Beach v. Berryhill, No. 7:2017cv00539 - Document 25 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Michael F. Urbanski on 2/21/2019. (ck)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
ctzRrs OFFI()E U.S.DISX COURT AT ROANOKE,VA FILED FE2 2 1 2212 IN TH E U N ITED STATE S D IST RICT CO U RT FORTHEWESTERN DISTRICT OEWRGINIA /: ULI AC.DUDLEY LERK ROAN O U D IW SIO N K LE STE R B., Plaintiffy CivilAction N o.7:17-CV-00539 V. N AN CY A .BE RRYH ILL, Acting Com m issionerofSocialSecurity, By: M ichaelF.U rbansld ChiefUnited StatesDistrictJudge D efendant. M EM O RAN D U M O PIN ION Tllissocialsecudty clisability appealwasreferred to the H onorable RobertS.Ballou, UnitedStatesMagisttateludge,ptzrsuantto28U.S.C.j6369$(1)7),forproposedfinclingsof factandarecommendeddisposition.Themagisttatejudgefiledarepol'tandtecommendadon onlanuary22,2019,recommendingthatplaintiff'smodonforslnmmaryjudgmentbedenied, theCommissioner'smodon forsummatyjudgmentbegtanted,and theCommissioner'sfinal decisionbeaffst-med.PlaindffLesterB.rtester?)hasfiledobjecdonstothereport,towhich the Com m issionerresponded,and thism atterisnow ripe forthe court'sconsideradon. 1.Standard ofReview ofM agistrateJudge Decision The objection requirementsetfotth in Rule 72$) ofthe FederalRulesofCivil Beach v. Berryhill Procedureisdesigned to fftraing1the attenéon of170th the distdctcotzrtand the courtof Doc. 25 appealsupon onlythoseissuesthatremain in disputeafterthemagistratejudgehasmade findingsandrecommendadons.7'UnitedStatesv.Mid ette,478F.3d 616,621 (4th Cit.2007) (ciéngThomasv.Arn,474 U.S.140,147-48 (1985)).An objecting partymustdo so ffwith Dockets.Justia.com suffkient specificity so as reasonably to alert the distzict courtof the ttnle gzound for tlze objecdon-''Id.at622. To conclude otherwise w ould defeat the purpose ofreqlliring objecdons.W ewouldbepetvniténgapattyto appealanyissue thatwasbefozethemagisttatejudge,regardlessofthenatureand scopeofobjectionsmadetothemagistratejudge'szeport.Either the disttict couztw ould then have to teview every issue in the magistrate judge'sproposed finclingsand recommendadonsor courts of appeals would be required to review issues that the disttictcourtneverconsidered.lneithercase,judicialresources would bew asted and the districtcol'tt's effectivenessbased on help from magisttatejudgeswould beundetrnined. = Id Thedistrictcourtmustdetermine& novoanypozdonofthemagistratejudge'sreport $ . ' and recom m endaéon to wllich a proper oblection has been m ade.Kfl' he districtcouztm ay accept,teject,ormodifytherecommendeddisposiéon;zeceivefixttherevidence;orretatn the mattertothemagistratejudgewithinstructions.''Fed.R.Civ.P.729$(3)9accotd28U.S.C.j 636q$(1). lf,however,apartyTffmakesgeneral(ptconclusoryobjecdonsthatdo notdirectthe courttoaspecifcertorinthemagistratejudge'sproposedfindingsandrecommendadons,''' dq novo zeview isnotrequited.Di ros ero v.Colvin,No.5:13-cv-00088-FDW -DSC,2014 . W L 1669806,at*1(W .D.N.C.Apr.28,2014)(quotingHowardYellow Cabs,lnc.v.United States,987F.Supp.469,474(W .D.N.C.1997)(quoe gOmianov.lohnson,687F.2d44,47 (4th Cir.19821 .Tvhecourtwillnotconsiderthoseobjectionsbytheplaindffthataremerely conclusoryorattemptto objectto theentirety oftheReport,withoutfocusing thecourt's attendon on specificerrotstherein.''Cnm erv.Com m 'rofSoc.Sec.,N o.4:08cv69,2009 W L 9044111,at*2 (E.D.Va.May 