Coleman v. Kijakazi, No. 2:2022cv00248 - Document 24 (E.D. Va. 2023)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER - The Report and Recommendations is ADOPTED, ECF No. 21 . Plaintiff's summary judgment motion is DENIED, ECF No. 12 . The Commissioner's summary judgment motion is GRANTED, ECF No. 18 . The final decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED. Signed by Chief District Judge Mark S. Davis on 9/15/2023. (dbra, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Coleman v. Kijakazi Doc. 24 Case 2:22-cv-00248-MSD-LRL Document 24 Filed 09/15/23 Page 1 of 19 PageID# 174 UNITED STATES DISTRICT EASTERN DISTRICT COURT OF VIRGINIA Norfolk Division JESSICA E.C / 1 Plaintiff, Civil V. KILOLO No. 2:22cv248 KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. OPINION Jessica E.C. AND ("Plaintiff")/ ORDER with the assistance of counsel. brought this action seeking judicial review of the final decision of the Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (the w Commissioner") supplemental Act. (2) denying her disability Magistrate Judge; (3) ("R&R") of below, Security the United States Plaintiff's objections to the R&R; the Commissioner's response to forth and (1) cross-motions for summaiy judgment; the Report and Recommendation set for security income benefits under the Social Before the Court are: reasons claim the Plaintiff's court ADOPTS and (4) objections. For the the No. 21; R&R, ECF 1 The Committee on Court Administration and Case Management of the Judicial Conference of the United States has recommended that federal courts use only the first name and last initial of any non-government parties in Social Security cases due to privacy concerns endemic to such cases. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:22-cv-00248-MSD-LRL Document 24 Filed 09/15/23 Page 2 of 19 PageID# 175 DENIES Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, ECF No. GRANTS the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment, I, Pursuant Federal Rules to 28 of Civil Judge recommending U.S.C § 636(b) (1) (B) this Procedure, denied, be assigned and the granted. to Plaintiff's that Commissioner's ECF No. and matter 21. By this case motion Rule was 22. ECF No. The issued for copy of the Federal a R&R, response a 2023, the detailed R&R judgment be each party was and on July 25, on August 8, ECF 2023 . Rule of Legal Standard Civil Procedure A proper objection is reasonably to alert the district the objection. is to 72(b)(3), a district must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's 636(b)(1). Cir. referred the summary judgment disposition that has been properly objected to. 2023) of 23. Under as 72(b) summary cross-motion for Commissioner filed her II. § 18. the Court received Plaintiff's objections to the R&R. No. court ECF No. On July 11, advised of the right to file written objections, 2023, and Procedural Background United States Magistrate Judge for an R&R. Magistrate 12; Elijah V. Dunbar, (quoting United States v. 2007)). made, a Accord sufficient [ly] court of the 66 U.S.C. specific [] so true ground for F.4th 454, Midgette, 28 460 478 F.3d 616, (4th Cir. 622 (4th For portions of the R&R for which no proper objection district court need 2 review only for clear error. Case 2:22-cv-00248-MSD-LRL Document 24 Filed 09/15/23 Page 3 of 19 PageID# 176 Diamond v. (4th Cir. In court Judge Colonial Life & Accident Ins, Co,, reviewing ("ALJ")] a final administrative if they are 310, v. Astrue, omitted). 667 Substantial F.3d 470, evidence such but requires no more than decision, a reviewing [Administrative Law the correct 472 is (4th "more relevant legal standard. Cir. than a mere evidence as Berrhill, 139 accord Oakes v. In S. Ct. 1148, Kijakazi, undertaking 1154 (2019) 70 F.4th 207, scintilla. a reasonable this review, a (citations 212 Biestek omitted); 2023). (4th Cir. reviewing court does not reweigh conflicting evidence, make credibility determinations, substitute [its] 270 F.3d 171, deferential accurate 176 F.3d F.3d 176, (4th Cir. standard and conclusions" 983 judgment for that of the of logical review, 94 189 (4th Cir. (4th Cir. III. ALJ from Arakas v. Though this still the \\ Soc. (quoting Monroe 2020) must evidence Comm'r, or Mastro v. Apfel, (cleaned up). the bridge' to pass muster. 