Bush v. Berryhill, No. 7:2017cv00363 - Document 24 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Michael F. Urbanski on 01/31/2019. (aab)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CLERK' S OFFICE U . S.DIST.COURT AT ROANOKE,VA FILED IN T H E U N ITED STAT ES D IST RICT CO U RT JAd 3 1 2219 FOR THE W ESTERN DISTRICT OF W RGIN IA BKJULI .UDLEKCLERK ROAN O U D IW SIO N . ne x KYLE B.y l3lldtltiff, CivilAction N o.7:17cv00363 V. N AN CY A.BE RRYH ILL, Com m issionerofSocialSecuritp By: M ichaelF.U rbansld ChiefUited StatesDisttictJudge D efendant. M EM ORAN DUM OPIN ION Thissocialsecutity disability appealwasreferted to the H onotable RobertS.Ballou, P . UnitedStatesMagistrateJudge,pursuantto28U.S.C.j6369$(1)7),forproposedSnclings offactandarecommendeddisposidon.ThemagistratejudgeSledareportand recommendadononlanuaty7,2019,recommendingthatplaindfpsmodonforslxmmary judgmentbedenied,theCommissioner'smodonforsummaryjudgmentbegtanted,andthe Commissionet'shnaldecisionbeafflrmed.PloindffKyleB.r<Ky1e'')hasflledobjecdonsto thereport,to which the Comm issionerresponded,and thism atterispow ripe forthecourt's consideradon. 1.Standard ofReview ofM agistrateJudgeDecision Bush v. Berryhill Doc. 24 TheobjecdontequirementsetforthinRule72$)oftheFederalRulesofCivil Pm cedtueisdesigned to f<trainljthevattention of130th thedisttictcouttand thecout'tof appealsupononlythoseissuesthatremaininYsputeaftetthemagisttatejudgehasmade hnclingsandrecommendadons.''UnitedStatesv.Mid ette,478F.3d616,621(4thCir.2007) Dockets.Justia.com (cidngThomasv.Arn,474U.S.140,147-48(1985)).Anobjecdngpartymustdosoffwith suflkientspecihcity so asreasonably to alertthedisttictconrtofthe ttueground forthe objecdon.''Id.at622. To conclude otherwise w ould defeatthe pum ose of reqlxiting objecdons.W ewoùld bepetvnitting apartyto appealanyissue thatwasbeforethemagisttatejudge,zegazdlessofthenatateand scopeofobjecdonsmadetothemagistratejudge'sreport.Either the district courtwould then have to review every issue in the magisttatejudge'sptoposed hnclingsand recommendadonsor courts of appeals would be required to review issues that the distdctcourtneverconsidered.Ineithercase,judicialresources w ould be wasted and the disttictcourt's effecdvenessbased on helpfrom magistratejudgeswouldbeunde- ined. ' . ' ( p The dtsttictcourtmustdeterm ined. qnovo anypozdon ofthemaglstrateludgeys g . reportandtecommendadontowhichapropetobjecdonhasbeenmade.(Vhedistrictcolzrt mayaccept,zeject,ormodifytherecommendeddisposidon;receivefllttherevidence;or returnthemattertothemagistmtejudgewit.hinsttucdons.''Fed.R.Civ.P.729$(3)9accord 28U.S.C.j636q$(1). If,however,apartyffrmakesgeneralozconclusoryobjectbnsthatdonotditectthe courttoaspecihcettorinthemagistratejudge'sproposedO flingsandrecommendadonsy''' 2qnovoreview isnotrequited.Di ros erov.Colvin,N o.5:13-c'v-00088-FDW -DSC,2014 WL 1669806,at*1F .D.N.C.Apr.28,2014)(quotingHowardYellow Cabs,Inc.v.United States,987F.Supp.469,474(W .D.N.C.1997)(quoO gOmianov.lohnson,687F.2d44,47 (4thCit.19821 .ffT'hecourtwillnotconsidetthoseobjectionsbythepbindffthatare merelyconclusoryorattempttoobjectto theentitetyoftheReport,withoutfocusingthe coutt'sattendon on specificezrorsthereitx''Cam erv.Com m 'rofSoc.Sec.,N o.4:08> 69, 2009WL 9044111,at*2(E.D.Va.M