Garvin v. Kijakazi

Filing 28

FINAL ORDER. The Court ADOPTS the 25 Report and Recommendation as modified herein and AFFIRMS the final decision of the Commissioner. Signed by Chief District Judge Mark S. Davis on 3/10/2025. (jhie, )

UNITED

STATES

EASTERN

DISTRICT

DISTRICT

Norfolk

OF

COURT

VIRGINIA

Division

CHANDRA T,G.,^
Plaintiff,
Civil

V .

No.

2:23cv495

MARTIN O'MALLEY,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.

Chandra

T.G.

FINAL

ORDER

("Plaintiff"),

with

the

assistance

of

counsel,

brought this action seeking judicial review of the final decision
of

the

Commissioner

Commissioner")
disability

of

the

Social

Security

denying

her

claim

for

insurance benefits

income benefits

("SSI")

("DIB"),

Administration

a

period

of

and

supplemental

detailed Report and Recommendation
of

this

case

in

favor

of

the

("R&R")

below,

1

set

forth

and AFFIRMS

herein.

the

Court

the R&R,
ADOPTS

the final decision of

the

first

ECF No.

1.

case issued a

ECF

No.

25,

and

ECF No.

26.

For

the

the

as

R&R,

modified

the Commissioner.

on Court Administration and Case Management of the Judicial
United States has recommended that federal courts use only
name and last initial of any non-government parties in Social

The Committee

Conference

security

recommending resolution

Commissioner,

Plaintiff has filed an objection to
reasons

disability.

under the Social Security Act.

The United States Magistrate Judge assigned to this

(the

of

the

Security cases due to privacy concerns endemic to such cases.

I.

Pursuant
Federal

Rules

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

to

28

U.S.C.

of

Civil

§

636(b) (1) (B)
this

Procedure,

and

matter

Plaintiff's

request

hearing be denied,
Court

affirm

ECF No.

the

25,

right

the

for

and that

final

the

26.

referred
On

the
to

a

October

case

decision

of

the

to file written objections.

Commissioner

matter is ripe

be

remanded

Commissioner

By copy of the R&R,

at 33.

The

to

for

a

new

the Commissioner's request that the

the Court received Plaintiff's
No.

was

7.

of

the Magistrate Judge issued a detailed R&R recommending

2024,

that

72(b)

ECF No.

United States Magistrate Judge for an R&R.

29,

Rule

be

granted.

each party was advised of
and on

November

12,

2024,

timely objection to the R&R.

filed

a

response,

LEGAL

STANDARD

ECF No.

27,

ECF

and the

for review.
II.

A.

Standard

of

Review

When a dispositive motion is referred to a magistrate judge.
the

district

magistrate
Fed.

to.

rr

A

proper

judge

\\

determine

^

novo

any

has

been

properly

judge's

disposition

that

R.

P.

accord 28

Civ.

objection

specificity

must

so

as

72(b) (3);

should

be

articulated

\\

§

of

the

objected

636(b) (1) (B).

with

sufficient

reasonably to alert the district court of the

true ground for the objection.
460

(4th Cir.

2023)

616,

622

Cir.

(4th

U.S.C.

part

it

Elijah

V.

Dunbar,

(quoting United States v.
2007)).

F.4th

Midgette,

For portions of the

2

66

478

454,

F.3d

R&R to which no

proper objection
clear

Diamond v.

error.

F.3d 310,

a district

is made.

315

(4th Cir.

Colonial

judge must

Life

&

review only

Accident

Ins.

for
416

Co.,

2005).

the district

When reviewing a final administrative decision,
court

must uphold the factual findings of the [Administrative Law

Judge

("ALJ")]

were

if they are supported by substantial evidence and

reached through application of the
667

Hancock v.

Astrue,

omitted).

Substantial

F.3d

470,

evidence
\\

but requires no more than

472

is

such

correct
(4th

more

\\

relevant

legal

Cir.

standard.

(citation

2012)

than a mere
evidence

as

scintilla.
a

mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
V.

Berryhill,

Oakes v.
A

make

reviewing

credibility

103

F.4th

does

(2019)

207,

212

not

w

Mastro v.

ff

up),

re-weigh

superseded

Biestek

ff

on

conflicting
its

evidence.

judgment

270 F.3d 171,

other

accord

2023).

substitute

Apfel,

ff

reasonable

(citations omitted);
(4th Cir.

or

determinations.

Indeed,

404.1527.

97,

court

[ALJ].

(cleaned

2001)

70

Kijakazi,

that of the

§

587 U.S.

rr

176

grounds.

for

(4th Cir.
20

C.F.R.

when there is a dispute over the extent of

a

claimant's physical or mental limitations, the issue for the court
is

not

whether

Plaintiff

is

disabled.

but

whether

determination is reinforced by substantial evidence
V.

