Damron v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 2:2017cv00044 - Document 20 (S.D. Ohio 2018)
Court Description: OPINION and ORDER adopting and affirming 18 the Report and Recommendation. Signed by Judge Michael H. Watson on 3/21/18. (jk)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Damron v. Commissioner of Social Security Doc. 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Monica L Damron, Plaintiff, V. Case No. 2:17-gv-44 Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. Judge Michael H. Watson Magistrate Judge Jolson OPINION AND ORDER The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") in this Sociai Security case recommending the Court affirm the Commissioner's decision that Plaintiff was not disabled prior to September 4, 2012. R&R 13-14, ECF No. 18. Monica L. Damron ("PiaintifF') timely objected to the R&R, Obj., ECF No. 19. For the following reasons, the Court OVERRULES PlaintifTs objections, ADOPTS the R&R, and AFFIRMS the decision of the Commissioner. I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiff first filed for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits on April 10, 2006. That application was denied initially, upon reconsideration, and by an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") on December 17, 2007. Plaintiff then filed again for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income on June 21, 2010. Those claims were denied initially and upon reconsideration. After a hearing, the ALJ issued a partially-favorable decision Dockets.Justia.com finding that Plaintiff was disabled beginning on September 4, 2012, but not before then. The Appeals Council denied review of that decision, and Plaintiff filed suit in this Court. Magistrate Judge King, to whom this case was referred upon consent of the parties, partially reversed the ALJ's decision and remanded PlaintifPs claims for further consideration. Magistrate Judge King remanded to the ALJ for consideration of whether optometrist Sarah Yoest's consultative opinion, which was rendered on September 4, 2012, was relevant to Plaintiffs vision impairments prior to that date. On remand, the ALJ once again concluded that Plaintiff was not disabled prior to September 4, 2012. The Appeals Council denied Plaintiffs request for review, and Plaintiff again filed suit in this Court. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3), when a party timely objects to an R&R on a dispositive matter, the districtjudge reviews de novo any portion to which a proper objection was made. The district court "may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). III. ANALYSIS Dr. Yoest examined Plaintiff on September 4,2012. In her report. Dr. Yoest stated that Plaintiffs 20/40 left eye visual acuity "is misleading" and that "visual function Is much worse than acuity would indicate." 9/4/12 Yoest Report, Case No. 2:17-cv-44 Page 2 of 6 ECF No. 10-7, at PAGEID # 705. At bottom, Plaintiff contends that Dr. Yoest's opinion cails into question ail of the prior visual acuity testing in the fiie, showing that, while none of the results of prior tests were severe enough to iead to a finding of disabiiity on their own, her vision was always much worse than any of that testing Indicated and that Plaintiff was disabied prior to September 4, 2012. Plaintiff argued in her statement of errors that the ALJ faiied to evaiuate this portion of Dr. Yoest's opinion when the ALJ conciuded on remand that Dr. Yoest's opinion did not support a finding of disability prior to September 4, 2012. As mentioned above, the R&R recommended overruling Plaintiff's statement of errors and affirming the Commissioner's decision. R&R, ECF No. 18. Piaintiff objects, arguing that the Magistrate Judge faiied to appreciate PiaintifTs argument or directiy address it in the R&R. ObJ. 3, ECF No. 19. PiaintifTs objection is overruied. The Magistrate Judge did appreciate the argument that Piaintiff was making in her statement of errors and did address that argument directly. Specifically, the R&R states: Plaintiff next argues that even if the opinions are not inconsistent, the ALJ "faiied to evaiuate the most important part of Dr. Yoest's opinion"—^that Dr. Yoest beiieved the visuai acuity testing in the ciaim fiie was misieading and worse than the acuity measurements indicated. R&R 11, ECF No. 18. The Magistrate Judge thus obviousiy understood Plaintiffs argument. Further, the R&R directiyconsidered, and rejected. Plaintiff's argument. The R&R found that the ALJ actualiy discussed the issue of visual