83, 2001) [ALJ] . // (citation 2012) mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. V. 315 supported by substantial evidence and were reached through application of Hancock F.3d 2005). must uphold the factual findings of the \\ 416 v. is a 'build to an their Sec. Admin., Colvin, 826 2016)). Applicable Regulations The ALJ is required to follow a five-step sequential analysis to evaluate whether an individual 3 has a requisite disability for Case 2:22-cv-00248-MSD-LRL Document 24 Filed 09/15/23 Page 4 of 19 PageID# 177 20 benefits under the Social Security Act. The sequential whether (1) analysis the determinable claimant the (2) activity; includes is and of in 404.1520(a). assessments: substantial the mental § following engaged severity physical the C.F.R. claimant's (3) impairments; gainful medically whether the claimant has an impairment that meets or equals one of the Social Security Administration's official impairments; (4) whether an impairment prevents the claimant from performing any past relevant work in light ("RFC"); and of (5) the claimant's whether the residual claimant capacity functional can adjust to employment other than past relevant work in light of the claimant's RFC, education, and work experience. Id. For mental impairment claims must § follow the This 404.1520a.2 degree of . . with others; mental] in moderate, 20 C.F.R. marked, the // in \\ ALJ from four in to the ALJ 20 \\ C.F.R. rate the [any medically broad functional remember, or apply information; interact persist, or maintain pace; § 404.1520a(b) (2) , these functional areas are mild, forth resulting impairment(s) concentrate, n set requires limitation : Understand, manage oneself. (such as Plaintiff's), procedure "technique" functional determinable areas assessment age, (c)(3). rated on a five-point or extreme. Id. § and adapt or Limitations scale: 404.1520a(c)(4). none, The 2 Plaintiff initially asserted both physical and mental impairments, but she does not challenge the ALJ's denial of relief with respect to her physical impairments. See ECF No. 13. 4 Case 2:22-cv-00248-MSD-LRL Document 24 Filed 09/15/23 Page 5 of 19 PageID# 178 ALJ uses these ratings to determine the \\ severity of the claimant's mental impairments for steps two and three of the fiveid. step analysis. a limitation is "marked for purposes of ft functioning claimant's effectively, this assessment if the appropriately, independently, and on a sustained basis is seriously limited. C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App'xl, a limitation is "extreme" . As particularly relevant here, § 404.1520a{d). § 12.00(F) (2) (d) if the claimant is . rt 20 By contrast. "not able to function . independently, appropriately, effectively, and on a sustained basis. // Id. § 12.00(F)(2)(e). Once the ALJ has rated the severity of each impairment, they will determine if any impairment then (or combination thereof) meets or is equivalent in severity to a listed mental disorder. 20 C.F.R. four steps § § 404.1520a(d) (2) . and five and If not, assess then the the ALJ will claimant's RFC. move // to Id. 404.1520a(d) (3) IV. Discussion Plaintiff offers two objections to the R&R. First, Plaintiff argues that the Magistrate Judge erred by concluding that the ALJ properly accounted for Plaintiff's mental health limitations when 2 In this case, the ALJ found that Plaintiff has a mild limitation in understanding, remembering, or applying information; a marked limitation in interacting with others; a moderate limitation in concentrating, persisting, or maintaining pace; and a moderate limitation in adapting or managing herself. R. 17-18. Taken together, these impairments did not meet the severity of a listed mental disorder, so the ALJ assessed Plaintiff's RFC. Id. at 18-19. 5 Case 2:22-cv-00248-MSD-LRL Document 24 Filed 09/15/23 Page 6 of 19 PageID# 179 crafting her RFC. ECF No. 22, at Second, 1. Plaintiff argues that the Magistrate Judge erred by concluding that the ALJ properly evaluated the Schreiber, opinion M.D. Id. of at Plaintiff's The 4. treating Court physician. addresses each Mark of these objections in turn.*^ Accounting for Mental Health Limitations in the RFC A. In her motion for summary judgment, after ALJ limitation concluding in her that ability Plaintiff argued that the Plaintiff to suffered interact with from The Magistrate Judge disagreed, 12 . the ALJ's restrictions in the RFC in social Plaintiff's marked limitation at 18 . Plaintiff however, now argues that ECF No. to 13, at and concluded that adequately accounted interaction. the marked failed others account for this limitation when crafting her RFC. a Magistrate ECF No. Judge for 21, did not explore the crux of Plaintiff's argument" that “the ALJ failed to reconcile the limitations in two different social legal interaction findings in [Step marked Three] limitation in the RFC determination at Step Four. She 1. The Court also argues reviewed the that. contrary remainder of the to R&R the Magistrate Judge's findings or reasoning. 