Jones v. Saul
Filing
21
ORDER: The Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's objections to the Magistrate Judge's 18 Report and Recommendations and ADOPTS the findings and recommendations therein; DENIES Plaintiff's 13 Motion for Summary Judgment; and GRANTS defendant's 15 Motion for Summary Judgment. The Commissioner's decision denying disability benefits to Plaintiff is AFFIRMED. Signed by District Judge Robert G. Doumar on 7/1/21. (jhie, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
NORFOLK DIVISION
DONTA J.,*
Plaintiff,
V.
CIVIL NO.2:20cvl31
ANDREW M.SAUL,
Commissioner^
Social Security Administration^
Defendant.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Donta J,'s ("Plaintiff) objections to Magistrate Judge
Douglas E. Miller's Report and Recommendation, which recommends that the Court deny
Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment, grant the Commissioner of Social Security
Administration's("Commissioner") Motion for Summary Judgment, and affirm the final decision
of the Commissioner. ECF No. 18. For the reasons set forth below, the Court OVERRULES
Plaintiffs objections to Judge Miller's Report and Recommendation and ADOPTS the findings
and recommendations therein.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The facts and history of this case are fully set forth in Judge Miller's Report and
Recommendation (the "R&R"). ECF No. 18.^ Therefore, the Court provides only a summary of
the relevant events below.
'The Committee on Court Administration and Case Management of the Judicial Conference of the United
States has recommended that, due to significant privacy concerns in social security cases, federal courts should refer
to claimants only by their first names and last initials.
^ Page citations are to the Certified Administrative Record filed under seal on August 7,2020. ECF No. 10.
On August 22, 2016, Plaintiff applied for disability insurance benefits ("DIB") and
supplemental security income ("SSI"). R. 291, 298, 320. In his application. Plaintiff alleged his
disability began on October 2, 2001 because of complications from Blount's disease and high
blood pressure. Id The Social Security Administration initially denied his application on October
28, 2016, R. 200-09, and upon reconsideration on August 30, 2017. R. 181-87. Plaintiff then
requested a hearing before an administrative law judge ("ALJ"). Such hearing was conducted
before the ALJ on June 9, 2019. R. at 42. That day. Plaintiff, who appeared with counsel
("Plaintiffs counsel") and his girlfriend as a witness, testified before the ALJ.^R. 47-65.
On July 9, 2019, the ALJ issued a decision, which denied Plaintiffs application for
benefits. R. at 20-34. In reaching this decision,the ALJ determined that Plaintiff was not disabled
within the meaning of the Social Security Act. Id Plaintiff filed a request with the Appeals
Council to reconsider the ALJ's decision. R. at 1—14. The Appeals Council declined to review
the ALJ's decision, at which time such decision became the final decision of the Commissioner.
Id
On March 9, 2020, Plaintiff brought the instant action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)
seeking judicial review ofthe Commissioner's final decision. ECF No. 1. On August 7,2020,the
Defendant filed an answer to the Plaintiffs complaint. ECF No. 9. The Court then referred the
matter to Magistrate Judge Miller for report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). ECF No. 11. The parties each filed and
fully briefed motions for summary judgment. See PI. Mot. for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 13;
See Commissioner's Cross Mot. for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 15. Briefing for the parties'
motions for summary judgment were completed and referred to Judge Miller on November 2,
2020.
On April 2, 2021, Judge Miller issued his Report and Recommendation, which
recommends that the Court(1)DENY Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment,(2)GRANT the
Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment, and (3) AFFIRM the final decision of the
Commissioner. ECF No. 18 at 27. By copy ofsuch report, each party was advised ofthe right to
file written objections to Judge Miller's findings and recommendations. Id at 27-28.
On April 16,2021,Plaintifffiled objections claiming that Judge Miller erred in finding that
the ALJ properly weighed the opinions ofPlaintiffs treating physician and finding that the ALJ's
review ofPlaintiffs subjective testimony regarding his pain and functional limitations was proper.
ECF No. 19 at 1. The Commissioner responded to said objections on April 23,2021 and requested
this Court to overrule Plaintiffs objections and to adopt Judge Miller's Report and
Recommendation. ECF No. 20 at 1. Such objections are now before the Court.
11. STANDARDS OF REVIEW
A.
Review of the Report and Recommendation
After the Magistrate judge issues a report and recommendation, the district judge "shall
make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which [proper] objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b)(3). "The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition;
receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions." Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
Where a party makes only "general and conclusory objections that do not direct the court
to a specific error in the magistrate's proposed findings and recommendations," de novo review is
unnecessary. Allen v. Coll. ofWilliam & Marv.245 F. Supp.2d 777,788(E.D. Va.2003)(quoting
Orpiano v. Johnson. 687 F.2d 44,47(4th Cir. 1982)(internal citations omitted)). Moreover,"[a]
mere restatement of the arguments raised in the summary judgment filings does not constitute an
3
objection for the purposes of district court review." Nichols v. Colvin. 100 F. Supp. 3d 487,497
(E.D. Va. 2015); see also Hartfield v. Colvin, No. 2:16-CV-431, 2017 WL 4269969, at *7(E.D.