ay6,2009),aff'd,373F.App'x346(4thCi. r.),cert. denied,131S.Ct.610(2010)9seeMid ette,478F.3dat621rfsecdon636q$(1)doesnot countenanceaform ofgeneralizedobjecdontocoverallissuesaddtessedbythemagisttate judge;itcontemplatesthataparty'sobjecdontoamagistratejudge'sreportbespeciûcand pardculnrized,asthestamtedirectsthedistdctcoutttoreview onlyQthoseportthnsofthe reportorjpedftedproposedSnclingsorrecommendadonstowhichob. hctionis//:4//:.''').Sueh genetalobjecdonsffhavethesnmeeffectasafailuretoobject,orasawaiverofsuch objecdon.''M oonv.BWX Technolo 'es,742F.Supp.2d827,829(W.D.Va.2010),aff'd, 498F.App'x268(4thCir.2012)9seealsoThomasv.Atn,474U.S.140,154(1985)rfrllhe stamtedoesnotrequizethejudgetoreview anissuedenovoifnoobjecdonsareSled''). Rehashingatgumentsraisedbeforethemagistratejudgedoesnotcomplywiththe requitementsetfot'thintheFederalRulesofCivilProcedureto ftlespecihcobjecdons. Indeed,objecdonsthatsimplyreitetateatgumentsraisedbeforethemagistratejudgeare consideredtobegenetalobjecdonstotheentiretyofthereportandrecommendadon.See Vene v.Astrtle,539F.Supp.2d 841,844-45(W.D.Va.2008).Asthecourtnotediny-ql)-ty: Allowing alidgantto obtain de novo review ofherentite caseby merelyreformattinganearlierbriefasanobjecdon ffmakges)the iaidalreference to the m agistrate useless.The Sm cdons of the disttictcouttare effecdvely duplicated asboth them agistrateand the districtcourtpetform idendcaltasks.Tllisduplicadon oftim e andeffortwastesjudicialresourcesratherthansavingthem,and runs conttary to the purposes ofthe M agistratesAct.''H ow ard (v.Sec'yofHealth& HlAmanServs. l,932F.2d(505,)EI509((6t.11 Cir.1991)4. ' 3 539 F.Supp.2d at846.A pbindffwho reiteratesliispreviously-taised atgum entswillnotbe given Tfthe second bite atthe apple she seeksi''instead,l' lisre-flled briefwillbetteated asa generalobjecdon,whichhasthesameeffectaswouldafailuretoobject.Id. II.JuécialReview ofSocialSecudtyDetetminations l . Itisnottheprovince ofa federalcouttto m ake aclministradve disability decisions. Rather,judicialreview ofdisabilitycasesislimitedtodete= iningwhethersubstandal evidence supportsthe Com m issioner'sconclusion thattheplaindfffzled to m eetllisbutden ofprovingdisability.SeeHa sv.Sllllivan,907F.2d1453,1456(4t.hCir.1990)9seealsoLaws v.Celebrezze,368F.2d640,642(4thCir.1966).Insodoing,thecolzrtmayneither undertakea d< novo zeview ofthe Comm issionet'sdecision norre-wei gh theevidenceof . recotd.Hunterv.Sullivan,993F.2d31,34(4thCir.1992).Evidenceissubstandalwhen, considezing the record asawhole,itmightbe deem ed adequate to supportaconclusion by a reasonablemind,Richardsonv.Perales,402U.S.389,401(1971),otwhenitwotzldbe sufûcienttorefuseadirectedverdictinajuryttial.Smithv.Chater,99F.3d635,638(4th Cit.1996).SubstantialevidenceisnotaTflatgeorconsiderableamountofevidence,''Pierce v.Undelwood,487U.S.552,565(1988),butismorethanamerescintillaandsomewhatless than a preponderance.Perales,402 U .S.at4019Law s,368F.2d at642.Ifthe Comm issioner'sdecision issupported by substandalevidence,itm ustbe affl= ed.42 U .S.C. j405/)9Perales,402U.S.at401. 