Hadley v. Commissioner Of Social Security Administration et al
Filing
19
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 17 AND OVERRULING THE PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS 18 . The defendant's 14 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED; the Plaintiff's 12 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and STRICKEN from the active docket of this Court. Signed by Senior Judge Frederick P. Stamp, Jr on 12/29/14. Clerk directed to enter judgment.(cc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
MICHELLE DENISE HADLEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action No. 5:14CV26
(STAMP)
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING THE
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
AND OVERRULING THE PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS
I.
Background
The plaintiff seeks judicial review of the final decision of
the
defendant.
The
plaintiff
suffers
from
certain
medical
conditions, including depression, fibromyalgia, obesity, chronic
back pain, sleep apnea, asthma, and osteoarthritis. Further, the
plaintiff testified that she drives to go to work and to run
errands, and works approximately 18 hours a week. However, her
fibromyalgia does “flare up” in which case she requires bed rest.
Because of those and other medical complications, she sought Social
Security benefits. Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) William R.
Paxton found that the plaintiff did not have an impairment that
satisfies the requirements of the Social Security Act. Further, the
ALJ found that many jobs exist that the plaintiff could seek to
work in which would not aggravate her conditions. The plaintiff
appealed the ALJ’s decision, where the Appeals Council affirmed it.
After the plaintiff filed her complaint, the parties filed
motions
for
summary
judgment.
The
plaintiff
argued
that
the
defendant failed to consider her doctor’s medical opinion which
more
severely
stated
the
plaintiff’s
condition.
Further,
the
plaintiff asserts that when the ALJ determined the severity of her
medical impairments, he failed to analyze her subjective pain and
instead solely focused on the objective aspect of her illnesses.
However, in its motion for summary judgment, the defendant asserts
that the ALJ’s opinion is based on substantial evidence and should
be affirmed. Specifically, the defendant argues that the plaintiff
failed to demonstrate that she is disabled as provided under the
relevant regulations.
Following the motions for summary judgment, the magistrate
judge entered his report and recommendation, finding for the
defendant. Specifically, the magistrate judge found that the ALJ
correctly applied the five step evaluation process in both its
totality
and
magistrate
at
judge
each
individual
determined
substantial evidence.
The
the
step.
ALJ’s
More
importantly,
decision
was
based
the
on
magistrate judge first found that the
ALJ properly evaluated the mental assessment proffered by the
parties. Second, the magistrate judge determined that the ALJ
adequately examined both the subjective and objective aspects of
the plaintiff’s credibility regarding her pain. For those reasons,
2
the
magistrate
judge
recommended
that
this
Court
grant
the
defendant’s motion and deny the plaintiff’s motion.
The plaintiff timely filed objections. The plaintiff maintains
one objection, which is that the ALJ did not consider and properly
articulate how her limitations would affect her ability to work.
Because of that, the plaintiff claims that the alleged error in
both the magistrate judge and ALJ’s findings requires this Court to
remand
the
magistrate
decision.
judge’s
For
the
report
and
reasons
set
forth
recommendation
is
below,
the
affirmed
and
adopted.
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.
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
“Under the Social Security Act, [a reviewing court] must
uphold the factual findings of the Secretary if they are supported
by substantial evidence and were reached through application of the
3
correct legal standard.”
Cir. 1996).
Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 589 (4th
“Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”
Id.
A
reviewing
court
“does
not
reweigh
evidence
or
make
credibility determinations in evaluating whether a decision is
supported by substantial evidence; ‘[w]here conflicting evidence
allows reasonable minds to differ,’ we defer to the Commissioner’s
decision.”
Thompson v. Astrue, 442 F. App’x 804, 805 (4th Cir.
2011) (quoting Johnson v. Barnhart, 434 F.3d 650, 653 (4th Cir.
2005)).
Finally, because the plaintiff proceeds pro se, she is
entitled to a liberal construction of her pleadings.
Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Miller v. Barnhart, 64 F.
App’x 858 (4th Cir. 2003).
As noted above, the plaintiff generally contends in her motion
for summary judgment that the ALJ improperly conducted the fivestep sequential evaluation process. Based on the record before it,
this
Court
sequential
disagrees.
evaluation
The
ALJ
process
to
properly
used
determine
if
the
a
five-step
claimant
disabled, pursuant to 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 and 416.920.
is
In order
to determine if a claimant is “disabled” under the Social Security
Act, the ALJ uses a five-step sequential evaluation.