acuity at Case No. 2:17-cv-44 Page 3 of 6 length, acknowledged Dr. Yoest's opinion that PiaintifTs vision was worse than the visual acuity would indicate, but uitimateiy concluded that no medical records suggested that visual acuity results prior to September 4, 2012, were misleading. Id. The R&R also determined that the ALJ gave greater weight to Dr. Simmon's opinion regarding whether limitations existed prior to September 4,2012, than to Dr. Yoest's opinion on that issue (assuming for the sake of argument that Dr. Yoest's report could even be read to Include such an opinion). Accordingly, PiaintifTs objection—that the R&R failed to appreciate and address her argument—is OVERRULED. To the extent Plaintiffs objection can be read as a challenge to the Magistrate Judge's conclusion on the issue (as opposed to merely whether the Magistrate Judge understood and directly addressed the issue), the Court has performed a de novo review and agrees that the ALJ did address Dr. Yoest's opinion as to the misleading nature of the visual acuity. On page thirteen of the ALJ's opinion, the ALJ discussed Dr. Yoest's September 4, 2012, opinion, including the fact that Dr. Yoest opined that the 20/40 visual acuity in PiaintifTs left eye was misleading and that PiaintifTs vision was much Worse than her acuity would indicate. 11/12/15 ALJ Decision, EOF No. 10-8, at PAGEID # 743. The ALJ discussed Dr. Yoest's opinions on the limitations this would cause to Plaintiffs ability to work. Id. The ALJ then concluded, however, that the medical documentation that existed priorto Dr. Yoest's September 4, 2012, exam and report did not support Case No. 2:17-cv-44 Page 4 of 6 a conclusion that the limitations Dr. Yoest suggested in that report were present prior to the date of the exam. Id. As a preliminary matter, the ALJ specifically referenced the fact that nothing in the report itself actually states that Dr. Yoest concluded that prior visual acuity tests were misleading (as opposed to only the acuity testing that she performed in September of 2012 being misleading). Id. at PAGEID # 744 ("Accordingly, I give little weight to Dr. Yoest's assessment to the extent it could be construed to be more restrictive than the above-identified residual functional assessment for the period prior to September 4,2012."). The ALJ went further, though, and concluded that, even if Dr. Yoest was opining that the prior visual acuity tests were misleading, such that her opinion on limitations could be construed as applying to a period before September 4,2012, that opinion was not supported by the medical documentation. Specifically, the ALJ noted that while Dr. Yoest reported that Plaintiff would need 18-20 point print with contrast enhancement for fluency in reading, id. at PAGEID # 743, an evaluation as recent as October of 2012 stated that Plaintiff could discriminate 6 point print. Id. at PAGEID # 744. Finally, the ALJ determined to give greater weight to opthamologist Dr. Simmon's opinion on the issue of "functional limitations three years prior to the date of Dr. Yoest's examination. Id. The paragraph in which the ALJ discusses Dr. Simmon's and Dr. Yoest's opinion makes clear that he adopts Dr. Simmon's opinion over Dr. Yoest's opinion regarding the misleading nature of the visual acuity testing due to the facts that: (1) Dr. Simmons is an opthamologist and Dr. Yoest is an optometrist, and (2) Dr. Yoest's opinion was Case No. 2:17-cv-44 Page 5 of 6 not supported by contemporaneous medical or visual evidence, including the 2010 and 2011 reports of Dr. Pappa, who failed to submit any contemporaneous visual limitations with his reports. Id. Thus, Plaintiffs argument that the ALJ "failed to spell out" that he was adopting Dr. Simmon's opinion over Dr. Yoest's visual acuity opinion is incorrect. IV. CONCLUSION in sum, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge understood Plaintiffs argument and addressed that argument in the R&R. Moreover, the Court further concludes upon de novo review that the Magistrate Judge was correct in finding that the ALJ considered the visual acuity portion of Dr. Yoesfs opinion. Accordingly, Plaintiffs objection is OVERRULED, the R&R is ADOPTED, and the Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED. The Clerk shall enter judgment for the Commissioner and terminate this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. MICHAEL H. WATSON, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Case No. 2:17-cv-44 Page 6 of 6
]]>
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.