111.PlaintifpsObjectionsl Kyleraisedtwoargumentsbefotethemagistratejudgeonsummaryjudgment- that theAT, J'sfindingswerenotsuppottedbysubstanéalevidenceandthattheAT. J'Sassessment ofKyle'sallegaionswasnotsupportedbysubstandalevidence.Inhisobjections'tothe zeportandrecommendadon,Kyletakesissuesw1t. 11certninofthemagisttatejudge'sO dings asto each ofthese two argum ents. A.EffectofSyncopeonResidualFunctionalCapacity(RRFCD) KyleatguesthemagistratejudgeerredinconcluclingthatbecausetheATJspecihcally stated thatsheincluded Kyle'ssyncopediagnosisin hetILFC determ ination,she com plied with SSR 96-8P.ECF No.22at2.2 Kyleatguesthatthisûndingisin errorbecausetheATJ pzovided no explanadon fothow shraddressed lim itadonsstem m ing from tlp syncope in herILF'C hndingsand therefore did notbuild alogicalbridge3between the evidenceand her ILF'C findings. K ylecitesThom asv.Ber hill, Fed.Appx. ,N o.17-2215,2019 W L 193948(4thCir.2019),wheretheFourthCircuitstatedthataproperRT'C evaluadonhas threecomponents:(1)evidence,(2)alogicalexplanadon,and(3)aconclusion,withthe logicalexplanadon beingasimportantastheothe. rtwo.1d.at*3.HearguesthattheAT, J's opsnion isnotsuppoztedbysubstandalevidencebecauseshedid notexpbinherconclusion. 1D etailed factsaboutKyle'sim pnit-mentsand m edicaland procedutallùstorycan befound in therepottandrecommendaéon (ECF No.21)andin theafqministtativetranscript(ECF No.8).Assuch,theywillnotberepeatedhete. 2T<SSR 96-8p''refersto a SocialSecudtyRuling wllich addressesthe assessm entofR-FC in itlidalcbims. SSR 96-817(S.S.A.),1996WL 374184. 3SeeCliffordv.A fel,227F.3d 863,872 (7th Cir.2000)(observing thatATJmustffbtzild an accutateand logicalbddgefrom theevidencetollisconclusion'). Thereisverylittleevidenceregarding syncopein thetecord.K yleclid notpointto any m edicalevidence and the only referencefound wasoneassessm entofsyncopeby one of Kyle'sphysicians,w1:1no tefetence to sym ptom sin thatrecord. R.393. In addidon,Kyle tesdhed attheheatingthathehad tecentlybeengetting dizzy.R.49-50.The AT, J found thatthesyncopewasa severeim pnirm entand acknowledged K yle'stestim ony regatding his dizziness. R.15,19.She stated thatshe gavegreatweightto the opinionsofthe 'state m edicalconsultants,butincluded addidonalreaching and ene onm entallim itadonsft based on the expanded record and theclnim ant'snew diagnosis.ofsyncope.'' R.23.The environm entallim itadonssheim posed include avoicling exposureto hazatdousm achinery, worlring atunprotected heights,climbing ropes,ladders,and scaffolds,and worldng on vibrating surfaces. R.18. Being m indfulofThom as,itappearsobviousfrom therecord that theATJimposedtheenvitonmentalresttictionstoexcludejobswherebecomingdizzy wolzldbedangerous.Accordingly,thecourtfindsnoerrorineitherthemagistratejudge'sor A1. J'sanalysisofthisissueandovetmxlesKyle'sobjecdon. B.Need forBreaksin ResidualFunctionalCapacity(RFC)Assessment Kyle also objects to the magisttate judge's conclusion that the ATJ adequately consideredthenlzmberofbreakshewould needitzaworkday.Themagisttatejudgefound thatK ylepointed to no evidencein therecord inclicating thatheneeded m ore than thenorm al / nmnber of breaks in a wozkdap4 Kyle counters that he did point to m edical evidence 4KylealsonotesthatthemagistratejudgestatedthatKyle'sILF'C limitedhim toasix-hour workdayratherthan an eight-hourworkday and thatifthiswere true,K ylewould be endtled to a finding ofdisabilitybecause he could notengagein substanéalgainfulacévity. Kyleis cottectthatthemagistratejudgemadethatstatementonpage10oftheRepol'tand