Daft v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
19
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Signed by Chief Judge Gina M. Groh on 5/24/2018. (tlg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
MARTINSBURG
JERRY LEE DAFT, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:17-CV-58
(GROH)
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On this day, the above-styled matter came before this Court for consideration of
the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge James E.
Seibert [ECF No. 16], filed on April 18, 2018. In his R&R, Magistrate Judge Seibert finds
that the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence.
Accordingly, he
recommends that the Court grant the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF
No. 14] and deny the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgement [ECF No. 10].
I. Background
Jerry Lee Daft, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) filed an application for disability insurance benefits
and supplemental security income on June 25, 2013. The applications were initially
denied on November 15, 2013, and again upon reconsideration on February 14, 2014.
Thereafter, the Plaintiff requested a hearing, which was held before an Administrative
Law Judge (“ALJ”) on October 28, 2015. On November 12, 2015, the ALJ issued his
decision that the Plaintiff was not disabled. The Appeals Council denied the Plaintiff’s
request for review on January 18, 2017, and the Plaintiff timely filed his complaint in this
Court on May 12, 2017. On September 18, 2017, the Plaintiff filed his motion for summary
judgment. ECF No. 10. The Commissioner filed her motion for summary judgement on
November 15, 2017. ECF No. 14. Having reviewed the parties’ briefs, Magistrate Judge
Seibert entered his R&R on April 18, 2018. ECF No. 16.
II. Standards of Review
A. Review of the R&R
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court is required to make a de novo
review of those portions of the R&R to which objection is made. However, failure to file
objections permits the district court to review the R&R under the standard that it believes
to be appropriate, and if parties do not object to an issue, the parties’ right to de novo
review is waived. See Webb v. Califano, 468 F. Supp. 825 (E.D. Cal. 1979). Additionally,
if the Plaintiff’s objections simply “reiterate[] the same arguments made by the objecting
party in [her] original papers submitted to the magistrate judge . . . the Court subjects that
portion of the report-recommendation challenged by those arguments to only a clear error
review.” Taylor v. Astrue, 32 F. Supp. 3d 253, 260 (N.D.N.Y. 2012). Therefore, the Court
will conduct a de novo review of those portions of the R&R to which a party makes new
objections and will review the remaining portions of the R&R for clear error.
B. Review of the ALJ’s Decision
The Social Security Act limits this Court=s review of a final decision of the
Commissioner to: (1) whether substantial evidence supports the Commissioner=s
decision, Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 390 (1971), and (2) whether the
Commissioner applied the correct legal standards, Hays v. Sullivan, 907 F.2d 1453, 1456
(4th Cir. 1990). The phrase Asupported by substantial evidence@ means Amore than a
mere scintilla@ and Asuch relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
2
adequate to support a conclusion.@ See Perales, 402 U.S. at 401 (citing Consol. Edison
Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)).
A reviewing court must not re-weigh the evidence or substitute its judgment for that
of the Commissioner, so long as that decision is supported by substantial evidence. Hays,
907 F.2d at 1456.
Ultimately, it is the duty of the ALJ reviewing a case, not the
responsibility of the Court, to make findings of fact and to resolve conflicts in the evidence.
King v. Califano, 599 F.2d 597, 599 (4th Cir. 1979) (AThis Court does not find facts or try
the case de novo when reviewing disability determinations.@); see also Seacrist v.
Weinberger, 538 F.2d 1054, 1056-57 (4th Cir. 1976) (AWe note that it is the responsibility
of the [Commissioner] and not the courts to reconcile inconsistencies in the medical
evidence, and that it is the claimant who bears the risk of nonpersuasion.@).
C. Evaluation Process
To determine whether a claimant is disabled, the ALJ conducts a five-step
evaluation process. 20 C.F.R. ' 404.1520(a)(4). If the ALJ finds the claimant is not
disabled at a certain step, the ALJ does not proceed to the next step. Id.
At step one, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant is engaging in
substantial gainful activity. Next, the ALJ determines whether the claimant has a severe
impairment. Then, the ALJ determines whether the claimant has a listed impairment (20
C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1) and conducts a Residual Functional Capacity
(ARFC@) assessment. At step four, the ALJ considers the RFC assessment to determine
whether the claimant can perform past relevant work. Finally, at step five the ALJ
considers the RFC assessment, age, education, and work experience to determine
whether the claimant can perform any other work. See Davidson v. Astrue, Civil Action
3
No. 2:11-CV-55, 2012 WL 667296, at *3 (N.D. W. Va. Feb. 28, 2012) (citing 20 C.F.R. '
404.1520(a)(4)).
