Yarbrough v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
14
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING 11 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE: DENYING 8 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, and GRANTING 9 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and STRICKEN from the active docket of this Court. Clerk directed to enter judgment. Signed by Senior Judge Frederick P. Stamp, Jr on 2/3/12. (cc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
JOHN ANDREW YARBROUGH,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action No. 5:10CV116
(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, John Andrew Yarbrough, filed a claim for
Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) under Title II of the Social
Security Act. In his application, the plaintiff alleges disability
due to back pain and right knee pain beginning January 17, 2008.
The
Social
Security
application
initially
Administration
and
on
denied
the
reconsideration.
plaintiff’s
The
plaintiff
requested a hearing, and a hearing was held on December 16, 2009,
before an administrative law judge (“ALJ”).
The plaintiff was
represented by counsel at the hearing. On January 8, 2010, the ALJ
issued a decision finding that the plaintiff was not disabled
within the meaning of the Social Security Act. The Appeals Council
denied the plaintiff’s request for review, rendering the ALJ’s
decision final. The plaintiff then filed a complaint in this Court
to obtain judicial review of the final decision of the defendant,
Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security, pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 405(g).
The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge James
E.
Seibert
for
submission
of
proposed
disposition
findings
pursuant
of
to
fact
28
and
recommendation
for
U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B).
The plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment
or, in the alternative, motion for remand.
The defendant also
filed
May
a
motion
for
summary
judgment.
On
9,
2011,
the
magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation recommending
that the defendant’s motion for summary judgment be granted and
that the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be denied.
submitting
his
report,
Magistrate
Judge
Seibert
informed
Upon
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.
The plaintiff filed timely objections, to
which the defendant responded.
II.
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.”
2
See Webb v. Califano, 458 F.
Supp.
825
(E.D.
Cal.
1979).
Because
the
plaintiff
filed
objections, this Court will undertake a de novo review as to those
portions of the report and recommendation to which objections were
made.
III.
Discussion
In his motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff argues: (1)
the Commissioner’s decision to deny his claim at the fifth stage of
the sequential analysis without input from a vocational expert is
not supported by substantial evidence; and (2) the record does not
support
the
Commissioner.
minimal
The
nonexertional
plaintiff’s
limitations
arguments
boil
found
by
the
down
to
one
contention: that his ability to perform work is more restricted
than that suggested by the Commissioner.
In support of this
argument, the plaintiff points to his medical records and past
treatments, which he believes demonstrate that his limitations and
pain are significantly beyond the level determined by the ALJ.
The Commissioner counters that the ALJ’s finding at step five
of the sequential evaluation process is supported by substantial
evidence.
According to the Commissioner, the ALJ correctly relied
upon Grid Rules 202.21 and 202.14 as a framework for finding the
plaintiff not disabled.
Further, the Commissioner contends that
the ALJ correctly assessed the plaintiff’s residual functional
capacity (“RFC”).
3
Magistrate Judge Seibert’s report and recommendation first
addresses the question of whether vocational expert testimony was
necessary for a determination of not disabled.
Ultimately, the
magistrate judge concludes that the plaintiff has not demonstrated
the presence of nonexertional impairments, therefore, the ALJ’s
decision to rely solely on the Medical-Vocational Guidelines, 20
C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 2, rather than the testimony of a
vocational expert, was proper. Next, the magistrate judge turns to
the ALJ’s assessment of the plaintiff’s RFC.
After reviewing the
evidence considered by the ALJ, the magistrate judge finds that the
ALJ’s assessment of the plaintiff’s RFC is proper and supported by
substantial evidence.
The plaintiff thereafter filed objections to the magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation.
In these objections, the
plaintiff reiterates his argument that testimony from a vocational
expert was required to prove that he retains the ability to perform
specific jobs which exist in the national economy.
Also, the
plaintiff once again argues that the record demonstrates that his
limitations and pain are significantly beyond that found by the
Commissioner.
According to the plaintiff, the Commissioner’s
findings are “result oriented” in order to support a denial without
the requirements of a vocational expert.
The plaintiff then
highlights some medical records in order to show that he is in
4
continuous pain and that the treatments he has received thus far
have been ineffective at permanently curbing that pain.
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)).
Determination of eligibility for social security benefits
involves a five-step inquiry.
(4th Cir.).
Mastro v. Apfel, 270 F.3d 171, 177
At step five, the agency has the burden of providing
evidence of a significant number of jobs in the national economy
that a claimant could perform.
290 (4th Cir. 2002).
Walls v. Barnhart, 296 F.3d 287,
There are two ways in which the Commissioner
can meet this burden: (1) by the testimony of a vocational expert;
or (2) by reference to the Medical-Vocational Guidelines.
C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 2.
See 20
The grids provided in the
Medical-Vocational Guidelines may satisfy the Commissioner’s burden
of coming forward with evidence as to the availability of jobs that
5
the claimant can perform only where the claimant suffers solely
from exertional impairments. Grant v. Schweiker, 699 F.2d 189, 192
(4th Cir. 1983).