6,2009),aff'd,373 F.App'x 346 (4th CiQ ;seeMidgette,478 F.3dat621rfsecdon636@ 41)doesnotcountenanceaform ofgeneralizedobjectbntocover allissuesaddtessed by the magisttatejudge;itcontemplatesthata patty'sobjecdon to a magistratejudge'sreportbespecihcand paréculazized,asthestat-utedirectsthedisttictcourt toreview onlyzthoseportionqofthereportorjpect fedproposedEndingsorrecommendadonsto whichob jectionJkmade.''nt.Such generalobjecdonsTfhavethesameeffectasafailutetoobject, otasawaiverofsuch objection.''Moon v.BW X Technolo 'es,742 F.Supp.2d 827,829 (W.D.Va.2010),aff'd,498F.App'x 268 (4th Cir.2012);seealso Thomasv.Atn,474U.S. 140,154(1985)rfrllhestat-utedoesnotteqllit'ethejudgetoreview anissueA novoifno objecéonsateftled....''). Rehashing argumentsraised befoze the magistratejudgedoesnotcomplywith the requirementsetforthintheFedezalRulesofCivilProceduretoftlespecihcobjections.Indeed, objecéonsthatsimplyzeiterateargumentsraisedbeforethemagistratejudgeateconsideredto begenezalobjecéonstotheentitetyofthetepottandzecommendation.SeeVene v.Asttue, 539F.Supp.2d 841,844-45(W.D.Va.2008).Asthecokutnoted inVeney: Allowing alitigantto obtain denovo review ofherentite caseby metelyzeformattinganeatlietbriefasanobjectionTdmakges)the initialreference to the m agistrate useless.The ft m céons of the districtcourtare effecévely duplicated asboth them aaistrateand thedistrictcourtpezform identicaltasks.Thisduplication ofHm e andeffortwastesjudicialresourcesrathezthansavingthem,and nm s conttary to the pum oses ofthe M agistratesAct.''H ow ard (v.Sec'yofHealth& HumanServsp,932F.2d(505,)g509 ((6th Cit.1991)j. 539 F.Supp.2d at846.A plaindffwho reitezatesllispteviously-raised arplm entswillnotbe given fTthe second bite atthe apple she seeksi''instead,lnisre-fied briefwillbe tzeated as a generalobjecdon,whichhasthesameeffectaswouldafailuzetoobject.Id. II.JudicialReview ofSocialSecurityDetere nations Itis notthe pêovince ofa fedeêalcourt to m ake aclm inistzadve disability decisions. Rather,judicialreview ofdisabilitycasesislimitedtodetef-miningwhethersubstandalevidence supportsthe Com m issioner'sconclusion thattheplninéfffailed to m eethisburden ofproving disability.See Ha sv.Sullivan,907 F.2d 1453,1456 (4th Cit.1990)9see also Lawsv. Celebzezze,368F.2d 640,642(4th Cir.1966).In sodoing,thecourtmayneitherundertakea 7.. qnovoreview oftheCom missioner'sdecision norre-weigh theevidenceofrecord.Hunter v.Slxllivan,993 F.2d 31,34 (4th Cir.1992).Evidenceissubstandalwhen,considering the recotd asawhole,itnlightbe deem ed adequate to supportaconclusion by areasonablem ind, mchardson v.Perales,402 U.S.389,401 (1971),orwhen itwould be sufhcientto reftzse a ditectedvetdictin ajuty trial.Snnithv.Chater,99F.3d635,638 (4thCir.1996).Substanéal evidenceisnotaTflazge orconsiderable am ountofevidence,''Piercev.Underwood,487 U .S. 552,565(1988),butismorethanamerescintillaand somewhatlessthan apreponderance. Petales,402 U .S.at4019Law s,368 F.2d at642.lfthe Com m issionet'sdecision issuppotted by substantialevidence,itmustbeaffi= ed.42 U.S.C.j405(g);Petales,402U.S.at401. 