Under this
five-step process, the ALJ determines whether: (1) the claimant
engages
in
“substantial
gainful
activity”;
(2)
the
claimant
maintains a “severe medically determinable physical or mental
4
impairment;” (3) the impairment satisfies one of the listings
contained in the regulations; (4) when considering the claimant’s
“residual functional capacity” (“RFC”), the claimant is able to
engage in his or her “past relevant work;” and (5) the claimant
“can make an adjustment to other work.”
20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a),
416.920(a); see also Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir.
2012).
After considering the above analysis and the record, the
magistrate judge correctly determined that the ALJ’s findings were
supported by substantial evidence.
First, the ALJ correctly
determined that the plaintiff has not engaged in any substantial
gainful activity since October 2, 2008. Second, the plaintiff did
suffer from a severe medical impairment, which the ALJ determined.
Specifically, the ALJ found that the plaintiff suffered from
obesity, fibromyalgia, asthma, and a plethora of other illnesses.
That determination included not only physical impairments, but
mental impairments such as depression. Third, the ALJ properly
concluded that the plaintiff’s impairments did not satisfy the
severity
requirement
and
that
her
severity was seriously in doubt.
credibility
regarding
the
The ALJ properly noted the
inconsistencies between the plaintiff’s claims of the severity of
her ailments and the findings in the record.
However, the plaintiff claims that the ALJ failed to properly
evaluate the severity of the plaintiff’s fibromyalgia, specifically
5
the subjective aspect of it. As provided in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529,
a two-part test is used in evaluating the limiting effects of the
claimant’s subjective symptoms. First, objective medical evidence
is examined that must show that a medical determinable impairment
exists. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. Specifically, the impairment must
“reasonably be expected to produce” the actual pain that the
claimant alleges. Id. Second, the intensity, persistence, and
limiting effects of the claimant’s pain and symptoms must be
evaluated to determine their effect on the claimant’s ability to
work. Id.; SSR 96-7p. Further, Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 96-7p
provides
additional
factors
to
consider
when
examining
the
claimant’s credibility. As the report and recommendation properly
states, those factors include medical signs and laboratory reports,
medical opinions, medical history, treatments, prior work record,
daily activities, and other similar information.
When applying that test, the ALJ properly evaluated step one
of
the
two
part
test,
finding
that
the
plaintiff’s
medical
impairments could be reasonably expected to cause some of the
symptoms that the plaintiff alleged exist. Regarding the second
step, the ALJ fully analyzed the subjective evidence, and through
that noted inconsistencies in the plaintiff’s claims. For example,
during the hearing, the plaintiff claimed that she had difficulty
sleeping, but her medical history notes an improved sleep pattern.
Essentially, the ALJ properly found that the plaintiff did not face
6
as extreme of limitations as she claimed. That demonstrated some
doubts regarding the plaintiff’s credibility. Therefore, such
inconsistencies justified the ALJ’s doubts about the plaintiff’s
credibility when describing the severity of her illnesses.
Fourth, the ALJ correctly determined that the plaintiff was
incapable of performing past relevant work. In particular, the ALJ
noted that she could only perform certain sedentary work. Based on
the substantial evidence before him, the ALJ accurately found that
the plaintiff was incapable of performing her past relevant work.
Finally,
the
ALJ
did
find
that
the
plaintiff,
based
on
her
education, age, work experience, and RFC, could find one of many
suitable jobs that exist in today’s economy. Therefore, the ALJ
denied the plaintiff’s claim for benefits. Accordingly, after
reviewing the five-step evaluation and the evidence, the ALJ’s
decisions were based on substantial evidence. Furthermore, this
Court agrees with the findings of the magistrate judge concerning
his report and recommendation of the plaintiff’s action and the
ALJ’s decision.
As mentioned earlier, the plaintiff filed an objection to the
magistrate
judge’s
report
and
recommendation.
The
plaintiff
maintains only one objection, which is that the magistrate judge
“erred in finding that the ALJ complied with SSR 96-8p and that the
ALJ’s [residual functional capacity] determination was sufficient.”
