatica/what-you-need-know-about-sciatica (emphasis in
original)) ("[sjciatica ... is not a medical diagnosis in and of itself- it is a symptom ofan underlying medicalcondition.").
2 The ALJ noted that the ""claimant testified to lowerback, hip and leu pain that causes difficulty walking." R. 17.
2