Wood v. Berryhill, No. 3:2018cv00004 - Document 29 (W.D. Va. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Glen E. Conrad on 11/20/18. (jcj)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CLERK' SAT OFFICE U.3.DIST,K URT ROANOKE F ,VA ILED IN THE U NITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE W ESTERN DISTRICT OF V IR GINIA CHARLOTTESV ILLE D IV ISION NzV 22 2218 B J ul A w. . LYLA GOFF W OOD , . DU L CivilA ction N o.3:18CV 00004 M EM O R ANDU M O PINIO N By:H on.Glen E.Conrad SeniorUnited StatesD istrictJudge Defendant. By mem orandum opinion and order entered August 31,2018,the courtrem anded this case to the Com m issioner of Social Security for further consideration of plaintiff's claim s for disability insurance benefits and supplem entalsecurity incom e benefits underthe SocialSecurity Act,asamended,42 U.S.C.jj416(i)and423,and42U.S.C.j 1381etseq.,respectively. The Commissionerhasnow tsledamotionto alteroramendjudgmentpursuanttoRule59(e)ofthe FederalRules of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff has filed a response to the m otion. H aving considered theparties'argum ents,the courtconcludesthatthem otion m ustbe denied. ($A Rùle 59(e)motion maybegranted only inthreesituations::41)to accommodatean interveningchangein controlling law;(2)to accountfornew evidencenotavailableattrial;or J. h ' -' .. (3)to correctaclearerroroflaw orpreventma $r 'i J jikstinjustice,,, M avfeld v.N at,1A ss,n for l . StockCarAutoRacina,674F.3d369,378(4thCir.2012)(quotingZinkandv.Brown,478F.3d 634,637 (4th Cir.2007)).Ctltisanextraordinary remedy thatshouldbeappliedsparingly''and Wood v. Berryhill Doc. 29 only in tEexceptionalcircum stances.'' ld. The rule dçm ay notbe used to relitigate o1d m atters,or to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.'' Exxon ShippingCo.v.Baker,554U.S.471,486 n.5 (2008)(citation and internal quotationmarksomitted). Dockets.Justia.com CLERK (-ERK Plaintiff, NAN CY A .BERRYH ILL,A cting Com m issionerofSocialSecurity, , Applying these principles,the courtconcludes that the Com m issioner is not entitled to reliefunderRule59(e). In hermotion,the CommissionerfirstarguesthattheAdministrative Law Judge adequately assessed the opinions of D r. Elizabeth Hrncir, w ho perform ed a consultativepsychologicalevaluation atthe requestofthe state agency. Forthe reasonsstated in the court's previous m em orandum opinion,the courtis unable to agree. As set forth in m ore detailinthatopinion,Ms.Woodhasahistoryoftreatmentfordepression. (Tr.510,511,666, 697,698,709,and.758). Based on the clinicalinterview and mentalstatusexamination,Dr. Hrncir's diagnostic impressions included SGmajor depressive disorder,recurrent,moderate to severe.''(Tr.555).SheassessedM s.W ood'sfunctionallimitationsasfollows: M s.W ood can perform sim ple and repetitive tasks butm ay have diffk ulty with com plex and detailed tasks because of her sym ptom s . . . .M s. W ood w ill need additional supervision to complete w ork activities on a consistent basis, m aintain regular attendance in the w orkplace,and com plete a norm alw orkday. M s. W ood is not expected to have diftk ulty accepting instructions from supervisors. M s. W ood's sym ptom î w ill influence her interactions w ith cow orkers and the public. M s.W ood m ay show a m oderate to severe exacerbation of sym ptom s to the usual stressesencountered in com petitivew ork. (Tr.554-55). In evaluating plaintiff's residual functionalcapacity,the LaF Judge gave Dr.H