Watson v. Commissioner Of Social Security Administration
Filing
16
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING 15 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE: denying 10 plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 13 defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. This civil action is DISMISSED and STRICKEN from the active docket of this Court. Clerk directed to enter judgment. Signed by Senior Judge Frederick P. Stamp, Jr on 8/17/11. (cc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
MITCHELL LEE WATSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action No. 5:10CV103
(STAMP)
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I.
Procedural History
The plaintiff, Mitchell Lee Watson, filed an application for
Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) under Title II of the Social
Security Act. In the application, the plaintiff alleges disability
since February 2, 2007 due to depression, sleep apnea, restless leg
syndrome, obesity, lower back pain, hernia complications, and
breathing difficulties.
The Social Security Administration denied the plaintiff’s
application
initially
and
on
reconsideration.
The
plaintiff
requested a hearing, and a hearing was held on December 11, 2009,
before Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Timothy C. Pace.
The
plaintiff, represented by counsel, testified on his own behalf, as
did James M. Ryan, a vocational expert.
On January 22, 2010, the
ALJ issued a decision finding that the plaintiff was not disabled.
The Appeals Council denied the plaintiff’s request for review.
The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John
S.
Kaull
for
recommendation
submission
for
of
proposed
disposition
findings
pursuant
to
of
fact
28
and
U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B). Both the plaintiff and the defendant filed motions
for summary judgment.
On July 22, 2011, the magistrate judge
entered
recommendation,
a
report
and
recommending
that
the
defendant’s motion for summary judgment be granted, that the
plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be denied and this matter
be dismissed.
Upon submitting his report, Magistrate Judge Kaull
informed the parties that if they objected to any portion of his
proposed findings of fact and recommendation for disposition, they
must file written objections within fourteen days after being
served with a copy of the report.
II.
No party filed objections.
Applicable Law
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court must conduct
a
de
novo
review
of
any
portion
of
the
magistrate
recommendation to which objection is timely made.
judge’s
As to those
portions of a recommendation to which no objection is made, a
magistrate judge’s findings and recommendation will be upheld
unless they are “clearly erroneous.”
Supp. 825 (E.D. Cal. 1979).
See Webb v. Califano, 458 F.
Here, no party filed objections.
Accordingly, this Court reviews the report and recommendation of
the magistrate judge for clear error.
2
III.
Discussion
In his motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff contends
that the Commissioner’s ruling is without merit and not supported
by substantial evidence.
Specifically, the plaintiff argues that
(1) the ALJ erred because he rejected the treating source medical
opinion
and
further
fails
to
set
forth
any
basis
for
that
rejection; (2) the ALJ failed to evaluate the plaintiff’s complaint
of pain and how that pain impacts on his RFC in concluding that the
plaintiff retained the RFC to perform sedentary work with certain
restrictions; and (3) the ALJ, in finding that the plaintiff’s
impairments did not equal or meet sections 1.02 and 1.04, did not
fairly and adequately consider whether those listings were met
based on the medical evidence of record, nor did he consider the
possibility of whether the plaintiff’s condition was the medical
equivalent of the listing of impairments as noted in 20 C.F.R.
§ 404.1526.
In contrast, the Commissioner contends that: (1) the ALJ
properly
considered
physicians;
(2)
the
the
ALJ
opinions
properly
of
the
found
plaintiff’s
that
the
treating
plaintiff’s
subjective complaints were not entirely credible; and (3) the ALJ
properly found that the plaintiff did not meet or equal a listed
impairment.
Magistrate Judge Kaull issued a report and recommendation, in
which he held that (1) the ALJ did not err in his decision as to
the opinion of Dr. Roy Chisholm and the findings of Dr. Charles
3
Bess
and
Dr.
Mark
Sagin,
and
his
opinion
is
supported
by
substantial evidence; (2) the ALJ properly considered and weighed
all
relevant
evidence
in
forming
his
opinion
regarding
the
plaintiff’s credibility; and (3) substantial evidence supports the
ALJ’s finding that the plaintiff did not meet Listings 1.02 or
1.04.
An ALJ’s findings will be upheld if supported by substantial
evidence.
See Milburn Colliery Co. v. Hicks, 138 F.3d 524, 528
(4th Cir. 1998). Substantial evidence is that which a “‘reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’”
Hays v.
Sullivan, 907 F.2d 1453, 1456 (4th Cir. 1990) (quoting Richardson
v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971)).
Further, the “‘possibility
of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not
prevent an administrative agency’s findings from being supported by
substantial evidence.’”
Sec’y of Labor v. Mutual Mining, Inc., 80
F.3d 110, 113 (4th Cir. 1996) (quoting Consolo v. Fed. Mar. Comm’n,
383 U.S. 607, 620 (1966)).
This Court has reviewed the record, as well as the parties’
motions for summary judgment, and for the reasons set forth in the
report and recommendation, concurs with the magistrate judge that
the Commissioner’s decision denying the plaintiff’s application for
DIB is supported by substantial evidence.
The magistrate judge
correctly states that the ALJ assigned “great weight” to the
opinion
of
Dr.
Chisholm
and
that
limitation found by Dr. Chisholm.
4
the
ALJ
accommodated
the
In addition, this Court agrees
with the magistrate judge that the ALJ thoroughly evaluated and
considered the opinions of Dr. Bess and Dr. Sagin.
This Court also finds no clear error in the magistrate judge’s
opinion as to the credibility analysis.
The ALJ did comply with
the mandates contained in the credibility analysis of Craig v.
Chater, 76 F.3d 585 (4th Cir. 1996), and the criteria listed in 20
C.F.R. § 404.1529 by considering and evaluating the objective
medical evidence of record and the plaintiff’s medical history,
laboratory findings, objective medical evidence of pain, activities
of daily living, medical treatment used to alleviate pain, and the
plaintiff’s statements.
The ALJ’s decision not only is supported
by the evidence of record, but also contains specific reasons for
the finding on credibility as is required in SSR 96-7p.
Finally, this Court concludes that the magistrate judge did
not err in finding that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s
finding that the plaintiff did not meet Listings 1.02 or 1.04.
As
noted by the magistrate judge, the record is ripe with findings by
the plaintiff’s treating and examining physicians to support the
ALJ’s decision.
Accordingly, the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation is affirmed and adopted.
IV.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, this Court finds that the
magistrate judge’s recommendation is not clearly erroneous and
hereby AFFIRMS and ADOPTS the report and recommendation of the
magistrate judge.
The defendant’s motion for summary judgment is
5
GRANTED, and the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED.
It is further ORDERED that this case be DISMISSED and STRICKEN from
the active docket of this Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Clerk is directed to transmit a copy of this order to
counsel of record herein. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 58, the Clerk is directed to enter judgment on this
matter.
DATED:
August 17, 2011
/s/ Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.
FREDERICK P. STAMP, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?