Miller v. Kijakazi, No. 4:2022cv00116 - Document 24 (E.D. Va. 2023)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER- The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendations 21 and DENIES Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment 15 and AFFIRMS the Commissioner's decision denying Plaintiff's claim for disability benefits. Copies distributed as directed 11/22/23. Signed by Chief District Judge Mark S. Davis on 11/22/2023. (Vpea)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Miller v. Kijakazi Doc. 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT EASTERN DISTRICT COURT NOV 2 2 2023 OF VIRGINIA Newport News Division CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT NORFOLK, VA ANTHONY M. Plaintiff, Civil V. KILOLO No. 4:22cvll6 KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. OPINION Anthony M. ("Plaintiff"), AND ORDER with the assistance of counsel, brought this action seeking judicial review of the final decision of the Acting Commissioner of (the Commissioner") denying the Social Security Administration his Before under the Social Security Act. motion for summary judgment; of and RScR ; obj ections. R&R, ECF No. the Judge; Commissioner's For the reasons set 21; DENIES for the disability Court are: benefits Plaintiff's the Report and Recommendation ("RScR") the United States Magistrate the claim Plaintiff's objections to response forth below, to Plaintiff's the court ADOPTS the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. ^ The Committee on Court Administration and Case Management of the Judicial Conference of the United States has recommended that federal courts use only in Social the first name and last initial of any non-government parties Security cases due to privacy concerns endemic to such cases. Dockets.Justia.com ECF No. 15; and AFFIRMS the Commissioner's Plaintiff's claim for disability benefits. I. Pursuant Federal Rules to 28 of Civil R. Judge Plaintiff's U.S.C § 636(b)(1)(B) this Procedure, Commissioner's of the and Rule matter for final detailed a summary decision be was 72(b) referred On July 25, R&R 2023, recommending judgment be affirmed. of denied ECF No. objections, and on August 8, to the R&R. response on August 21, Under Rule \\ No. LEGAL of the The 22. ECF 2023. 72(b)(3) a district court specific [] § 616, so (4th Cir. 622 the that the By copy 21. No. Commissioner filed as A reasonably 23. STANDARD Federal Rules of proper to the objection. 2023) (4th Cir. proper objection her Civil Procedure, must determine de novo any part of the magistrate 636(b)(1). true ground for 460 a and judge's disposition that has been properly objected to. U.S.C. to the Court received Plaintiff's 2023, ECF II. 28 the each party was advised of the right to file written R&R, objections issued motion 17-32. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND United States Magistrate Judge for an R&R. Magistrate denying decision objection alert the Dunbar, (quoting United States v. 2007)). is made, For portions of a district 2 "sufficient[ly] district Elijah V. // is Accord court 66 of F.4th Midgette, 478 the 454, F.3d the R&R for which no court need review only for clear F.3d 310, In court Judge Diamond v. error. 315 (4th Cir. reviewing a Colonial Life & Accident ("ALJ")] final administrative 667 Hancock v. Astrue, omitted). Substantial F.3d 470, evidence such but requires no more than decision, a Berryhill, 139 accord Oakes v. \\ reviewing [Administrative Law the 472 is correct (4th more relevant legal Cir. than standard. a mere evidence as scintilla, a S. Ct. 1148, Kijakazi, undertaking 70 this 1154 (2019) F.4th 207, review, a 212 reviewing Biestek n omitted); 2023). 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 83, 189 of logical review, (4th Cir. (4th Cir. III. ALJ from Arakas v. 2020) Mastro v. // (cleaned up). the bridge' to pass muster. 94 2001) [ALJ] . (quoting must evidence Comm'r, or Apfel, Though this is a still the // reasonable (citations (4th Cir. tt (citation 2012) mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. In 416 if they are supported by substantial evidence and were reached through application of V . Co., 2005). must uphold the factual findings of the \\ Ins, Soc. Monroe v. 