6 the and n and ECF No. Magistrate found See Elijah, moderate no clear 22, at Judge's error in 66 F.4th at 460. Case 2:22-cv-00248-MSD-LRL Document 24 Filed 09/15/23 Page 7 of 19 PageID# 180 the ALJ failed to explain sufficiently how the evidence finding, in the record supported the RFC determination. As a preliminary matter, most that a claimant 453 Barnhart, claimant's related F.3d RFC, the functional at 3. the RFC is intended to measure the can do in a work and physical restrictions Id. setting despite the mental Hines imposed by her impairments. 559, 562 (4th ALJ must restriction Cir. first that 2006) . identify is evaluate each impairment- supported by and at 179. must record. specific medical facts and evidence support each conclusion, F.3d ALJ the how 826 Monroe, the a describe See Then, To V. logically explain how they weighed any contradictory evidence in reaching those 311 (4th Cir. conclusions. Thomas v. Berryhill, 916 F.3d 307, 2019). After reviewing the relevant portions of the record de novo, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge did not err in concluding that the ALJ appropriately accounted for Plaintiff's limitation in social interaction in crafting her RFC. ALJ thoroughly explained his RFC analysis, marked Here, the including providing an extensive discussion of the key record evidence and clear reasoning regarding the extent of the restrictions incorporated in the RFC. R. 19-24. clearer. Even if the ALJ's explanation at times could have been the ALJ's discussion sufficiently supports and explains 7 Case 2:22-cv-00248-MSD-LRL Document 24 Filed 09/15/23 Page 8 of 19 PageID# 181 his conclusions regarding the appropriate RFC. Plaintiff's arguments to the contrary are unpersuasive. First, Plaintiff limitation in social limitation in After the argues the ALJ at step three and RFC, but Plaintiff interaction same concluding that at in her step three that limitation in social interaction, RFC requires W a functioning. more R. at detailed 18. R. Plaintiff at 17, assessment Accordingly, found a marked It a moderate // is mistaken. has a marked the ALJ noted that the of the areas of mental the ALJ thoroughly discussed both Plaintiff's treatment history as well as the various medical opinions in her record. See R. at In doing so, he evaluated 19-21. and ultimately agreed with a medical assessment performed by Joseph Leitzer, Ph.D. in 2018. R. opined that Plaintiff was interact social with the contact. R. In assessing restrictions limitations public. but that see Plaintiff's Dr. In relevant part. 21. "moderately limited" 124-25; which that at R. at to did not forget his Step Three assessment. primarily with objects, in her ability to capable of limited 21. identified. his restriction to unskilled jobs was Leitzer the ALJ then assigned several RFC, correspond Leitzer she Dr. \\ \ the // R. He [social] moderate at went 22. on But to the note ordinarily involve [s] ALJ that dealing rather than with data or people,' which is consistent with the marked limitation in social functioning noted above. Id. (quoting Social Security Ruling 8 ("SSR") 85-15, 1985 Case 2:22-cv-00248-MSD-LRL Document 24 Filed 09/15/23 Page 9 of 19 PageID# 182 WL 56857, at the assessment, noting Though the ALJ could have provided a clearer *4) . that ALJ his was not in effect restrictions were contradicting consistent himself both with by Dr. Leitzer's finding of a moderate limitation and the ALJ's own prior Because the ALJ did not finding of a marked limitation. lesser disabling social limitation in constructing adopt a the RFC, Plaintiff's argument fails. Plaintiff next argues that the ALJ did not adequately explain how her the limitations ALJ, marked limitation in her in RFC. social contact ECF No. the RFC ultimately restricts 22, at was with As crafted by the 3. Plaintiff consistent to rare w interaction with the public" and "occasional interaction with co-workers and supervisors. social at abilities, limited contact with considers he supervisor coworkers. Plaintiff's persistence. But 19. and pace and supervisors or coworkers. to limitation restrictions the in in n extent social the at moderate that he RFC, the of 22. contact. It her for of the is simple and II only limitations limits sum Plaintiff's limitations public R. U reflects assessment assigns interaction with the public" But this In the ALJ's limitations. interaction with R. // in w ALJ's social tasks occasional when the ALJ concentration. to no more than u rare and "occasional interaction with the Id. that Plaintiff interaction this requires argument 9 argues is that more a marked extensive unpersuasive. The Case 2:22-cv-00248-MSD-LRL Document 24 Filed 09/15/23 Page 10 of 19 PageID# 183 restrictions marked in the limitation Comm'r