111.PlaintifpsObjectionsl Lesterraisedtwo argumentsbeforethemagisttatejudgeon slnm 'maryjudgment- that the Ai', J'sfindingswerenotsupportedbysubstanéalevidenceand thatthe ATJ ,'sassessment ofLester's allegationswasnotsupported by substandalevidence.In ltis objectionsto the 1D etailed factsaboutLester'simpaitm entsand m edicaland procedtualllistory can be found in tllereportandrecommendation (ECF No.22)and in theadministradvetranscript(ECF No.9).Assuch,they* 11notberepeated here. repoztandrecommendadon,Lestertakesissueswithcertainofthemagisttatejudge'shndings asto each ofthese two argum ents. A.Need forBreaksaspartofResidualFunctionalCapacity(RFC)Assessment Lesterobjectstothemagistratejudge'sconclusionthattheATJadequatelyconsidered Lestez'sabilityto m aintain a stadcwozk postuze and l aisneed to liedown dudng the day.The magistratejudgefound thatneitherLester'sdifficultymnintniningastadcwork posturenor lnis need to lie down w ere severe im paitm ents, butw ere cornplznts he naade duràag Kne adlninistrativehearing thatthe ATJ found unsupported by therecord.Lesterobjectsthat although theAI, J found thatLesterhad severeskeletalimpnit-mentszand chronicobstructive pulm onary clisease,he failed to m ake specific findingsasto whether theim pnitvnentswould causepain orfatiguenecessitaérigbreaksin work andifso,how often theeventswotzld occur. He citesM onroe v.Colvin,826 F.3d 176,188 (4th Cir.2016),where the Fourth Circuit remanded acaseafteran ATJ found thataclnimanthad severeimpairm entsofsleep apnea and narcolepsy butfailed to m ake specifk ûndingsasto w hethertheim pnitm entscould cause him to lose consciousnessorcause fatiguenecessitaéng bzeaksin thew ork day. Lester testified atthe hearing thatusually hew ould lie down and zestonce a day foz thirtyminutesbecausehewouldbecometiredand hisjointswouldstat' tto ache.R.77-78. The ATJ noted thatLesteralleged shortness ofbzeath,bilateral1eg and knee pnin,fadgue, headaches,jointpain in llisfingersandelbows,aheartmurmtm 1ow backpain,leftanldepain, 2TheATJ found thatLesterhadthefollowingsevereimpmitvnents:nlild scoEosisand multilevelstressrelated changesto the lum barspine;m ild to m oderatecervicaland thoracic spondylosis;moderateosteoarthritisoftheacromioclaviculazjoints;mild osteoatthrosisof theacronnioclavicularjoints,mildosteoartlndtisofthevisualizedglenohllmeraljoints;and chronicobstrucdveplzlmonaty diseaser<COPD'').R.27. deptession, and anxiety. H e also acknowledged that Lester testfed to chronic pain that lim ited lzisabitiéesto stand,walk,usehishands,and petfotm posturalm aneuvers,and thathe said he needsto takebreaksand shiftpositionsfrequently to reduce pain.R.31. However, the ATJ concluded that Lester's statements regarcling the intensiy ' pezsistence,and lim iting effectsofhissym ptom swetenotenl elyconsistentwit, h thezecord. Ld.xThe ATJnoted thatin 2013Lesterzeported atthritispainin lnisknees,elbows,andhands, but received essentially no treatnent for pain or arthritis and a physical exam inadon was unremarkable.Id.Inltzly2016X-raysrevealedmildtomoderatecervicalspondylosisand mild to moderate osteoarthriés of the AC joints and glenohumetaljoints.He also reported shottnessofbreath fotwltich he wasptesctibed Advait.JIL Latetthatyeathewasevaluated -. for shortnessofbteat.h butreported no back plin,jointpqin,myalgias,orneck pnin. His physicalexarninaéonwasunremarkableandhehadanormaltangeofmodon.Lda Lesteralso . tepozted taldng only lbupzofen forpain,suggesdng thathispain w asnotasseveteasalleged. 