Berry v. Colvin

Filing 20

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 19 Objections; accepting and incorporating the 16 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge; denying Plaintiff's 11 request for judgment on the pleadings; granting the Commissioner's [12 ] request for judgment on the pleadings; affirming the decision of the Commissioner; further dismissing this action with prejudice and directing the Clerk to remove it from the docket of the Court. Signed by Judge Robert C. Chambers on 3/31/2015. (cc: attys; any unrepresented parties) (mkw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
HUNTINGTON DIVISION

DONNA SUE BERRY,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-9859

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of the
Social Security Administration,
Defendant.
ORDER
This action was referred to the Honorable R. Clarke VanDervort, United States
Magistrate Judge, for submission to this Court of proposed findings of fact and recommendation for
disposition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(B). The Magistrate Judge has submitted Findings of
Fact and recommended that Plaintiff Donna Sue Berry=s motion for judgment on the pleadings be
denied, that the like motion of Defendant be granted, and the decision of the Commissioner be
affirmed. ECF No. 16.

Plaintiff now raises two objections to the Proposed Findings and

Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. ECF No. 19. This Court must "make a de novo
determination of those portions of the . . . [Magistrate Judge's] proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(C).

Plaintiff’s first objection is that the Magistrate Judge erred in finding that the
Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) residual functional capacity (RFC) determination was
adequate. Plaintiff argues that the ALJ failed to comply with Social Security Ruling (SSR) 96-8p,

which provides a “RFC assessment is a function-by-function assessment based upon all of the
relevant evidence of an individual’s ability to do work-related activities.” Social Security Ruling
96-8p, 61 Fed. Reg. 34474, 34476 (1996). Plaintiff specifically argues that the ALJ failed to
address how long Plaintiff could stand, walk, or sit, how much she could carry, whether she had
pushing/pulling restrictions, or whether she could work a full work day. Plaintiff asserts that only
after the functional limitations are assessed may a RFC be expressed in terms of exertional levels
of work such as sedentary, light, medium, heavy, and very heavy. However, as addressed by the
Magistrate Judge, any error of the ALJ in this case was harmless as the ALJ “identified the
exertional category, less than full range of light, which is more than sedentary, plus the specifically
delineated nonexertional limitations, which are supported by the evidence of record.” Prop.
Findings and Recommendations, at 19 (ECF No. 16). In this instance, the Court further finds that
the ALJ’s failure “to assess . . . [Plaintiff’s] capacity to perform [some] relevant functions” does
not “frustrate meaningful review.” Mascio v. Colvin, No. 13-2088, 2015 WL 1219530, *3 (4th Cir.
Mar. 18, 2015). Therefore, the Court denies this objection.

In addition, the Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s objection to the ALJ’s evaluation of
the psychological opinions and finds it without merit. As stated by the Magistrate Judge, the
ALJ’s analysis of the psychological opinions of record is set forth in the ALJ’s decision and is
supported by substantial evidence in the record. Prop. Findings and Recommendations, at 19.

Accordingly, based upon this Court’s review, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s
objections,

ACCEPTS

AND

INCORPORTES

HEREIN

the

Findings

and

the

Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge, DENIES Plaintiff’s request for judgment on the

-2-

pleadings (ECF No. 11), GRANTS the Commissioner’s request for judgment on the pleadings
(ECF No. 12), and AFFIRMS the decision of the Commissioner.

The Court further

DISMISSES this action WITH PREJUDICE and DIRECTS the Clerk to remove it from the
docket of the Court.

The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record
and any unrepresented parties.
ENTER:

-3-

March 31, 2015