Colvin,

V.

Chater, 76

deferential

973 F.

Supp. 2d 630,

F.3d

585,

standard

of

589

638

(4th

(W.D. Va.

Cir.
the

review,

3

ALJ

still

ALJ's
ff

.

2013)

1996)).

the

.

(citing Craig

Though this
\\

Dunn

must

is

'build

a
an

accurate

and

logical

bridge'

conclusions" to pass muster.
983

F.3d

83,

95

(4th

F.3d 176,

189

(4th Cir.

from

the

Arakas v.

Cir.

2020)

evidence

Comm'r,

(quoting

their

Sec. Admin.^

Soc.

Monroe

to

Colvin,

v.

826

2016)).

B. Applicable Regulations

The ALJ is required to follow a five-step sequential analysis
to evaluate whether an individual has a requisite disability for
benefits under the Social

The

sequential

(1)

whether

analysis

the
(2)

activity;

includes

claimant
the

20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a).

Security Act.

is

following

engaged

severity

of

mental

in

the

assessments:

substantial
claimant's

medically

physical

claimant has

an impairment that meets or equals one of the Social

Administration's

official

impairments;

gainful

determinable

Security

and

the

(3)

impairments;

whether

(4)

the

whether

an

impairment prevents the claimant from performing any past relevant
work

in

light

("RFC");

and

of
(5)

the

claimant's

whether

the

residual

claimant

can

functional
adjust

to

capacity

employment

other than past relevant work in light of the claimant's RFC,
education,

and work experience.

age.

Id.

When conducting this five-step analysis for mental impairment
claims

(such as Plaintiff's),

technique
requires

rr

set

the

resulting from

forth

ALJ

to

in
\>

20

rate

the ALJ must also follow the
C.F.R.

the

§

404.1520a.

degree

of

functional

[any medically determinable mental]

4

This

N>

special

technique
limitation

impairment(s)

ft

in

NN

four broad functional areas":

apply information";
persist,

or maintain pace"; and

C.F.R.

§ 404.1520a(b)(2),

areas

are

a

determine

the

w

for

two

and

ratings

to

impairments

five-point
Id.

and extreme.

steps

[u]nderstand,
(3)

Limitations

scale:

for

ft

purposes

of

ff

three

this

of

of

C.F.R.

Pt.

and on a

mild,

moderate.

The

the

the

404,

Subpt.

P,

App

a limitation is "moderate"

area independently,
basis

is

fair.

ALJ

§

uses

claimant's

these
mental

five-step analysis.
a limitation is

if

the

claimant's

appropriately.

seriously limited.

§ 12.00(F)(2)(d).

if the claimant's

appropriately,

Id.

//

1,

is

ft

or

is

"functioning in this

effectively, and on a sustained

12.00(F)(2)(c).

if any impairment

equivalent

in

20

By contrast.

Once the ALJ has rated the severity of each impairment,
will determine

20

[n]one,

independently,

sustained basis

ft

functional

assessment

functioning in that particular area
effectively,

concentrate.

these

§ 404.1520a(c) (4) .

severity

or

in

Id. § 404.1520a(d). Of particular relevance here,
marked

remember,

adapt or manage oneself.

(4)

(c)(3).

ft

marked,

\\

interact with others";

(2)

rated on

(1)

severity

to

(or

a

combination

listed mental

thereof)

disorder.

they
meets

n

20

C.F.R. § 404.1520a(d)(2). If not,

then the ALJ will move to steps

four

the

§

and

five

and

assess

404.1520a(d)(3).

5

claimant's

RFC.

Id.

III.

Plaintiff

offers

only

DISCUSSION

one

objection

to

the

that

R&R:

the

Magistrate Judge erred in finding that the ALJ properly determined
that "plaintiff had only a moderate limitation in understanding.
remembering,

or applying information.

ECF No.

tr

support of this objection. Plaintiff argues that:

26,

at

1-2.

In

(1) the ALJ erred

when considering school records describing Plaintiff's "strengths
("Plaintiff's

self-report")^

approximately

seven

date;

if

and

(2)

other evidence
ff

Id.

2-3.

prior

Plaintiff's

supports

the

in understanding,

limited

at

years

because
to

those

Plaintiff's

self-report

finding

records

that

remembering,

is

not

//

were

from

disability

onset

considered,

Plaintiff

is

or applying

all

markedly

information.

The Court addresses each of these arguments in turn.
A.