of Soc. in the at *4-5 occasional to Dorsey v. (E.D. consistent See, I:13cv285, 2015 Tenn. WL with Plaintiff's e.g., Fiducia v. 4078192, at *4 (noting that a marked limitation in social adequately accounted claimant coworkers)/ fully interaction. No. 2015) interaction can be are social Sec. , {N.D.N.Y. July 2, limits RFC occasional 12, No. 2019) interaction with through an RFC that interaction Berryhill Mar. for with 3:18cvl03, the public and 2019 WL 1140178, (finding that a limitation to supervisors and coworkers adequately accounted for finding of marked limitation in social interaction); Kane v. Aug. 20, Saul, No. 2019) assessment 3:18cv746, (finding that that 2019 WL 7562760, substantial at *12 evidence (E.D. Va. supported RFC limited the plaintiff to no interaction with the public and occasional interaction with co-workers and supervisors despite a finding of a marked limitation in interacting with others at step 3) , report and recommendation adopted, 2020 WL 130134 Va. Jan. 10, 2020) (vacating and remanding Commissioner's that ALJ (E.D. final decision on other grounds) . Finally, Plaintiff properly how Plaintiff her marked limitation respond usual in ability social to situations meet interaction. in relevant part, appropriately work the did not explain is able to perform unskilled work despite Unskilled work requires, \\ contends any to of A these 10 No. 22, at the ability to: supervision, .... ECF coworkers, substantial basic loss and of work-related 4. Case 2:22-cv-00248-MSD-LRL Document 24 Filed 09/15/23 Page 11 of 19 PageID# 184 activities would occupational severely base. This, finding of disability. SSR 85-15, It marked 1985 WL is 56857, Plaintiff's limitation in in limit the potential turn, would justify at *4. contention social that the interaction is ALJ's finding inconsistent the Magistrate Judge noted. \\ of with requirements for unskilled work as defined by SSR 85-15. a the But as substantial loss cannot be precisely so a marked limitation does not necessarily equate to a defined. substantial {citing a // loss POMS DI for purpose of SSR 85-15. 25020.010(A)(3)(b)). The ECF No. Court is 21, aware at 21 of no authority finding that a marked limitation in social interaction alone necessarily constitutes a necessitates Indeed, nature if of (noting a finding anything, this that of substantial loss of ability" disability. SSR 85-15 See assessment. the \\ SSR is presumptive limitations for ECF reinforces \\ A section See not [mental] 85-15, No. the 1985 intended disorders, 13, that at 16. individualized WL to 56857, set at out *5 any but to emphasize the importance of thoroughness in evaluation on an individualized basis") . And it is clear from the ALJ's thorough discussion of Plaintiff's RFC that he found through an individualized assessment that Plaintiff can work in unskilled roles with the limitations proscribed in her RFC. Thus, ALJ the Magistrate sufficiently accounted Judge did not for err in finding that Plaintiff's marked limitation 11 the in Case 2:22-cv-00248-MSD-LRL Document 24 Filed 09/15/23 Page 12 of 19 PageID# 185 social interaction when crafting explained above and in the R&R, ALJ's RFC or to substitute 270 Mastro, Plaintiff's F.3d at Plaintiff's mental B. For the reasons substantial evidence supports the its judgment Therefore, 176. objection RFC. and it is not for this Court to reweigh determination, the evidence her regarding health the for that the of Court ALJ's the ALJ. overrules consideration of limitations. Evaluation of Dr, Plaintiff next argues that Schreiber's Opinion the Magistrate Judge erroneously accepted the ALJ's "terse and conclusory rejection" of the medical opinion M.D. of Plaintiff's ECF Schreiber No. 22, noted treating at on In 5. a physician, his checklist 2018 that Dr. medical Mark Schreiber, evaluation, Dr. had and Plaintiff marked extreme limitations in every area of mental functioning. 29. In September assessment 2021, reporting Dr. that because she no longer drove, most of the time. R. Schreiber added a note Plaintiff's condition to had did not leave the house, R. 1028- his 2018 worsened and was sad 1181. The ALJ reviewed these opinions but gave them little weight after with concluding substantial that Dr. evidence Magistrate Judge agreed, Schreiber's record. opinion ECF No. 21, is Schreiber's in the opinion record. was See inconsistent R. The 23. finding that the ALJ's assessment of Dr. supported by at 26-29. substantial evidence in the This Court begins by reviewing the 12 Case 2:22-cv-00248-MSD-LRL Document 24 Filed 09/15/23 Page 13 of 19 PageID# 186 relevant regulatory evidence from a framework treating for medical assessing provider opinion medical before