Stansbury v. Kijakazi, No. 2:2022cv00400 - Document 20 (E.D. Va. 2023)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER- IT IS ORDERED, that the R&R is ADOPTED, ECF No. 17, Plaintiff's summary judgment motion is DENIED, ECF No. 12, and the final decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED.Signed by Chief District Judge Mark S. Davis on 11/30/2023. (Vpea)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Stansbury v. Kijakazi Doc. 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Norfolk Division MARTI S / ^ Plaintiff, Civil V. KILOLO No. 2:22cv400 KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. OPINION AND Marti S. ("Plaintiff"), with ORDER the assistance of counsel, brought this action seeking judicial review of the final decision of the Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (the "Commissioner") denying under the Social Security Act. her claim Before for the disability Court are: benefits Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment; the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of the United States Magistrate Judge; the R&R; and finally the objections. R&R, ECF ECF No. No. 12; Plaintiff's objections to Commissioner's response For the reasons set forth below, 17; and to Plaintiff's the court ADOPTS the DENIES Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. AFFIRMS the Commissioner's decision to deny ^ 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. Dockets.Justia.com Plaintiff's claim for disability benefits under Social the Security Act. I. Pursuant Federal Rules to 28 of Civil PROCEDURAL U.S.C § BACKGROUND 636(b)(1)(B) this Procedure, and Rule matter 72(b) was of referred On September 5, United States Magistrate Judge for an R&R. the to a 2023, the Magistrate Judge assigned to this case issued a detailed R&R recommending that Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment denied and the Commissioner's final decision be affirmed. ECF be No. 17 . By copy of the R&R, each party was advised of the right to file written and received objections, Plaintiff's Commissioner on objections filed her September to response on the 19, ECF R&R. September the 2023, 29, No. Court 18. 2023. The ECF No. 19 . II. Under Rule 72(b)(3) a district court w LEGAL of STANDARD the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to. 28 U.S.C. specific [] § 636(b)(1). so as A proper reasonably to alert true ground for the objection. 460 616, (4th Cir. 622 2023) (4th Cir. objection the Dunbar, (quoting United States v. 2007)). proper objection is made. For portions of a district 2 sufficient[ly] is district Elijah V. tt Accord It court 66 of the F.4th 454, Midgette, 478 F.3d the R&R for which no court need only review for clear Diamond v. error. F.3d 310, 315 committee's Colonial (4th Cir. 2005); Life & Accident 416 72 advisory see also Fed.R.Civ.P. a final administrative decision, court must uphold the factual findings of the Judge ("ALJ")] a reviewing [Administrative Law if they are supported by substantial evidence and reached through application of the correct legal standard. Johnson v. 434 F.3d 650, Barnhart, 667 Hancock v. Astrue, omitted). Substantial F.3d 470, evidence such but requires no more than 653 472 (4th Cir. (4th more is relevant Cir. than 2005); a mere evidence as Berryhill, 139 accord Oakes v. In S. Ct. 1148, Kijakazi, undertaking 70 this 1154 (2019) F.4th 207, review, a 212 (citation scintilla. a Biestek tt omitted); 2023) . (4th Cir. court does not reweigh conflicting evidence, make credibility determinations, substitute [its] 76 F.3d F.3d 585, 171, standard logical muster. 589 176 of judgment for that of the [ALJ] . (4th (4th review, bridge' Cir. the from Arakas v. Cir. 1996); 2001). ALJ the Comm'r, see Though still evidence Soc. also W to Sec. 3 must // 'build their Admin., Craig v. Mastro v. this is an a or Chater, Apfel, 270 deferential accurate conclusions 983 n reasonable (citations reviewing // s^ also 2012) mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. V . Co.; note. In reviewing were Ins. tt F.3d 83, and to pass 94 (4th Cir. 2020) 826 F.3d 176; (quoting Monroe v. Colvin; 189 (4th Cir. 2016)). III. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS The ALJ is required to follow a five-step sequential analysis to evaluate whether an individual has a requisite disability for benefits under the Social Security Act. The sequential (1) whether the (2) activity; determinable includes analysis claimant is the engaged 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a). following in assessments: substantial gainful the degree of severity of the claimant's medically physical and mental impairments; (3) 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 ("RFC"); light and of (5) the claimant's whether the residual claimant can functional adjust to capacity employment other than past relevant work in light of the claimant's RFC; age, education, and work experience. Id. For mental impairment claims must follow 404.1520a. of . . with others; assessment procedure set forth in 20 the ALJ C.F.R. This "technique" requires the ALJ to "rate the degree functional determinable areas the (such as Plaintiff's), limitation mental] resulting impairment(s) : Understand, concentrate, remember, persist, 4 tt in \\ from [any medically four broad functional or apply information; or maintain pace; interact and adapt or manage oneself. in these mild, ALJ functional moderate, uses 20 C.F.R. // areas are marked, these § 404.1520a(b) (2), rated on a five-point Id. or extreme. ratings to (c) (3) . § determine Limitations scale: none, 404.1520a(c)(4). severity the The of tt the claimant's mental impairments for steps two and three of the five- step analysis. id. § 404.1520a(d). Once the ALJ has rated the severity of each impairment, they will \\ determine if any impairment (or then combination thereof) meets or is equivalent in severity to a listed mental disorder. 20 C.F.R. steps § § four 404.1520a(d)(2). and five and If not, assess then the the ALJ will claimant's move RFC. // to Id. 404.1520a{d)(3). IV. Plaintiff offers is to DISCUSSION three objections to the a variation on Plaintiff's properly psychiatrist Plaintiff evaluate William contends the core opinion McDaniel. that the argument ALJ of ECF tf that ECF No. cherry picked 18, at 1. No. overstated Second, each of the ALJ [Plaintiff's] 13, at 1. Plaintiff's travel and therefore improperly evaluated Dr. opinion. R&R, \\ which failed treating First, ability to McDaniel's medical Plaintiff argues that the ALJ from Dr. McDaniel's treatment notes by emphasizing positive entries in Plaintiff's medical history without accounting for Plaintiff's medical challenges. Id. at 3. Finally, Plaintiff contends that the ALJ "improperly relied on Plaintiff's ability to 5 engage work in group therapy as evidence of her ability to act setting. Id. 1! at The 4. Court addresses each in a of these objections in turn.^ A. The ALJ's Plaintiff contends Plaintiff's travels opinion. ECF Plaintiff has No. so Id. when 18, and the the at excluded ALJ ALJ examined Dr. The 1-2. Plaintiff's medical limitations in her argument "depressed mood runs, context ability to attended states to R. // of It medical McDaniel's opinion failed that u Travel the or use public transportation. Plaintiff's anxiety" that extreme unfamiliar places ALJ, Consideration of that travel 3114. The for account Plaintiff's in the trips. The Magistrate Judge disagreed and instead found that the ALJ determined reasonably treatment notes R. opinion. that Dr. McDaniel's inconsistent were u with more his encouraging ultimate medical 3114. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge and the ALJ. As both jurists point out, Dr. McDaniel's treatment notes include the that observations Plaintiff volunteers participates in groups family [and] friends in Colorado, No. 17, at 35. While outside without difficulty. the and of her travels to Florida, and West Virgnia. ALJ's assessment of home. Plaintiff's visit // ECF travel did not always reflect the emotional and physical challenges that 2 The Court reviewed the remainder of the R&R the Magistrate Judge's findings or reasoning. 6 and found no See Elijah, clear error in 66 F.4th at 460. apparently attended these visits, nevertheless R. 39-45, the ALJ's assessment Biestek, satisfied applicable standards. at 1154, citing Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. S.Ct. 197, 229 (an ALJ must support an appraisal of a medical opinion with (1938) such 139 relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.") Indeed, the ALJ repeatedly addressed Plaintiff's mental and physical health records in the analysis immediately preceding the ALJ's appraisal of Dr. McDaniel's opinion, noting Plaintiff's struggles with "anxiety" and "anger issues and depression. other R. challenges. The 39. evidence once in [their] decision. ALJ n need only review n among medical and the ALJ thoroughly examined It Plaintiff's medical history before rendering an assessment of Dr. McDaniel's opinion.^ R. B. Second, 39-45. Cherrypicking Argument Plaintiff argues that the ALJ, Judge, have cherry-picked or relied on of [Plaintiff's mental McDaniel's opinion. 