Reliance on Evidence Predating Alleged
Disability Onset Date

Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge's finding that the
ALJ did not commit error when referring to Plaintiff's self-report

dated

seven

years

before

her

disability

onset

date

determining Plaintiff's ability to understand,

remember,

Specifically,

to

information,

Plaintiff

appears

when

or apply

argue

that.

because the ALJ cited Plaintiff's self-report in the same paragraph

^

The

Court

is unable to determine whether the

descriptions of Plaintiff's

strengths in this report were provided by Plaintiff or Plaintiff's mother.
However,

as

Plaintiff noted in her objection to the R&R,

of them provided these
relevancy of the report.

descriptions is not material
ECF No. 26, at 2 n.3.

6

determining which
to evaluating the

where he found that Plaintiff was moderately limited in this area,
the ALJ

found

Plaintiff's

In

decision.

contrast,

self-report

the

material

Magistrate Judge

making

when

found

that

this

the ALJ

did not err when referencing Plaintiff's self-report because the
ALJ

correctly

identified

it

as part

of

Plaintiff's

high

school

records, and its citation was merely part of Plaintiff's background

history of mental health
his

decision.

For

ECF No.

tt

context.

impairment — not

25,

W

the

entire

header

\\

Plaintiff's

student's

self-report

is

part

\\

with [Plaintiff],

tf

goals,

and

generous,

competent,
ft

Id.

limited

U.S.

3

Dist.

Plaintiff

personal

loyal,

are

capable,

under

R.

399,

September 27,

2011

characteristics

dependable,

intelligent,

that

cooperative.

quiet,

honest,

alert

(emphasis added)

Evidence that predates
of

[t]he

that

[Plaintiff]

and polite.

[on]

//

an

discusses Plaintiff's personal preferences and

provides

describes

a recent interview

of

2012,

strengths as reported by parent.

The report references

for

at 27.

Individualized Education Program report dated May 8,
the

basis

the alleged disability onset date

relevance.

See

Nixon v.

Astrue,

No.

LEXIS 22478,

*51

(E.D.

Jan.

2012)

also

the

ALJ's

contests

Va.

18,

characterization

of

2:llcvl22,

is

2012

(finding that

this

evidence

as

The Court agrees with Plaintiff that the ALJ could have
been more precise when labeling this report as "school records" because this
description — without additional context — does not account for the strong
indicators that the statements were provided by either Plaintiff or her
mother.
That said, the ALJ is correct that this description of Plaintiff's
school

records.

tt

strengths was in fact part of the Norfolk Public Schools'

7

records.

medical

records predating

more than five years

.

[]

Carmickle v.

determination");

.

.

\\

the

alleged disability onset

date by

[were] of little relevance to the ALJ's
Commissioner,

533 F.3d 1155, 1165 (9th Cir. 2008)

Soc.

Sec.

Admin.,

("Medical opinions that predate

While

the alleged onset of disability are of limited relevance.").

an ALJ may not support their decision solely on evidence of limited
relevance, they can rely on such evidence if they:

(1)

acknowledge

that the evidence predates the alleged onset date"; and (2) explain
the

relevance

evidence's

to

Searles v.

Colvin,

2:14cv474,

(E.D.

Nov.

2015).

part

Va.

25,

a

plaintiff's

2015 U.S.

disability

claim.

Dist. LEXIS 169511,

at *24

Here,

the ALJ clearly stated that Plaintiff's self-report

of

her

school

records,

and

disability onset date was May 24,

since

Plaintiff's

tf

was

alleged

2019 - when she was 26 years old

— the ALJ effectively identified that the referenced evidence long
Regarding explaining the

predated Plaintiff's alleged disability.

relevancy of Plaintiff's self-report to her claim,
which the ALJ referenced Plaintiff's

the context in

self-report is important,

as

it is first mentioned immediately before a reference to Plaintiff's

cognitive testing results from 2003 revealing
63.

ft

R.

14.

The

only

other

time

the

\\

a full-scaled IQ of

ALJ

cited

Plaintiff's

self-report was in a paragraph providing background on Plaintiff's
special

education

intellectual

for

services

disability.

R.

18.

8

learning
Moreover,

disorder
the

ALJ

ft

and

did

not

expressly

assign

any

degree
or

self-report/

Plaintiff's

of

persuasiveness

any

other

the

review.

Court

conclusion that the ALJ did not

Therefore,

after ^

Magistrate

Judge's

err by referencing this

evidence

date.

with

self-report

Plaintiff's

because

to

predated

agrees

evidence

relevance
that

Plaintiff's alleged disability onset
novo

or

the

cited

was

as

background

information that was not ascribed any degree of persuasiveness.
B. Substantial Evidence Supports the Findings that
Plaintiff is Moderately Limited in Understanding,
Remembering, or Applying Information

Plaintiff's

second argument

is

that all evidence other

than

Plaintiff's self-report supports the finding that she is markedly
limited

not

in

N\

understanding,

moderately

remembering,

limited.