turning to Plaintiff's specific challenge to the R&R. 1. Framework for Assessing Medical Opinions For disability claims Plaintiff's), \\ to filed before March 27, 2017 (such medical opinions by treating providers are entitled controlling weight" unless the opinion is based on medically unacceptable clinical or laboratory diagnostic techniques. is inconsistent 20 C.F.R. § with other substantial that the (2) (5) proper weight (1) to afford the medical other the it record. Id. // opinion by relationship which tend § opinion then the ALJ must determine consistency; (3) factors opinion. the treatment supportability; any in treating physician's is not entitled to controlling weight, factors: evidence or 404.1527(c)(2). If the ALJ determines the as to considering with the several claimant; specialization; (4) support or contradict and the Supportability 404.1527(c) (2)- (6) . measures the extent to which a source explains its medical opinion and § supports 404.1527(c) (3) . medical § its opinion findings with relevant evidence. Consistency is a measure of how is with the record as a Id. consistent whole. II a Id. 404.1527 (c) (4) . Though the ALJ is factor-by-factor analysis not required to set forth a detailed in order to discount a medical opinion 13 Case 2:22-cv-00248-MSD-LRL Document 24 Filed 09/15/23 Page 14 of 19 PageID# 187 from a treating physician, it // must be clear from the decision that the ALJ considered each factor before deciding how much weight Dowling v. to give the opinion. F.3d 377, multiple 385 (4th medical Cir. Comm'r 2021) . Soc. Finally, the opinions. of ALJ Sec. when need a not Admin,, source explain considered each opinion — a single analysis may suffice. 2. evidence 2018 of // argues when he controlling that ALJ that ignored complete Schreiber's Dr. and tt ECF No. asserts C.F.R. lines opinion of in the therefore not 22, at 4 that the ALJ, entitled (quoting as R. well to 23). as the failed to consider evidence from Deborah Reese, LCSW and Barbara Haskins, Schreiber's the treatment Plaintiff Magistrate Judge, 20 he not consistent with the longitudinal evidence weight. Specifically, how Analysis concluded evaluation was [Plaintiff's] offers This framework guides the Court's review below. § 404.1520c(b)(1). Plaintiff 986 opinion. Psy.D, Id. at which were 5. Thus, consistent with Dr. she argues, the ALJ's conclusion discounting Dr. Schreiber's opinion is not supported by substantial Plaintiff Magistrate evidence. Judge based his finding rather than the ALJ's own reasoning. de novo review of agrees with the the relevant Magistrate further on post Id. 14 hoc that the rationalization But based on the Court's portions of Judge claims that the record. substantial the Court evidence Case 2:22-cv-00248-MSD-LRL Document 24 Filed 09/15/23 Page 15 of 19 PageID# 188 supports the ALJ's determination Schreiber's opinion. a. ECF No. of 21, the at weight afforded to Dr. 26-29. Erroneous Evaluation of Dr. Schreiber's Findings Notwithstanding Plaintiff's argument to the contrary, the ALJ did not ignore "complete lines of evidence" when he concluded that Schreiber's Dr. As medical opinion was a preliminary matter, though every medical opinion in the u contradicted by record. generally consider the ALJ must record, the 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a) (1) , there is no rigid requirement that the ALJ specifically refer to every piece Soc. Sec. , of evidence in 769 F.3d 861, 865 quotation marks omitted). [his] decision. (4th Cir 2014) Though Reid f/ V. Comm'r of (internal citation and the ALJ did not reference Ms. Reese by name, he quoted from her records extensively in discussing Plaintiff's treatment history and consistency with Dr. Schreiber's medical opinion. Judge, for reference records See R. 17-18, Ms. which Reese's indicated 21, records). that As did the Magistrate 23-24. See ECF No. that matter. to 21, at 28 Indeed, Plaintiff (citing the ALJ's it was attended AA Ms. Reese's meetings daily and had taken her daughter to meet her father at Top Golf, which were inconsistent with Schreiber's Dr. noting that she did not leave the house. Nor did observations. Haskins's the On ALJ or Magistrate the observations contrary. Judge the informative 15 See ALJ // R. medical 23, overlook noted but that opinion 1125, Dr. he ultimately both of 1194. Haskins's found Dr. gave her Case 2:22-cv-00248-MSD-LRL Document 24 Filed 09/15/23 Page 16 of 19 PageID# 189 internally inconsistent. assessment little weight because it was R. at 22-23; see also ECF No. 21, at The 19. ALJ reasoned tt that though Dr. Haskins opined that Plaintiff's ability to attend work was "poor, deficits, she also required found that Plaintiff no heightened appropriate social functioning. 