Recpmmendadon,ECF N o.21at10.However,the ATJ acttzazy found thatKylecould congrm ing the sevetity ofhisim pnit-mentsthatwould cause him to be unable to m aintain a stadcwork posturewithoutextrabreaks.A review ofthem edicalevidence cited by Kyleand theATJ'sdecision showsthattheATJ consideredtheevidence.Com areECF No.13at3-4 with R.21.Nevee eless,theAIJconcluded thattherewetenopersuasivemedicalopinions in thezecozd thatsuggested gteatetphysicallimitadonsthan whatw asaccounted fotin Kyle's R-FC. W ith the excepdon ofonetreadng physician who said thatK ylehad a lim ited abilityto push and pull,no m edicalprovidet offered areasoned opinion regatcling Kyle'slim itadons. R.22. The ATJ cited the statemedicalconsultants'fmclingsthatKylecould do lightwork with postural lim itadons,R.22-23, and the m edical records showing Kyle exbibited no difhcultyinidating m ovem ent,m oving genetally,orm usclettem ors,and thathe m aintained a norm algaitand did notdisplay diffktzlty with ttansfers. In addidon,although hehad tkht . hnm strings,straight-leg tese g wasnegadve.R.23. Themagistratejudge's fincling thatthe ATJproperly concluded thattherewasno opinion in the record supporéng a need for addiéonalbteaks is supported by the zecord. Accordingly,thecotutfindsnoetroron thisissueandKyle'sobjecdonisovermled. C. H ypotheticalQ uesdon Kylealso objectsto themagistratejudge'sfindingtlmttheAI, JincludedallofKyle's im psit-m entsin the hypothedcalquesdon to thevocationalexpert. In pntticular,Kyle cbim s thatthe ATJ , failed to include quesdonsregarzing llisneed for ftequentbreaks to change posidon ortheeffectofthesyncopalspellson Kyle'sabilityto stay on task d'atingtheworkday. workan eight-houtday andcould standand/orwalk fotsixhotusand sitforsix hours.R. 18.Themagistratejudge'smisstatementoftherecordishnrmlessanddoesnotrequirea rem and. However,in the M J'Sftrst hypothedcalquesdon to the vocadonalexpert,she included limitaéonsbased on llissyncopalepisodes(avoicling exposuteto hazardousmachinery,no worlcing atunprotected heightsorclimbing ladders,ropes,orscaffolds),and thevocadonal expet'ttesdfied thatjobsexisted forKylein the nadonaleconomy.R.63-64.In the last hypothedcal,sheincluded thatthe petson would have aneed to nap m ostofthe day,which precluded allem ploym ent.R.65-66. Kyle atguesthatthe hypotheécalquesdons failed to ask aboutthe effectofpain and syncope on lnis ability to sustain w ork acdvity over the cotzrse of an eight-hour w otkday because oftheneed to takem uldplebreaksthtoughoutthe day to changeposidonsozto stop work acdvityand zest.K ylepointsto no evidencein therecord thathissyncopecreated aneed forhim to takemuldple breaks. In àddidon,asdiscussed above,the ATJ found thatKyle's allegadon thatheneeded to stayin bed alldaywasnotsupported by m edicalopinion evidence. H o oi edcal quesdons need only reflect im pni= ents that ate supported by the record. Russellv.Barnharq58Fed.Appx.25,30(4thCir.2003). M oreover,K yle'sattotney had an opporturlity to includein herhypotheticalquesdon to thevocadonalexpertaneed to changeposidonsand did notdo so. R.67-69. <<(A ny possibledefectsin an AT, J'Shypotheticalare cured when the plaindfpsattorney isgiven an oppoztunityto pose questbnsto theVE.''Sm ith v.Astrue,N o.2;11-CV-025-M R-D CK ,2012 W. L3191296(W.D.N.C.2012)(citingShivel