Where the claimant demonstrates the presence of
nonexertional impairments, the Commissioner, in order to prevail,
must be required to prove by expert vocational testimony that
specific jobs exist in the national economy which the claimant can
perform.
Id.
Limitations are classified as exertional if they
affect your ability to meet the strength demands of jobs.
C.F.R. § 416.969a.
20
Limitations or restrictions which affect your
ability to meet demands other than sitting, standing, walking,
lifting,
carrying,
nonexertional.
pushing,
or
pulling,
are
considered
Id.
“It is well-established that when the claimant suffers only
from exertional impairments or his nonexertional impairments do not
significantly affect his residual functional capacity, the ALJ may
rely exclusively on the Medical-Vocational Rules in determining
whether there is other work available that the claimant can
perform.”
Charpentier v. Astrue, No, 09-1034, 2011 WL 2222262, at
*3
La.
(M.D.
nonexertional
Mar.
11,
2011).
limitations
Further,
do
not
if
the
significantly
individual’s
erode
the
occupational base, the ALJ may rely on the Medical-Vocational Rules
as a framework to support a finding of non-disability without
consulting a vocational expert.
(1983).
See SSR 83-14, 1983 WL 31254
In this case, the plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the
6
existence
of
any
nonexertional
impairments.
Moreover,
the
plaintiff’s additional limitations have little or no effect on the
occupational base of unskilled light work.
Therefore, this Court
finds that the ALJ’s decision to reply solely on the MedicalVocational Guidelines was proper.
In his objections, the plaintiff contends that his ability to
perform work is more restricted than suggested by the Commissioner
in
his
decision.
The
objections,
however,
only
repeat
the
plaintiff’s complaints of pain and revisit treatments he has
previously received. The plaintiff provides no additional evidence
to suggest that his impairments preclude him from all substantial
gainful activity.
Thus, the ALJ correctly relied upon Grid Rules
202.21 and 202.14 as a framework to support his finding that the
plaintiff is not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security
Act.
The plaintiff also objects to the magistrate judge’s finding
that the ALJ’s assessment of the RFC was proper and supported by
substantial evidence.
the
record
significantly
According to the plaintiff, the evidence in
demonstrates
beyond
that
that
his
found
limitations
by
the
and
pain
Commissioner.
are
In
determining the plaintiff’s RFC to perform light work as defined in
20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(b), the ALJ did acknowledge and consider the
claimant’s severe impairments, noting that “they have more than a
minimal effect on his ability to function, [but] they are not
7
totally disabling and do not preclude the performance of all
substantial
additional
gainful
activity.”
limitations,
(R.
described
19.)
The
plaintiff’s
as
his
ability
to
“only
occasionally climb, crawl, crouch, kneel, stoop and/or squat,” were
found to have little or no effect on the occupational base of
unskilled light work.
(R. 20.)
The ALJ made this finding after
considering all of the plaintiff’s symptoms and the extent to which
those symptoms could reasonably be accepted as consistent with the
objective medical evidence. (R. 17.) The limitations described by
the plaintiff in his objections -- his severe pain in his back,
right hip, and right knee, which is aggravated by standing,
walking, movement, exercise, running, and sitting -- were carefully
and fairly reviewed, along with all of the relevant medical
evidence of record, by the ALJ. The medical records highlighted in
the plaintiff’s objections, including his treatments with Capital
Area Pain Management Associates, Dr. Samuel J. Rao, and Dr. Matthew
Beckwith, were all previously considered by the ALJ.
The ALJ also
notes that, “the claimant’s activities of daily living are not
apparently limited significantly by his back disorder.”
Importantly,
the
claimant
worked
at
the
substantial
(R. 18.)
gainful
activity level for over twelve years following his injury, and no
treating physician has expressed an opinion regarding his ability
to perform work-related functions.
8
(R. 18.)
Thus, this Court
finds that the ALJ’s RFC assessment is supported by substantial
evidence.
This Court has reviewed the record, as well as the parties’
motions for summary judgment, and after a de novo review, concurs
with the magistrate judge that the Commissioner’s decision that the
plaintiff was not disabled is supported by substantial evidence.
Accordingly, the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation is
affirmed and adopted in its entirety.
IV.
Conclusion
Based upon a de novo review, this Court hereby AFFIRMS and
ADOPTS the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in its
entirety.
Thus, for the reasons stated above, the defendant’s
motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 9) is GRANTED, the plaintiff’s
motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 8) is DENIED, and the decision
of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED.
It is further ORDERED that this
case be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and STRICKEN from the active
docket of this Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to transmit a copy of this memorandum
opinion and order to counsel of record herein. Pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 58, the Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment
on this matter.
9
DATED:
February 3, 2012
/s/ Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.
FREDERICK P. STAMP, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
10
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?