m cir's opinions Gtpartialweight.''l (Tr.25). Although the Law Judge found that Dr.Hrncir's examination Gçsupports limiting the claimantto simple routine repetitive tasks and low stress work''sheapparentlyrejectedDr.Hrncir'sopinionthatplaintiffwillneedadditionalsupervision to fnish w ork activities on a consistent basis, m aintain regular attendance, and complete a ' ! nornplworkday. (Tr.25). The Law Judge noted thatçGfurther lim itations in the claim ant's J 1 The Law Judge,s assessm ent of plaintiff's residual functional capacity included the following nonexertionallim itations:K'I' he claimantis lim ited to sim ple routine repetitive tmsks,superficialcontactwith the public,andlow stresswork,meaningnohighproductionquotasorfastpacedassembly.''(Tr.20). l l 2 i abilities arènotwarranted''since Ms.Wood E'recalled the firstand currentpresidentsofthe U nited Stat es, her birth date, age, address, phone num ber, year obtained GED , and age of ( boyfriend,5son, daughter,and brotherr''and since she Ssw as able to spellthree differentw ords backwardsi'':(Tr.25). i As !the court previously explained, it is not enough for a Law Judge to m erely i ( ((Summarizéljevidencethat(she Gnds)credibleyuseful,and consistent.'' W oodsv.Berryhill, J' 888F.3d(86,694(4th Cir.2018).Instead,theLaw Judge(smustbothidentifyevidencethat supports(he !i )conclusionand Sbuildan accurateand logicalbridge from thatevidenceto (her) I lI conclusionr i'r egardingtheclaimant'sresidualfunctionalcapacity.ld.(internalquotationsmarks ; ' . f$ andadditionglalterationsomitted)(emphasisin original).Here,theLaw Judgeneverexplained ;i how she cbpc ! luded- based on the plaintiffs ability to recallsuch basic informatiqn as her ir 2 address,phone num ber,and age- thatplaintiffcould finish w ork activitieson a consistentbasis, I . m aintain rçgular attendance, and com plete a norm al w orkday without additional supervision. l1 Consequenty thecourtremainsconvinced thattheLaw Judge failed to build a logicalbridge :L from the çvldence she recounted to her conclusions regarding plaintiffs residual functional ' ,; capacity. jèe ig. a. WhiletheCommissionerobviously disagreeswith the court's concltlsion, . ç: ) ,, mere disagy:eementdoesnotsupporta Rule 59(e)motion. H utchinson v.Staton, 994 F.2d l 1076,1082(4thCir.1993).NordotheCommissioner'seffortstoprovideposthocjustifications f fortheLaw Judge'sdecision.SeeFrantzv.Astrue,509F.3d 1299,1302(10thCir.2007)Cçl-he :i Commissicmrr'sposthocargumentsupplyingpossiblereasonsfortheALJ'Sseemingrejection j ofM s.Youngs'opinionsisunavailing.''l-z zFor' instance,theCommissionercitestotheopinionsofthenon-examining stateagency consultants, who found thatplaintiff's mentalimpairm entisnot severe. However,the Law Judge gave these opinions ççlittleweight,') 'sincetheevidence Rdemonstratesthe claimanthasa severementalimpairment'' (Tr.26). M oreover,thej Law Judgedid notspecifically rely on such opinionsin electing to accordpartialweighttoDr. Hrncir'sassessmentofplaintiff'sfnnctionallimitations. . 1 3 ' Thr!Jourtmustalso rejecttheCommissioner,sargumentthattheLaw Judgeadequately è! : l accounted fJrthemoderate limitationsin concentration,persistence,orpacethatshefound at iI ki stepthreecst hesequentialevaluationprocess. CitingthedecisionoftheUnitedStatesCourtof J AppealsfoiiheFourthCircuitinM asciov.Colvin,780F.3d632(4thCir.2015),thecourtruled ' that the La* Judge failed to explain how plaintiff's m oderate lim itations in concentration, persistence' jbr pace w ere addressed by virtue of a finding of lim itation to Stsim ple routine ! . repetitivetasks,superficialcontactwith thepublic,and 1ow stresswork''which shedefined as GGmeaningnohighproductionquotasorfastplacedassembly.''