'build to Sec. an their Admin., Colvin, 826 2016)). APPLICABLE REGULATIONS The ALJ is required to follow a five—step sequential analysis to evaluate whether an individual has 3 a requisite disability for 20 benefits under the Social Security Act. The sequential analysis includes the C.F.R. § 404.1520(a). (1) following assessments: whether the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) the severity of the claimant's medically determinable physical (3) whether the claimant has an impairment and mental impairments; that meets or equals one of the Social Security Administration's official whether (4) impairments; an impairment prevents the claimant from performing any past relevant work in light of claimant's the work residual claimant in can light technique" limitation of mental assessment \\ adjust the to capacity employment claimant's {"RFC"); other RFC, age, and impairment claims. procedure set forth requires the ALJ resulting impairment(s)" in from the in 20 to [any than past education, "rate ALJ C.F.R. the must § relevant and work medically follow determinable . . . : 404.1520a(b)(2), (c) (3) . § This mental] Understand, interact with others; concentrate. Limitations are rated on a five-point scale: Id. the functional of persist, or maintain pace; and adapt or manage oneself. extreme. whether 404.1520a. degree four broad functional areas remember, or apply information; § (5) Id. experience. For functional the none, 404.1520a(c)(4). 4 in these mild, 20 functional moderate, The ALJ uses t! these C.F.R. areas marked, or ratings to determine the "severity of the claimant's mental impairments for II Id. steps two and three of the five-step analysis. § 404.1520a(d). Once the ALJ has rated the severity of each impairment, will determine if any impairment or is equivalent C.F.R. five in severity assess The RFC the is to claimant's listed a If not, § 404.1520a(d) (2) . to (or combination thereof) mental \\ they meets disorder. n 20 the ALJ moves to steps four and § Id. RFC. intended to measure the 404.1520a(d)(3). most that a claimant can do in a work setting despite the mental and physical restrictions imposed by their 562 (4th Cir. Hines impairments. 2006). To evaluate V. Barnhart, a claimant's 453 RFC, F.3d the 559, ALJ must first identify each impairment-related functional restriction that See Monroe, is supported by the record. the ALJ must describe how support each conclusion, specific 826 F.3d at medical facts 179. evidence and and logically explain how they weighed any contradictory evidence in reaching those conclusions. V. Berryhill, 916 Then, F.3d 307, 311 (4th Cir, Thomas 2019). On January 18, 2017, the Social Security Administration (SSA) adopted new rules, applicable to all claims filed after March 27, 2017, for the evaluation of medical administrative medical findings. does 20 C.F.R. opinions 404.1520c. not defer or give any specific evidentiary weight, controlling weight. to any medical administrative medical findings(s). 5 . . // and opinion(s 20 C.F.R. prior The ALJ including or prior § 404.1520c(a). the Instead, § ALJ considers While 404.1520c{b)(2). the evaluating persuasiveness, important factors substantiates evidence their and supporting opinion explanations, § nonmedical sources // many explain supportability and § only the in most consistency. whether n a medical objective with // u factors // medical 404.1520c (c) (1) , while evidence from other medical sources consistency evaluates whether and must Supportability evaluates § 404.1520c(b) (2) . source \\ persuasiveness. overall ALJ may consider they of 9t their also supports the medical opinion. 