Specifically, she argues that the ALJ failed to include limitations
7
in his RFC analysis despite finding that the plaintiff had moderate
limitations in her concentration, persistence, or pace under the
third step of the evaluation process. ECF No. 18. Social Security
Ruling 96-8p is a policy interpretation used when assessing the RFC
in initial claims for disability benefits. The plaintiff claims
that in evaluating her mental impairments, the ALJ incorrectly
conducted the “special technique” as required under the relevant
regulations.
Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a), an ALJ must assess any alleged
mental impairments of a claimant using a “special technique.”
Specifically, the technique “is used to analyze whether a claimant
has
a
medically
determinable
mental
impairment,”
as
well
as
“whether that impairment causes functional limitations.” Craft v.
Astrue, 539 F.3d 668, 674 (7th Cir. 2008). The special technique
requires the ALJ to evaluate a claimant’s “pertinent symptoms,
signs, and laboratory findings” to establish whether the claimant
has a “medically determinable mental impairment,” as required under
20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(b)(1). If such an impairment is found, then
the ALJ must then rate the degree of functional limitation under
four
functional
areas:
“[a]ctivities
of
daily
living;
social
functioning; concentration, persistence, or pace; and episodes of
decompensation. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(2012). Following that
initial analysis, then the ALJ must engage in the process described
below:
8
The first three functional areas are rated on a
five-point scale of none, mild, moderate, marked, and
extreme. The final functional area is rated on a
four-point scale of none, one or two, three, and four or
more. The ratings in the functional areas correspond to
a determination of severity of mental impairment. If the
ALJ rates the first three functional areas as none or
mild and the fourth area as none, then generally the
impairment is not considered severe. Otherwise, the
impairment is considered severe, and the ALJ must
determine whether it meets or is equivalent in severity
to a listed mental disorder. If the mental impairment
does not meet or is not equivalent to any listing, then
the ALJ will assess the claimant's RFC. The ALJ must
document use of the special technique by incorporating
the pertinent findings and conclusions into the written
decision. The decision must elaborate on significant
medical history, including examination and laboratory
findings, and the functional limitations that were
considered in reaching a conclusion about the mental
impairment's severity. The decision must also incorporate
“a specific finding as to the degree of limitation in
each of the functional areas.”
Craft, 539 F.3d at 674-75 (internal citations omitted). Regarding
the above analysis, the plaintiff claims that the ALJ failed “to
state
how”
the
plaintiff’s
limitations
in
“concentration,
persistence or pace would affect her ability to perform workrelated tasks.” However, the plaintiff’s objection is an inaccurate
statement of the ALJ’s requirements. The ALJ must “connect the
evidence
bridge.’”
to
the
Stewart
2009)(internal
conclusion
v.
through
Astrue,
citations
561
omitted).
an
‘accurate
F.3d
In
679,
the
684
ALJ’s
and
logical
(7th
Cir.
opinion,
he
described how the medical opinions of Dr. Joseph Shaver and Dr. Bob
Marinelli both remained consistent. In those medical opinions, the
doctors analyzed the plaintiff’s RFC and determined that the
9
plaintiff had moderate limitations in concentration, persistence,
and
pace.
The
plaintiff
correctly
points
out
that
the
ALJ
determined that she suffered from moderate limitations due to her
mental impairments. More importantly, however, the ALJ found that
“[the plaintiff] is limited to understanding, remembering and
carrying out simple instructions.” R. 18. The ALJ based that
conclusion
on
sufficient
objective
and
subjective
evidence.
Further, the ALJ indicated that such conclusions and limitations
were considered in his findings regarding the plaintiff’s ability
to perform work-related tasks. See R. 25. In fact, the ALJ, when
analyzing the plaintiff’s ability to perform tasks, notes that “the
claimant’s ability to perform all or substantially all of the
requirements of [sedentary work] has been impeded by additional
limitations [referring to her mental impairments].” It is also
worth noting again that the ALJ acknowledged and concluded that the
plaintiff suffers limitations in “understanding, remember and
carrying out simple instructions.” Such instances and reasoning
provided the logical bridge that is required of the ALJ in this
case. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s objection is overruled.
IV.
Conclusion
Based upon a de novo review, the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation is hereby AFFIRMED and ADOPTED.
Thus, for the
reasons stated above, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment
is GRANTED and the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is
10
DENIED.
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.
DATED:
December 29, 2014
/s/ Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.
FREDERICK P. STAMP, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
11
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?