'ln adclition, plllm onary ftm céon tests showed norm al spitom etry and no bronchodilator response.H ewasstillsm oking cigarettes,suggesting thathisshortnessofbreath did notcause him gteatconcern. The ATJ found thattheevidencein therecord supported afmdingthat Lestercoulddom edium workwith appropriateenvitonmentallimitations.Jl. L TheATJalsonotedthatLestercontinuedtoworkparttime,careforadisabledrelative, andTTstay acéve.':Hehad lostlnispzeviousfulltimejob asacaregiverbecauselaisclientdied, notbecauseofhisdisability,and w asinterested in working m ore houtsasa cleaner. R.32. In adcliéon,theATJ cited to aconsultativephysicalexanninaéonwheretheexaznirzingphysician concluded thatLestezcould situp to six hours,stand and w alk up to six houzs,occasionally liftup to fiftypounds,and occasionally clim b,kneel,and crawl. R.32. Unlike in Monroe,it is cleat from the tecozd that the ATJ considered Lester's allegaéons regatding the lim i% g effects ofhisim pnitvnentsbutdiscotm ted them based on objecdve medicalevidencein the zecozd aswellasLestez'stestimony thathetook only Ibuprofen foz pnin,w orked as a cleanet partém e,and cared for a disabled relative. R.32. Therefore,themagistratejudge'sfincling thatLester'scaseisdisdnguishablefrom Monroe becausethe ATJmadespecihcfmclingsabolitwhetherllissubjectivesymptomswould cause him to experienceepisodesofpain otfadgtzenecessitatingbreaksin work,issupported bythe record.Accordingly,thecourthndsnoerroronthisissueandLester'sobjecdonisoverruled. B. W eightGiven to OpiqionsofM edicalSoutces Lesterobjectstothemagisttatejudge'sfindingthatsubstandalevidencesupportsthe AT, J'Sdecision to givegteatweightto theopinion oftheconslzltaévephysician and onestate agency physician who found thathe could do areduced range ofm eclilzm work while giving only partialweightto the opinion ofanother state agency physician who found thatLester could perform areduced range oflightwork. Lesterunderwenta consultadveexanainadon by W illiam H lAm phties,M .D . FIisrange ofm otion w asnorm alexceptfor a slightly reduced tange ofm odon in the hands and wdsts; llisneck and back weze tenderto palpation buttherew ere no spasm s;hisstraight-leg testwas negadve;therewasmoderateenlargementoftheMCP andIP jointsand diffusetendernessin the upper exttennides;he had no tenderness or defotm ities in the lower extrernides;he had slightly reduced grip strength and m ild atrophy in the thenarregionsbuthe could perfozm fine m anipulations adequately;he had a slightly antalgic gate due to left'bip discom fortbut could geton and offthe exam table withoutclifficulty,briefly heeland toe walk,and perfozm tandem gaitadequately;hisstrength and reflexeswerewitllin norm allirnits;hehad no sensory orm otor loss exceptfor m ild paresthesia in llis feet;hislungs were clearwith equalbêeath sounds;and hisheartzate and zhytlnm wezenozm alwith no m llt-muz. D r.H 'pm phtiesconcluded thatLestercould situp to six hotus,stand and walk up to six hours,liftup to fifty pounds occasionally,and occasionally clim b,kneel,and crawl. The AT, Jgavetheopinion greatweightbecauseitwassuppottedby examinadon resultsand was consistentw1t.11Lester'slim ited treatmenthistorp R.32.A stateagency teviewing physician, LucVinh,M .D .,opined thatLestetcould petform areduced range ofm edblm work and the ATJgavelnisopinion greatweight,finclingthatitadequatelyaccounted fotLester'soccasional jointpain.R.32,135-148. On reconsidezation,state agency reviewing physician,Jack Hutcheson,M.D.,found