3 ECF Plaintiff also contends health] No. \\ and now the Magistrate an overly selective reading when record 17, at Specifically, 36. Comm'r of Soc. 2014, Plaintiff provided disorder. WL 2147306 lower id. (4th Cir. courts But the Dr. Plaintiff that the Magistrate Judge erred by affirming the ALJ's analysis contrary to Shelley C. v. 2023 appraising binding ALJ's 2023). guidance decision to on Sec. Admin., No.21- is mistaken; Shelley C. major depressive evaluating discount Dr. McDaniel's medical opinion based on inconsistencies with treatment notes is well within the ALJ's discretion to address supportability "conflicting evidence," and "make credibility C.F.R. § 4 04.152 7 (c) (3)- (4) ; Hancock, 4 34 7 and consistency, determinations. F.3d at 476. weigh See 20 alleges that the Magistrate Judge cites to Plaintiff was consistently alert, oriented, and able \\ to relate well, genuinely negative the However, evidence mental health Judge representative of evidence considered McDaniel's opinion. notes. cooperative, pleasant. the ECF No. that record as 17, at ECF // concluded contradicting tt the Magistrate Judge No. the the 18, ALJ a whole tt at relied when conclusions cherrypicked in the in the pages preceding her assessment of Dr. the ALJ in Dr. Neither the ALJ instant As case. McDaniel's opinion. noting reports of Plaintiff "playing cornhole and socializing taking trips, anxious while also or depressed mood consideration of selective, but incorporating n into her Plaintiff's assessment. R. Comm'r of appropriately (the ALJ is analysis Soc. Sec. t! and occasional 39-45. The Plaintiff's medical history was not unduly considered the supportability consistency of the medical opinion before discounting. V. on the ALJ exhaustively documented Plaintiff's medical record noted, ALJ's 3. 36. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge. nor that while failing to account for Plaintiff's a Magistrate "indications Admin., 986 F.3d 377, 385 and See Dowling (4th Cir. 2021) not required to set forth a detailed factor-by-factor in order to discount a medical opinion from a treating physician. though it must be clear from the decision that the ALJ 8 considered each factor before deciding how much weight to give the opinion.) negative" Even assuming Plaintiff's citations to [that] her mental health record yield "conflicting evidence reasonable minds to differ, the Court does not aspects of allows substitute its judgment for that of the ALJ when the ALJ has marshaled substantial evidence supporting their conclusion, as the ALJ did in the instant See case. C. Hancock, The ALJ's Finally, 667 F.3d at 472. Consideration of Plaintiff's Group Therapy Plaintiff argues that the ALJ improperly relied on Plaintiff's participation in group therapy sessions as evidence of Plaintiff's ability to No. 13, at function in a professional After reviewing the record, not appreciably rely on Plaintiff's ALJ See observed R. that 45. attendance at When assessing Dr. could have Florida, been group therapy the the provider's own treatment records also show group without difficulty, Colorado, the ALJ did McDaniel's opinion, the claimant volunteers outside of her home, in ECF 23. The Court disagrees. sessions. setting. more participates in [a] and travels to visit family and friends and West Virginia. context-sensitive Id. when Plaintiff's participation in group therapy, 9 Though referring the here ALJ to the ALJ did not base her appraisal of Dr. McDaniel's opinion Plaintiff's on participation in such group therapy sessions. the Rather, ALJ performed outside of Dr. McDaniel's cites a variety u Plaintiff's activities the home to highlight inconsistencies with opinion that Plaintiff traveling in unfamiliar places Id. of has extreme limitations [and] using public transportation ft . This evidence-based judgment by the ALJ is sufficient for a reasonable opinion mind" is "not to persuasive. conflicting evidence Biestek, S. 139 "accept Ct. at // as adequate R. 45, subject n even to that though differing the R&R is ADOPTED, Plaintiff's summary judgment motion is DENIED, the final to forward counsel of record. IT IS SO may be interpretations. 17, requested there CONCLUSION For the reasons explained above, of McDaniel' s 1154. V. decision Dr. the a Commissioner copy of this is ECF No. 12, AFFIRMED. Opinion ECF No. and The Clerk Order to and is all ORDERED. /s/W^Ssv^ Mark CHIEF Norfolk, November Virginia / 2023 10 UNITED S. STATES Davis 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.