404.1520c(c) (2) . When evaluating a medical opinion under these rules, cannot while \\ the ALJ cherrypick[] facts that support a finding of nondisability ignoring Bilotta V. Lewis V. Saul, evidence 850 Berryhill, F. 858 that points App'x 162, F.3d 858, IV. to 169 870 a disability {4th Cir. (4th Cir. 2021) finding. n (quoting 2017)). DISCUSSION Plaintiff offers two objections to the R&R. First, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ failed to properly evaluate the opinion of Dr. Stephanie Eppinger, determining his RFC. that the Magistrate Plaintiff's ECF No. Judge treating 22, at erred 6 2-4. by psychotherapist, Second, when Plaintiff argues concluding that the ALJ adequately evaluated the opinion of Dr. Eppinger. Id. at 3 -4. The Court addresses each of these objections in turn.2 A. ALJ's Evaluation of Dr. Eppinger's Opinion Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred by improperly evaluating Dr. Eppinger's medical opinion when crafting Plaintiff's RFC. No. 17, at The ALJ's reasoning in assessing Dr. 5-11. opinion is "cursory. to // so Plaintiff's argument runs, ECF Eppinger's and thus fails adequately explain how [the ALJ] considered the supportability factor. Id. U at impermissibly reports from u Indeed, 7. Plaintiff cherrypicked Plaintiff's maintains the ALJ non-representative favorable, medical that history. Id. at 8. The Magistrate Judge disagreed with Plaintiff and concluded that the ALJ sufficiently justified her conclusion opinion was only "somewhat persuasive. It that ECF No. Eppinger's Dr. 21, at 36. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge. The ALJ adequately considered the medical opinion evidence in the record before making the determination somewhat that persuasive. 1520c(b){2); Hancock, // Dr. R. 667 Eppinger's 29; s^ F.3d at uphold the factual findings of the ^ The Court reviewed the remainder of 20 472 [ALJ] the R&R medical opinion C.F.R. §§ (reviewing at 460. 7 only 404.1520c (a) , courts must if they are supported by and found no the Magistrate Judge's unobjected-to findings or reasoning. F.4th was clear error in See Elijah, 66 substantial evidence and were reached through application of the correct legal standard.") By way Eppinger's that of ALJ began supporting "had difficulty managing his relationships. Plaintiff's Eppinger's her R. It medical that anger" ALJ limitations including report, The 29. analysis Eppinger's opinion by acknowledging Dr. Plaintiff length the example. as Plaintiff limitations in understanding and memory . then . of observations and "had few described recorded \\ . had Dr. none [and] at in Dr. to mild had moderate limitations in interacting appropriately with the general public. Next, Id. // consistency of the the 404.1520c(b)(2) ALJ addressed opinion as R. n referenced was treatment at The 29-30. Dr. Plaintiff supportability required by and concluded that the opinion was When Eppinger's generally the VA. foregoing R. 20 and C.F.R.§ only somewhat provided little rationale for her persuasive because Dr. Eppinger opinion. the addressing treatment stable when supportability, records he the indicating attended mental ALJ that health 29 . examples illustrate the ALJ's sufficient analysis of Dr. Eppinger's opinion. The ALJ, as required, addressed objective C.F.R. § medical evidence 404.1520c(C)(1). logical bridge tt and Indeed, supporting the explanations. ALJ built an // 20 accurate and from Dr. Eppinger's treatment notes and opinion to the ALJ's own conclusion that the medical opinion was only somewhat 8 Arakas, persuasive. Moreover, 189) . the 983 F.3d at be 1679 Eppinger's (2021); concluded Eppinger's feeling the ALJ 21, at treatment depressed, record. support that points 169) a finding to contends record example, to that documenting and at of the ALJ 1669, correctly Eppinger's occasionally // ignored the favorable is she cannot of and facts from that when correct cherrypick[] nondisability while Dr. reports suicidal, facts ignoring evidence Bilotta, 850 F. App'x at in cherry-picking here. Rather, 858 F.3d at 869). facts reasonably representative of discount Ct. Dr. Plaintiff's Plaintiff 8-10. But the ALJ did not engage the ALJ marshaled S. Judge considered a disability finding. (quoting Lewis, 141 Magistrate "cherry-pick[ed] 17, contextualize 34. an ALJ evaluates a medical opinion, that Ming Dai, the irritable, ECF No. // medical history to sufficiently notes thereby impermissibly the Eppinger's Therefore, 29. Plaintiff Second, repeatedly referencing Dr. Garland v. opinion.