thatLestercolzlddoareducedrangeoflkhtwork.R.165-176.TheALJgavetheopinion only slightweight,because the doctordid notcite adequate evidence ofexeo onallim itations m ore restticdve than those noted by D rs.H um phtiesand Vinh.R.32. Lesteratguesthatthe ATJ'sdecision to give Dr.Hutcheson'sopinion lessweightis not supported by substandal evidence because the ATJ , clid not address whether his im pnit-m entswould cause him to need breaksdudng the workday and ifso,how often the breakswould need to occur. Tllisargum entfails foztwo reasons. Fitst,Dr.H utcheson did notconclude thatLester needed to take breaks duting the day. Rather he concluded that Lestercoulddoareducedrangeoflkhtwork,specifkallyfinclingthathecotzldstandorwalk for six hoursin an eight-hou. rworkday wit.h no= albreaksand sitforatotalofsix houzsin a workday,with normalbreaks.R.173.Thus,even ifthe ATJ had given the opinion ofDz. H utcheson great weight,itw ould nothave 1ed to a Encling thatLester needed m oze than norm albreaks orwould need to lie down dudng the workday. Second,asdiscussed above, objecdveevidenceinthezecord,aswellasLestez'stestimonythatheonlyoccasionallytakes Ibuprofen forpain,wotksa part-time cleaning job,and takescare ofadisabled reladve, suppol'tthe conclusion thathe doesnotneed to take m ore than norm albreaksin aw orkday orliedown duting the day. The court finds that the magisttate judge correctly concluded that the ATJ's determination oftheweightto givethem edicalsourceswassupportedby substandalevidence. Accotdingly,Lester'sobjecdontothehnclingisoveztuled. C.SubjectiveAllegationsofPain Lesterflxttherobjectsthatthemagistratejudgefailedto addressthe AT, J'sfailureto providean explanaéon ofhow Lester'sacdvitiesofdaily living show thathe can perform work acdvityonaconsistentbasisthroughoutan eight-hourworkday.Hearguesthatthe ATJfailed to build a logical bridge between the acdvities he cited and his conclusion that Lester's allegationsarenotfully supported by therecord. ln Cliffordv.A fel,227F.3d 863,872 C/t.h Cit.2000),thecourtobserved thatitisnot enough for an ATJ to state in a conclusory m anner thata clnim ant's testim ony regarding lim itaéonsplaced on lnisdaily acdviéeswasunsupported by them edicalevidence.Rather,an ATJ mustardculate Tfsom e legitimate reason for llisdecision''and ffbuild an accurate and logicalbridgefrom theevidenceto hisconclusion.''Norisitsufhcientforthe AIJ to simply 9 tecitem edicalevidencethathebelievestendsto discreditaclnim ant'stestim ony.M ontoe,826 F.3d at189.H e m ustptovide a clearexplanattion ofllisteasons fot discredidng a clqim ant's testimonytfsuch ttmtitwillall ow meaningftzlreview ofhisdecision.'?Id.at190. j ln thiscase,themagisttatejudgefound thattheATJ ,followedthetwo-step processset outin SSR 16-3173and determined thattherewasan underl/ng medically detetminable physicalotm entalimpqimnnentthatcould teasonably beexpected to ptoduce sym ptom s such aspain,butthatLestet'sstatem entsconcertling the intensity,persistence,and lim iting effects ofhispain wetenotsuppottedbythezecotd.'rhezecord supportsthemagisttatejudge's conclusion. The ATJ discussed Lester'sreported symptoms,including pain,R.30-31,butfound thatotherevidencein therecordwasnotconsistentwith hissubjectivecompbints.The ATJ cited a lack ofneurologicalsym ptom s on exanninadon,fullrange ofm otion in hisknees,no atrophy,norm algaitand am bulation,lack ofreporting ortteatm