ECF

the

finds

immediately above,

Court

No.

or applying

information

26,

As

that

at

3.

fi

provided

the ALJ did not err by

referencing Plaintiff's self-report as part of Plaintiff's mental
health

background.

argument

that

Commissioner is

However,

even

assuming

this

reference

was

not

appropriate because

improper.

that the ALJ did not cite to substantial

that Plaintiff has
remembering,
F.3d 918,

921

for

the
a

Plaintiff

sake

of

the

remand

to

the

fails

to

show

evidence when determining

"only a moderate" limitation in understanding.

or applying information.
(4th Cir.

1994)

See Mickles

v.

Shalala,

(affirming denial of benefits

two-judge concurring opinion because,

9

29

in a

even assuming that the ALJ

erred in the plaintiff's pain evaluation.
the same result notwithstanding his
In

his

decision,

notes providing that,
disability

onset

the

ALJ

(1)

would

have

reached

mental

status

initial error").

directly

in 2019 and 2020,

date:

he

Plaintiff

referenced

after Plaintiff's alleged
had

at

a

minimum

adequate

judgment and insight and an organized or logical thought
when

evaluated

occasions.

and

(2)

R.

by
686,

mental
695,

Plaintiff's

health

professionals

721,

729,

733,

747,

755,

memory

was

evaluated

by

on

at

767,

process

least
771,

mental

818,

821,

835,

837,

839,

845,

866.'*

The

w

Plaintiff:

(1)

is

moderately

also

limited

in

her

understand and remember detailed instructions"; and

ability to
197,

u

recall

short and simple instructions.

Additionally,

211.

the

ALJ

tt

considered

demonstrated ability to live on her own for more than
work a part-time

job.

and

care

for

two

R.

686,

discussed

including their findings

the opinions of Dr. Bockner and Dr. Entin,
that

ALJ

818;

health

professionals as good or normal on at least 9 occasions.
720,

10

young

ability
(2)
R.

to

has the

171,

184,

Plaintiff's
seven

children

years.

and a dog

The R&R explains that the ALJ considered evidence indicating adequate,
revealing
intact, or normal memory 21 times and mental status notes
organized thought process and good insight and judgment during 13 therapy
sessions

in

2020.

tt

ECF No.

25,

at 28.

general record considered by the ALJ,

While this evidence

the ALJ's

is part of the

decision does not cite to

all the exhibits containing those mental status notes when considering
Plaintiff's ability to understand, remember, and apply information or her
Therefore,
the Court does not adopt the R&R
overall mental aptitudes,
references to these additional mental

status examinations and instead relies

only on the direct references made by the ALJ to mental status notes
regarding Plaintiff's memory, judgment, insight, and logical thought process
as provided above.

10

- finding
\\

marked"

these

abilities

limitation

in

inconsistent

her

"ability

short and simple instruction.

tf

R.

with

to

18,

a

person

understand

20,

714.

and

The

having

a

remember

Court

finds

that this evidence adequately supports the ALJ's

conclusion that

Plaintiff is moderately limited in understanding,

remembering,

or

applying information.

Plaintiff argues that there was other evidence the ALJ could
have considered that supported a finding that Plaintiff is markedly
limited

in

understanding,

In particular.

remembering,

Plaintiff cites to:

or

applying

information.

full-scale IQ testing from

(1)

2003 and 2019 reflecting a full IQ of 63 and 57 respectively; and
(2)

mental status findings that Plaintiff's ability to accurately

process

simple

visual material

ECF No.

26,

3.

at

However,

was

this

in

the

argument

extremely low
improperly

range.

asks

this

Court to re-weigh the evidence and substitute the Court's judgment
for that of the ALJ.

Such action falls outside of the province of

a reviewing court tasked with determining whether the ALJ's factual
findings
F.3d

at

are

supported by

substantial

evidence.

tr

Mastro,

270

176.

The Court therefore overrules Plaintiff's objection that the

Magistrate

Judge

erred with

respect

11

to

the

ALJ's

determination

that

Plaintiff

remembering,

had

a

moderate

in

understanding,

or applying information.^
IV.

For

limitation

the

reasons

CONCLUSION

explained above,

the R&R

is ADOPTED as

the

Court's opinion except as modified above, ECF No. 25, and the final
decision of

the Commissioner

is AFFIRMED.

The Clerk is REQUESTED to forward a copy of this Final Order
to

all

counsel

IT

IS

SO

of

record.

ORDERED.

/s/
Mark
CHIEF

Norfolk,

March

IQ

UNITED

S.

STATES

Davis
DISTRICT

JUDGE

Virginia

, 2025

^ The undersigned has reviewed the remainder of the R&R and finds no clear
error
in the unobjected-to portions of the Magistrate Judge's findings or
See Elij ah. 66 F.4th at 460.
reasoning.
rest of the R&R without modification.

12

The

Court

therefore

adopts

the