21, at 19. exhibited no cognitive supervision, See R. 22-23; Having already concluded that Dr. warranted little weight, and see exhibited also Haskins's opinion Schreiber's medical opinion did not entitle his opinion to greater weight. Astrue, 457 F. App'x 326, 328 (4th No. required to explain why the ALJ was not any statement purportedly consistent with Dr. V. ECF Cir. 2011) See Smith (reading and considering the ALJ's decision in its entirety to determine whether substantial evidence supports the decision). Though Plaintiff certain statements herein, it would have preferred from certain providers is not the role of this evidence or substitute its judgment 434 F.3d at 476 . Court that over to the ALJ others, as credit noted reweigh conflicting for the ALJ's. See Hancock, Plaintiff's objection to the Magistrate Judge's analysis is therefore overruled. b. Post Hoc Rationalization Plaintiff's final argument is that the Magistrate Judge based his conclusion on a \\ post hoc rationalization of evidence that was 16 Case 2:22-cv-00248-MSD-LRL Document 24 Filed 09/15/23 Page 17 of 19 PageID# 190 not included in the ALJ's [decision] . R. // 22, at 4.5 Plaintiff argues that this alleged post hoc rationalization is improper and requires remand. Plaintiff Id. is at 4-5. correct that long-standing principles of administrative law prohibit reviewing courts from affirming agency- action agency on any basis See Kirk v. itself. (4th Cir. 2021); other than that Comm'r of Soc. Arakas, 983 Sec. Admin., F.3d at 109. the Magistrate Judge's discussion of record was more First, robust Plaintiff articulated to 987 the F.3d 314, 321 But even assuming that supporting examples than the ALJ's, fails by in the remand is not warranted. demonstrate that the Magistrate Judge relied on some reason other than those offered by the ALJ to affirm the ALJ's Importantly, discounted treatment, Schreiber's Magistrate Schreiber's with // of Dr. Schreiber's opinion. the Magistrate Judge found that that the ALJ properly Dr. consistent evaluation own notes. Judge because his longitudinal the including opinions Plaintiff's ECF further No. 21, evidence treatment at substantiated 26-27. the opinion was of Plaintiff's records, The ALJ's not fact and Dr. that the conclusion by reference to additional specific examples in Plaintiff's treatment 5 It is unclear what evidence, specifically. Plaintiff takes issue with. Indeed, her argument is limited to a general assertion that the Magistrate Judge "engage[d] in a discussion of evidence that simply did not exist in the ALJ's decision. ECF No. 22, at 5. But the Court endeavors address Plaintiff's argument and focuses its analysis on pages 26 28 of the R&R as referenced by Plaintiff. 17 to fully through Case 2:22-cv-00248-MSD-LRL Document 24 Filed 09/15/23 Page 18 of 19 PageID# 191 records noted — treatment that conclusion. Second, he had See which the does reviewed R. even records ALJ not cited extensively and undercut the preceding 19-23. assuming for the sake of argument that the Magistrate Judge's inclusion of additional examples could be said to include post hoc reasoning, these examples do not undercut the judicial conclusion that the ALJ's explanation of the shortcomings and inconsistencies of Schreiber's Dr. opinion In other words, support the ALJ's ruling. without relying on any post hoc reasoning, the ALJ provided Schreiber's therefore opinion a sufficient sufficient novo to review and this Court finds that for Plaintiff's finding Dr. objection is overruled. For these reasons, Conclusion the R&R is ADOPTED, summary judgment motion is DENIED, decision on de explanation unpersuasive.® V. summary is judgment of the motion is Commissioner ECF No. GRANTED, ECF is AFFIRMED. ECF No. 12, No. 21, Plaintiff's the Commissioner's 18, and the final The Clerk is requested ® As noted herein, so long as the ALJ's ruling is supported by substantial evidence, it is not the role of this Court to substitute its judgment for the ALJ's, even if the Court believes that a contrary ruling would likewise be reasonable. Here, the ALJ's discounting of Dr. Schreiber's opinion is sound because his medical opinion was inconsistent with "other substantial evidence" in the record including Dr. Schreiber's treating notes and other evidence cited by the ALJ. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). 18 Case 2:22-cv-00248-MSD-LRL Document 24 Filed 09/15/23 Page 19 of 19 PageID# 192 to forward a copy of this Opinion and Order to all /s /Ma S. Davis counsel of record. IT IS SO ORDERED. Mark CHIEF Norfolk, Virginia September )5 , 2023 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