Va. Sep. 26, 2017)("The Court may reject perftinctory or rehashed objections ... that amount to
'a second opportunity to present the arguments already considered by the Magistrate Judge.")
(intemal citation omitted). If no proper objection is made,the district court need only review the
report and recommendation for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416
F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).
B.
Review of the ALJ's Decision
When reviewing the Commissioner's denial of benefits under the Social Security Act, the
Court"must uphold the factual findings ofthe[ALJ]ifthey are supported by substantial evidence
and were reached through application of the correct legal standard." Johnson v. Bamhart, 434
F.3d 650,653(4th Cir. 2005)(intemal quotation omitted). As the Fourth Circuit has explained:
Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept
as adequate to support a conclusion...In reviewing for substantial evidence, we do
not undertake to reweigh conflicting evidence, make credibility determinations, or
substitute ourjudgment for that ofthe [ALJ]... Where conflicting evidence allows
reasonable minds to differ as to whether a claimant is disabled, the responsibility
for that decision falls on the [ALJ].
Id (quoting Craig v. Chater. 76 F.3d 585, 589(4th Cir. 1996))(intemal quotations omitted).
In deciding whether to uphold the Commissioner's final decision, the Court considers the
entire record, "including any new evidence that the Appeals Council 'specifically
incorporated ... into the administrative record.'" Mever v. Astme. 662 F.3d 700, 704 (4th Cir.
2011)(intemal quotation omitted)). If substantial evidence in the record does not support the
ALJ's decision, or if the ALJ has made an error of law, the Court must reverse the decision.
Coffinanv. Bowen.829 F.2d 514, 517(4th Cir. 1987).
III.
PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS
The Court now turns to the Plaintiffs objections to Judge Miller's Report and
Recommendation. Plaintiff objects to the R&R on two grounds.^EOF No. 19 at 1. First,
Plaintiff argues that Judge Miller erred in finding that the ALJ properly weighed the opinions of
Plaintiffs treating physician. Id. at 1. Second, Plaintiff argues that Judge Miller erred in finding
that the ALJ's review of Plaintiffs subjective testimony regarding his pain and functional
limitations was proper.
at 3. Plaintiff bases both objections in one case Plaintiff claims Judge
Miller erred in not considering: Arakas v. Commissioner. 983 F.3d 83(4th Cir. 2020). The Court
will address both objections in turn, discussing the relevance of Arakas to each objection.
A.
Substantial Evidence to Support ALJ's Decision to Give Partial
Weightto the Plaintiff's Treating Physician
Plaintiff first objects to the R&R for recommending that the Court find the ALJ properly
weighed opinions of the Plaintiffs treating physician. Dr. Semret Mebrahtu. ECF No. 19 at 2.
More specifically. Plaintiff argues that Judge Miller erred by finding the ALJ was justified giving
only partial weight to the opinions of Dr. Mebrahtu and finding Dr. Mebrahtu's opinions to be
insufficiently supported by the record. Id Plaintiff argues that Arakas confirmed and emphasized
the rule that ALJs are required to give "controlling weight" to the treating physician's opinion if it
is well supported by medically acceptable diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with other
substantial evidence in the record. Id at 2(citing Arakas, 983 F.3d at 83). Plaintiff contends the
ALJ's decision was improper because Dr. Mebrahtu's opinion was supported by the x-ray and
MRI results of Plaintiffs knee. ECF No. 19 at 2. Plaintiff also contends the testimony of the
consultative examiner and Plaintiffs girlfriend further support the opinions of Dr. Mebrahtu. Id
at 2-3.
Plaintiff did not raise the impact of Arakas to Judge Miller, so the Court will review the
impact of Arakas de novo. The Court concurs with Judge Miller's assessment that the ALJ s
decision to give partial weight to Plaintiffs treating physician opinions was supported by
substantial evidence. In Arakas.the Fourth Circuit found the ALJ s conclusion to give little weight
to the treating physician was flawed for multiple reasons. First, the court noted that the ALJ's
cursory explanation did not give the required narrative discussion of why the evidence supported
the ALJ's conclusion. Arakas.983 F.3d at 106. Second,the ALJ erred by requiring the physician's
report to be corroborated with other objective evidence. Id at 107. The court held the report
should have been given controlling weight because it was in fact corroborated by twenty years of
evidence consistent with the report. Id.
Plaintiffs case is not analogous and thus not persuasive. First, the treating physician in
Arakas had been treating the plaintiff for fibromyalgia and other issues consistently since 1996.