entforpain or arthrids,lack ofcom plaints to physiciansaboutpnin,lxnrem arkablephysicalexanninaéons,the factthathe took onlyIbupzofen forpain,lnispart-timejob anddesirett)pickup morehours,hiscadng for a disabled relative,the results of the consultadve exanlination set out above,and the 3KTSSR 16-3p''refersto SocialSeclzrity Ruling 16-3p;Titles11and X'VI:Evaluadon of Sym ptom sin D isability Clnim s,which providesguidanceabouthow the.SocialSecutity Aclm inisttadon evaluatessymptom sregarding theintensity,persistence,and lim idng effects ofsym ptom sin disability clsim s. Underthe tnlling,atv o-step processisused to evaluatean individual'ssym ptom s. AtStep 1,adeterm ination ism adewhethertheindividualhasa m edically determ inableimpoirmentyhatcould reasonably be expected to produce the alleged sym ptom s. AtStep 2,an evaluation ism ade ofthe intensity and persistenceofan individual'ssym ptom ssuch aspain,and a determinaéon ism ade ofthe extentto wllich the individual'ssym ptom slim itllisability to perform work-related activities. 10 opinionsofthestateagencyphysicians.R.31-32.Thus,theAT, Jptovidedaclearexplanaéon ofhisreasonsfor cliscrediéng Lester'stestim ony. Also,to theextentthe AIJ relied on thefactthatLestethad engaged in substantial gainfulactivity,Lesterarguesthatthe AIJ , did notaddressthe specialaccommodationshe receivedinthatjob.LestercitesPa nev.Slzllivan,946F.3d 1081,1083(4thCir.1991),forits holding thatwhile eaznings fzom w ork activitiesthatexceed incom e guidelineswitlordinarily show thatthe cbim anthasengaged in substantialgainfulactivity,the prestunption isnotto berigidlyapplied and can berebutted.LesterargtaesthattheAT, Jrelied solelyon theincome guidelines and failed to addtess the specialaccommodationshe received on the job that tesulted in thew ork being doneatlessthan substantialgainf'ulactivity levels. > . TheALJfoundthatLesterhadengagedin substantialgainfulacti vityforapproximately oneyearduringtheperiod hewascbiming thathewasdisabled.The ATJ noted thatLester testified that he wozked eight hours per day as a personalcare assistantand thatthe work included significantaccom m odationsfotlliscondidons,including theabilityto sitozliedown when heneeded to,orto adjusthishours.R.27,46,48,50.However,the AT, J found that there w as no corroborating evidence to support his cbim regarcling accom m odations and concluded that Lester engaged itl substantial gainful activity wit. h no significant accommodation.Thus,tlaeATJ did notrelysolely on theincomelevels,butrejectedLester's argum ent regarding accom m odations for lack of cotroborating evidence. R.27.Lestet's arpzm entto the conttaryiswithoutm erit. The magistrate judge cited the above evidence to conclude thatthe AT, J'S decision regarding Lestet's subjecéve complnintswas supported by substanéalevidence.Having exlm ined the record d. q novo,the coutt agrees with this fmding.Accordingly,Lester's . objectiontothisconclusionisoverrtzled. CO N CLU SION Forthereasonsstated,thecotutSndsnoerrorinthemagistratejudge'sconclusion thattheATJ'sdecisionissuppottedbysubstandalevidence.Assuch,themagistratejudge's reportand recom m endaéon * 1be adopted in itsentiretp A n appropriate O rderwillbeentered. Entered: 0> - z/---z. oty sf* k /.W /--'Z-' M ichaelF.Ur nski ChiefUnitedStatesDistdctludge 12
]]>
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.