v.Heckler,739F.2d987,990-91(4thCir.1984)). Themagistratejudgecorrectlydetetminedthatthehypothedcalquesdonsposedbythe ATJwereproperandsupportedbysubstandalevidenceintherecord.Kyle'sobjecdontothe hypothedcalquesdonsisoverrtzled. D . M ai pulative Izim itationsin RFC Kyle atguesthatthe AIJ erred by notincluding any maniptlladve limitationsin the ILF'C. Heobjectsto themagistratejudge'sconclusion thatthe ATJproperly assessed the record because she took into accountthe evidence ofdecreased m otor sttength in hislight bicep and som edeczeased sensadon in hisrighthand.ECF 21at13. In 2011,w hileincatcerated,K ylereported inte= ittentcom plete rightarm nlzm bness involving allfm getsand thelossofstrength in lzisnl= .R.297-298.H ehad decreased sensadon to pin prick irlllis tight upper al'm and an M R.I indicated degeneradve disc disease in llis cerdcalspine. Surgery wasrecom m ended,butapparently never occurred.R.305.5 Atthe headng,K yletestd ed thathe frequently dtopped things.R.55. In assessing Kyle'sRFC,the ATJ cited the2011medicalevidenceand Kyle'sheadng testimony,butalsonotedthatin2013heexhibiteddecreased sensaéontolkhttouchinthe ulnaraspectoflnisrighthand butthatno other dehcitswete noted on exnm inaéon. R.20, 347. The ATJ also noted thattherewasno evidenceofreduced gzip strength in thehands, lossofcolorin the allegedly affected areas,orm uscle attophy.R.23. Themagistratejudgeconsidered Kyle'sargumentregarrling manipuladvelimitadons, butfoundthattherewassubstandalevidenceinthetecordandsuffkientzeasoningintheAT, J opinion to supportthe RFC.E CF N o.21 at11,13.The courtagreesthattherecord contains substandalevidencesuppoe ng the AT, J'Sdecision to notincludem aniptzladvelimitadonsin 5ThemagistratejudgecitedR.295tosaythatKylerefusedsurgery.Thatdocllmentshows thatK ylerefused oralsurgerp H owevetthereisanotherrefetencein therecord thatK yle ffsigned arefusalform for any outside appts.regarfling hisneck.'' R.338. 9 theILF'C assessment.AccotHingly,thecourtdeclinestofindthatthemagisttatejudgeerred andovermalesKyle'sobjecdon. E.SubjectiveComplaints Kylefl'ttlnerobjectsthattheATJdidnotproperlycredithissubjecdvecomplnintsof impeitment. In suppol.tofthisobjecéon,Kyle arguesthatthemagistrate judgeerred in concluding thatthe ATJ provided a detailed narradve discussion ofKyle'smedicalllistory becausetheAT. Jfailedtoincludeanymanipuladvelimitadonsandthusfailedtobuild abridge betweentheevidenceandhetconclusions.Kylealsoarguesthatthemagistratejudgeerredin concluclingthatthe ATJ properlyconsidered theevidenceoftecord,assertingthatthe ATJ cherry picked evidence and ignoted exidence confitvning abnorm al hnclings and Kyle's clifhcultymovingandmanipuladngobjects. The col'ttfindsthatthisargam entisareitem don ofKyle'sargum ent,setforth above, thatthe ATJ should haveincluded manipuladvelimitadonsin herRT' C.Thisargum entfails fozthe samereason:substandalevidencesupportsthe AT, J'Sûnding thatKyledid nothave manipuladvelimitadonsandthemagisttatejudgedidnotertinreachingthatconclusion. Kyleaddidonallyobjectsto themagistratejudgepoindngoutthatwdttenstatements Kyle m adew hen applying forreconsidetadon differed from statem entsm ade atthe he/ting, withoutacknowledging the passage of tim e.The evidence regarding conflictsin statem ents Kylemadeatdifferenttim