Arakas. 983 F.3d at 91. Dr. Mebrahtu had only been treating Plaintiff for one month prior to her
report and the report contained no clinical findings supporting the restrictions articulated in the
report. ECF No. 18 at 18-19; R. at 31, 550. The report also contradicted other statements and
evidence contained in the record. ECF No. 18 at 19. Finally, the ALJ did not give a cursory
explanation but instead listed the reasons for his decision not to give Dr. Mebrahtu's report
controlling weight.
R. 31.
Plaintiff also contends Judge Miller erred in not finding that the opinion ofthe consultative
examiner. Dr. Hoffman,supported Dr. Mebrahtu's report. ECF No. 19 at 2-3. However,the ALJ
did consider Dr. Hoffman's opinion and foimd his opinion to be contradicted by both Plaintiffs
self-report and more recent examinations showing better function in Plaintiffs knee. R. 31, 165,
575, 578. Judge Miller found that the ALJ properly considered Dr. Hoffman's opinion and
explained why the ALJ gave it little weight. ECF No. 18 at 21. The Court agrees and finds no
error in Judge Miller's findings.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs objection to Judge Miller's Report and Recommendation is
OVERRULED. ECF No. 19.
B. Substantial Evidence to Support ALJ's Decision to Only Partially
Credit Plaintiff's Subjective Testimony
Next, Plaintiff argues Judge Miller erred in finding the ALJ properly evaluated Plaintiffs
subjective testimony regarding his pain and limitations. ECF No. 19 at 3—8. Again,Plaintiffrelies
on Arakas. arguing that the ALJ "improperly increased [Plaintiffs] burden of proof by requiring
Plaintiffs subjective testimony be supported by objective evidence. Id. at 4-5. Plaintiff also
argues that substantial evidence corroborates Plaintiffs subjective testimony rather than
contradicts it. Id. at 4-6.
Arakas does not change the analysis done by Judge Miller. The plaintiffs benefits
application was denied by the ALJ partially due to her subjective symptoms not being consistent
with any objective evidence ofdisease. Arakas,983 F.3d at 94. The Fourth Circuit found the ALJ
improperly discounted the plaintiffs subjective symptoms. Id at 95-96. However, the court
advanced two main points in support of its finding. First, the court noted that the ALJ discredited
the plaintiffs subjective complaints based on the lack of objective evidence corroborating them.
Id at 96(emphasis added). Second, the court noted that plaintiffs disease—fibromyalgia—is a
type of disease whose "symptoms are entirely subjective," making objective evidence of the
disease nearly impossible to show. Id (quoting Sarchet v. Chater, 78 F.3d 305, 306 (7th Cir.
1996)).
Plaintiffs case is distinguishable on both points. First, Judge Miller found the ALJ
review's appropriate because rather than requiring corroborating objective evidence, the ALJ
found that objective evidence contained in the record contradicted Plaintiffs testimony. ECF No.
18 at 22-23. Plaintiff consistently treated his pain with conservative methods, had large gaps in
seeking treatment, and did not follow up on referrals for specialized orthopedic care. Id. at 23.
Plaintiffs self-report also showed he was capable of certain limited work that contradicted
Plaintiffs testimony. Id Therefore, Plaintiff was not required to corroborate his testimony, but
other objective evidence contradicted it. Second, Plaintiffs injury—orthopedic damage to his
knee—is not the type ofinjury whose symptoms are wholly subjective. Arakas. 983 F.3d at 96.
Thus, Arakas does not change the process for how the ALJ was to review Plaintiffs
subjective testimony. Judge Miller found that the ALJ considered Plaintiffs testimony along with
the objective evidence that tended to confirm it, but ultimately found that contradicting evidence
led to only partially crediting Plaintiffs testimony. As the ALJ's process was not legally erroneous
and considered both the corroborating and contradictory evidence in the record,the Court finds no
error in Judge Miller's review ofthe ALJ's decision to only partially credit Plaintiffs testimony.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs objection to Judge Miller's Report and Recommendation is
OVERRULED. EOF No. 19.
IV.
CONCLUSION
As set forth above, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the relevant portions of
the R&R to which objection has been made and concurs with the findings and recommendations
of the magistrate judge. Therefore, the Court OVERRULES the Plaintiffs objection, ECF No.
19, to Judge Miller's R&R.
Furthermore, the Court has reviewed the remainder of the R&R along with the record of
this case and finds no clear error. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS Judge Miller's R&R,
ECF No. 18, and ORDERS as follows:
The Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. ECF No. 15.
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. ECF No. 13. The Commissioner s
decision denying disability benefits to Plaintiff is AFFIRMED.
Plaintiff is ADVISED that he may appeal from this Order by forwarding a written notice
of appeal to the Clerk of the United State District Court, United States Courthouse, 600 Granby
Street, Norfolk, Virginia 23510. Said written notice must be received by the Clerk within sixty
(60)days from the date of this Order.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to forward a copy of this Order to all Counsel of Record.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Norfolk, VA
July I ,2021
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?