Here, under the five-step process, the ALJ found the Plaintiff was not disabled
because the Plaintiff can perform jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national
economy. R. 37.
III. Discussion
Pursuant to Magistrate Judge Seibert’s R&R, as well as 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)
and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6, objections were due within fourteen plus three
days after entry of the R&R. The Plaintiff timely filed objections [ECF No. 17] and the
Defendant filed a response to the objections [ECF No. 18]. Accordingly, this Court will
review any portion of the R&R to which the Plaintiff objects de novo. The Court will review
the remainder of the R&R for clear error.
In this matter, Magistrate Judge Seibert found that the ALJ’s decision is supported
by substantial evidence. ECF No. 16 at 1. Specifically, Magistrate Judge Seibert found
that the ALJ did not err in failing to make an express determination about whether or not
Plaintiff was disabled at the time of the alleged onset date. Id. Magistrate Judge Seibert
further determined that the ALJ adequately explained why the Plaintiff did not meet or
medically equal any of the applicable listed impairments. Id. Accordingly, Magistrate
Judge Seibert concluded that there is sufficient evidence to support the ALJ’s
determination that the Plaintiff is not disabled. ECF No. 16 at 10.
The Plaintiff’s first objection to the R&R is that Magistrate Judge Seibert failed to
apply the Fourth Circuit directive in Bird v. Commissioner of Social Security
Administration, 699 F.3d 337 (4th Cir. 2012), which requires the ALJ to determine the
Plaintiff’s actual disability onset date when the ALJ’s on-the-record attempt to resolve the
4
case by consent is unsuccessful. ECF No. 22 at 1. In support of that objection, the
Plaintiff argues that the ALJ’s statements on the record indicate that the he intended to
find the Plaintiff disabled after February 14, 2014, if the Plaintiff was willing to amend his
onset date and forfeit his Title II claim.
However, as addressed in Magistrate Judge Seibert’s R&R, the Plaintiff
“misinterpret[s] statements made by the ALJ.” ECF No. 16 at 6. Bird only requires that
the ALJ determine the onset date when the ALJ determines that the claimant is disabled
but that the onset date is ambiguous. Bird, 699 F.3d at 345. In this case, “[t]he ALJ never
made a finding of disability, nor said that he would.” ECF No. 16 at 7. Accordingly, this
objection is without merit and is hereby OVERRULED.
Next, the Plaintiff argues that Magistrate Judge Seibert erred in affirming the ALJ’s
step three analysis by reweighing the evidence to reach his own legal conclusions. ECF
No. 17 at 4. In support, the Plaintiff points one sentence in the R&R which states, “[i]t is
true that the ALJ does not discuss much medical evidence that would point to a finding of
disability[,] [but] [f]rom the Court’s review of the evidence, that seems to be because no
such evidence was presented.” ECF No. 16 at 9. The Plaintiff uses this statement to
argue that Magistrate Judge Seibert embarked on “a fact-finding expedition to discern
whether the ALJ’s ultimate conclusion can be supported by the record.” Id. at 5.
However, the Plaintiff ignores the remainder of the R&R which explicitly addresses
the ALJ’s step three analysis. Magistrate Judge Seibert states that the ALJ “evaluated
medical and other evidence pertaining to the claimant’s medically determinable
impairments in conjunction with all relevant listings, including the criteria contained within
the 1.00 Musculoskeletal System, 3.00 Respiratory System, 5.00 Digestive System, 11.00
5
Neurological, and 12.00 Mental Disorders listing of impairments.” ECF No. 16 at 8.
Additionally, the ALJ determined that the claimant’s mental impairments do not meet or
medically equal the criteria of listings 12.04 and 12.06. Moreover, Magistrate Judge
Seibert acknowledged that the ALJ devoted over six pages of his written opinion to
discussing the medical evidence of record. Accordingly, it is clear that Magistrate Judge
Seibert did not “embark on a fact-finding expedition,” but rather reviewed the record as a
whole before finding that the ALJ’s three step analysis was adequate. Therefore, this
objection is without merit and is hereby OVERRULED.
IV. Conclusion
Accordingly, it is the opinion of the Court that Magistrate Judge Seibert’s Report
and Recommendation [ECF No. 16] should be, and is, hereby ORDERED ADOPTED.
For the reasons more fully stated in the Report and Recommendation, this Court
ORDERS that the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 10] is DENIED and
the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 14] is GRANTED.
The Court further ORDERS that this matter be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE
and STRICKEN from the Court’s active docket.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 58, the Clerk is DIRECTED to enter a separate order of judgment in favor of
the Defendant.
The Clerk is further DIRECTED to transmit copies of this Order to all counsel of
record herein.
It is so ORDERED.
DATED: May 24, 2018
6
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?