(Tr.20).Thecourtobservedthat the ability to perform simple tasks does not necessarily equate w ith the ability to stay on task, andthatStlolnly thelatterlimitation would accountforaclaimant'slimitation in concentration, persistence,orpace.'' M ascio,780 F.3d at638. In the instantm otion,the Com m issioner argues that SsM ascio is inapposite,''given that the Law Judge did notm erely lim itplaintiffto sim ple,routine tasks or unskilled w ork. Def-'s M ot.to Alter orA m end J.8,Dkt.N o.27. H ow ever,aspreviously noted,M ascio underscores the Law Judge's duty to explain how her residual functional capacity indings adequately account for a claim ant's w ork-related lim itations. See id. H ere, while the Law Judge also restrictedplaintiffto Eisuperficialcontactwiththepublic''andt&low stresswork''theLaw Judge failed to ekplain how such lim itations sufficiently accom m odate plaintifps m oderate diftk ulties withconcentration,persistence,orpace.(Tr.20).Accordingly,thecourtremainsconvincedthat rem and isappropriate. See.e.R.,W atersv.Berrvhill,N o.5:17-cv-00035,2018 U .S.D ist.LEXIS 135834,at*20-22(W .D.Va.Aug.13,2018),reportandrecommendationadopted,Dkt.No.24 (W .D.Va.Sept.10,2018)(concludingthatremandwasrequiredunderMascio even thoughthe residualfunctional capacity assessm ent GEincluded other lim itations ...beyond a restriction to sim ple,routine,and repetitivetasks,''since the Law Judge did notadequately explain hisresidual 4 fnncfonalcapait dete= ination)(collece g0th.ercasesom tbl -qdlelct);Carterv.Berryhill. No.8:17-cv-091277,2018U.S.Dist LEM S 115474,at*24 (D.S.C.June 18,2018),reportand recommendationadopted.2018U.S.Dist.LEM S 114037 O .S.C.July 9,2018)(remandingfor fhe erproceM lngswheretheLaw Judge tçfailedto explainhow allmlttlon to Islmple,routlne, repetxvetasksnotperfo= H in afistpaced producion environmentihwolving only simple work-relatH lno ncfons and decisions and relatlvely few wozk place changes' and to Ioccasionalinteracdon with co-workem and membem ofthe gederalpublic'addressesPlaine s , moderatedio cultiesin concenH tion, persistence,andpace>,). 3 Forthesereasons,thecoM fmdsno basisto alteroramend thejudm entunderRule 59(e). Accordlngly,theCommlqsioner'smoion willbedenled.'l'heClerk isdirectd to send copiesofthismemorandum opinion andthe accompanyingorderto allcounselofrecord. DATED :w s z'ôN day ofNovember, 2018. seniorUnitedjtatesDisictJudge 3In supportofthependingmotiow tlleCommissioneremphasizesthatotherdistrid coudsin theFo* Ckcaithave found that a Law Judge adequately accounted fora clm'mnmt's dl 'm ctllty with staying on task by llml nf'ng the clm'mantto O on-produe on work orwoA notpedbrmed atallassembly-linepace.''Def'sM ot to M erorAmendJ.9,DkLNo.27(quoe gCrowderv.Be> in'll.No.2:17-cv-1:6,2018U.S.DistLEXTS 163885. at*27IE.D.Va.Sept24,2018$.WhiletlzeCOIA acu owledg% tv tsuchrestdœonsmaybesuœcientunderthe cknnndnncœ ofaparucnlnrcase,itisinfawnbentupon theLaw Judgeto explain herresidualflmcuonalcapacity G dmg ' s. Illthe m 'oanf casw the courtv ailks cone cez thatthe Law Judge fatled to provide an adequate explanaionofhow herresiduqlflmcdonalcapac% ' assessmentaccotmted forthemodm telimitadonsfoundatstep tbreeoftheKquentialevaluaionprocess. 5
]]>
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.