^ ECF No. opinion. facilitate and Plaintiff's R. that 826 F.3d at to "reasonably discern[able] meaningful judicial review, Dr. {quoting Colvin, the ALJ's opinion satisfies the requirement that "agency's path" treatment notes 94 Dr. Eppinger's opinion. See the ALJ noted Plaintiff's statements to Dr. Plaintiff's R. 25-37. For Eppinger that 3 For example, the ALJ cited Dr. Eppinger's findings that the Plaintiff had demonstrated an ongoing ability to take online classes and work notwithstanding his impairments. R. 29. 9 had been managing his stress by working out and distracting he himself," and was able to constructive reports contextualize and walk away when upset. the corroborate discount aspects of R. tt ALJ's Dr. 25-26. Such decision Eppinger's to medical This Court is required to defer to the ALJ's R.29-33. opinion. \\ findings so long as they are supported by substantial evidence, even if conflicting evidence allows reasonable minds to differ as to whether 585, 589 (4th Cir. concludes they [a Plaintiff] that are is disabled. ALJ's supported Craig v. Chater, For the reasons stated above, 1996) . the n by findings are substantial entitled to evidence, 76 F.3d the Court deference and as therefore Plaintiff's allegations of cherry-picking do not support reversal. See Biestek, 139 S. Ct. at 1154. B. The Magistrate Judge's Review Second, Court Plaintiff argues in his objection to the R&R that this should \\ reject the Magistrate Judge's finding that the ALJ did not err in evaluating the opinion evidence of Dr. ECF \\ No. 22, detailed at 1. analysis According to Plaintiff, of the records generally" amounts to an impermissible warranting remand for "proper" that n the Magistrate Judge's the ALJ only cited post hoc rationalization consideration 10 Eppinger. of Dr. // Eppinger's Id. opinion. at For the following reasons, the Court disagrees 3. ECF and affirms and adopts the Magistrate Judge's R&R. No. 21. 1. Post Hoc Rationalization Plaintiff \\ impermissible ALJ's post insufficient Plaintiff that argues is hoc the rationalization "general" correct Magistrate that n ECF of engaged rehabilitate to discussion. principles Judge No. 22, in the n at administrative 3. law prohibit reviewing courts from affirming agency action on any basis other than Comm'r of Arakas, that articulated by Soc. 983 Sec. F.3d at the 987 Admin. , agency F.3d 314, itself. See 321 Cir. (4th But even assuming that 109. Kirk v. 2021); the Magistrate Judge's discussion of supporting examples in the record was more robust than the ALJ's, Plaintiff affirmed the improper fails ALJ's basis. remand to is warranted. demonstrate evaluation The not of Magistrate Dr. that the Eppinger's Judge found justifiably contextualized and discounted Dr. after he evidence. found were reviewed n that \\ ECF. the No. the 21, treatment representative of narrative ALJ's at 34. records that on the an ALJ Eppinger's opinion of t [he] the Magistrate Judge the ALJ relied record Judge opinion discussion To that end, [Plaintiff's] Magistrate on as in her analysis a whole. // Id. The fact that the Magistrate Judge further substantiated the ALJ's conclusion by citing additional examples in Plaintiff's treatment 11 records does affirm. See not R. undercut the Magistrate Judge's decision to 34-35. As this Court has stated in response to comparable arguments, even assuming explanation criticism arguendo can be said fails to account consideration of Dr. 2023 WL 2537283, to the Magistrate include post the fact for at *3 See Jesse T. (E.D. Va. Mar. novo review and without reasoning, the detailed Judge's hoc reasoning, that the such ALJ's own Eppinger's opinion is sufficient by itself to affirm the T^J's ruling. on de that Court finds that See supra. V. 16, Kijakazi, 2023) . No. Put differently, a sufficient the ALJ provided Part 2:22CV101, on any allegedly post hoc relying explanation for concluding that Dr. somewhat persuasive. v. Eppinger's IV.A; R. opinion was only 29-30. Conclusion For the reasons explained above, the R&R is ADOPTED, ECF No. 21, Plaintiff's summary judgment motion is DENIED, ECF No. 15, and the final decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED. requested to forward a copy of counsel of record. IT IS SO is all ORDERED. Mark November Clerk this Opinion and Order to CHIEF Norfolk, The Virginia 2023 12 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.