eswasdescdbed bythem agistratejudgeaspartofllisassessm ent ofthe AT, J'sanalysisofKyle'ssubjecive complaintsand doesnotconstitute error. To the contrary,<<(a)necessarypredicateto engagingin substandalevidencereview isarecord ofthe basisfortheAT, J'snzlinp''Radfordv.Colvin,734F.3d288,295(4thCir.2013)(cidngGordon v.Schweiker,725F.2d231,235(4thCir.1984)).fThezecozdshouldincludeadiscussionof wllich evidencethe ATJfoundctedibleandwhy,andspecifk applicadon ofthepertinentlegal requitementsto thetecord evidence.'' JZ. Themagistratejudge setouttherelevantlegal standardsforassessingsubjecdvecomplaints,andthendescribedtheevidenceintherecord wlnichindicatedthatKyle'ssubjecdvecomplaintswereinconsistentwiththemedicalevidence, including the conflictsbetween statem ents he gave at different stages ofthe socialsecutity proceedings. ECF N o.21 at 11-13. The descdpdon ofthe evidence was noterror by the magistratejudgeanddoesnotptovideabasisforremand. Finally,Kyleobjectsthatthemagistratejudgeattemptedtobuild alogicalbddgethat the ATJherselfdidnotbuild,which isimpe= issible.W ithregard to therequirementthatan AIJ fTbuild an accutateandlogicalbzidgefrom theevidenceto llisconclusion,''the Clifford courtexplained thatan AT, Jmustmakeclearwhytheobjecdvemedicalevidencedoesnot supportacbim ant'sallegadonsofdisabling pain.Itisinsuffkientto m erelylistdaily acdvides assubstandalevidencethata clsim antdoesnotsufferdisabling pnin.Clifford,227 F.3d at872. Norisitsuffkientforthe AT, J to simplyrecitemedicalevidence thatshe believestendsto discreditaclnimant'stestimony.Montoev.Colvin,826F.3d176,189(4th Cir.2016). In thiscase,the ATJ citedKyle'stestimonyandsllmmadzed them edicalevidence.She then stated thatthete were no persuasive m edicalopinionsin the record to suggestgteater physicalorm entallim itadonsthatwhatsheaccounted forin hetRF'C assessm ent.R.22.The only m edicalopinion addressing Kyle'slim itadonswasprovided by D r.Bellwho stated that hehad alim ited abilityto push and pullbutofferedno diagnosisorradonaleforthelim itadon. TheAIJgavethatopinion ffsom eweight,''concluHingthatallthedeficitswereaccountedfor bylimiéngKyletolkhtwozkwithonlyfrequentoverheadlifting.. LdaTheAJJalsoaddressed them edicalevidence ofsyncopeby im posing environm entaland balancing restricdonsin the RFC.R.23.'I'he AT, J Fllt-fher concluded thatKyle'srange ofmodon de:cits,intetvnittent spasm son exam ination,and im agingthatconfum ed degeneradve discdiseasewereaccounted forbylimidnghim tolightworkwithaddidonalnon-exetdonallimitadons.JA TheATJthus m ade cleat her reasons for reaching het conclusion about Kyle's RFC and sadsfied the tequirem entsofClifford and M ontoe. Themagistratejudge'sdete= inadonthattheAT, J'screclibilityassessmentissupported by substandalevidence is cotrect. The ATJ builtthe requisite fflogicalbddge''and Kyle's objecdon thatshedid notisovermxled. CO N CLU SIO N Forthereasonsstated,thecourthndsnoerrozinthemagistratejudge'sconclusion thattheAI, J'sdecisionissupportedbysubstandalevidence.Assuch,themagisttatejudge's reportand tecom m endadon willbe adopted in itsentirety. An appropriate O tdetwillbe enteted. Enteted: ô /- J l.- 1. *a tY f+fM WYA' V /. K-'Z-' M ichaelF. 1: ' ClliefU ted StatesDisttictludge
]]>
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.
