Greco v. Berryhill, No. 7:2018cv00039 - Document 26 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Michael F. Urbanski on 8/29/2019. (ck)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CLERK'S OFFICE U, S,DIST.COURT AT ROANOKE,VA FILED IN T H E U N ITED STATES D ISTRICT CO U RT FO R TH E W ESTE RN D ISTY CT O F W RGIN IA ROAN O K E D IW SION AgJ J 0 221! JULIA UDLEM LERK BY: C RK LISA G .y CivilA ction N o.7:18-CV-0039 Plaindff V. AN D REW SAU L,Com m issionerof SocialSecurity, By: M ichaelF.U rbanild ChiefUnited StatesDistrictJudge D efendant M EM O M N D U M O PIN IO N This socialsecudty disability appealwasreferred to the H onorable RobertS.Ballouy UnitedStatesMagistrateludge,pursuantto28U..S.C.j6369$(1)7),forproposedhndingsof factandarecommendeddisposition.Themagisttatejudgefiledareportandrecommendadon @.&R)onJune27,2019,recommending thatplnindffLisaG's(<<Lisa'')modon forsummary judgmentbegrantedin part,theCommissioner'smodonforslAmmaryjudgmentbedenied, and the caseberem anded for6ltthetaclm inistrativeproceedings.TheCom m issionerofSocial Sectlrity has flled objecdons to the repoztand this matter is now ripe for the court's consideradon. 1.Standard ofReview ofM agistrateJudgeD ecision Greco v. Berryhill Doc. 26 The objecdon requirement setforth in Rule 72$) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedurelisdesigned to fftraing)the attention ofboth the disttictcourtand the courtof 1fqvithin 14 daysafterbeing servedwitlzacopy oftherecomm ended disposidon,apartymay serve and ftle speco cwrittenobjecdonstotheproposedfindingsandrecommendadons.''Fed.R.Civ.P.72q$. Dockets.Justia.com appealsupon onlythoseissuesthatzemain in disputeaftezthemagistlutejudgehasmade hndingsandtecommendadons.''UnitedStatesv.Mid ette,478F.3d616,621(4th Cir.2007) (citingThomasv.Arn,474U.S.140,147-48(1985)).An objece gpattymustdo soffwith sufficientspecificity so as reasonably to alert the districtcourtof the tfale ground for the objection.''Id.at622. To conclude otherwisewould defeatthepumoseofrequiring objecdons.W e w ould be perm itdng a party to appealany issue thatwasbefore the m agistrate judge,regardlessofthenatureand scopeofobjectionsmadetothemagistrate judge'sreport.Eithertheclisttictcotutwouldthenhavetoreview everyissuein themagisttatejudge'sproposed findingsand recommendationsorcouttsof appeals would be tequired to review issues that tlae disttict court never considered.In eithercase,judicialresoutceswould bewasted and the district coutt's effectiveness based on help from magisttate judges would be undetmined. ld = Thedistzictcourtm ustdetermine0. :novoanypottionofthemagistratejudge'srepol. t . and zecommendaéon towhich aproperobjecdon hasbeen made.ffl' hedistdctcotutmay accept,reject,ormodifytherecommendeddisposiéon;receivefllttherevidence;orreturnthe mattertothemagistratejudgew1t.11instrucdons.''Fed.R.Civ.P.72q$(3)9accord28U.S.C.j 636q$(1). If,however,a party fffmakesgeneralor conclusoryobjecéonsthatdo notditectthe courttoaspecifk errorinthemagistratejudge'spzoposedfinclingsandrecommendadonsyr' X novo review isnotrequited.Di ros ero v.Colvin,N o.5:13-cv 00088-FDW -D SC,2014 WL 1669806,at*1 (W.D.N.C.Apr.28,2014)(quodng Howard Yellow Cabs,lnc.v.United States,987 F.Supp.469,474 (W .D.N.C.1997)(quodng Omianov.lohnson,687F.2d 44,47 (4th Cir.19821 .ffT' hecourtwitlnotconsidetthoseobjectionsbythepbinéffthataremerely 2 conclusory orattemptto objectto the entirety ofthe Report,withoutfocusing thecourt's attendon on specific errorstherein.''Cam erv.Com m 'rofSoc.Sec.,N o.4:08cv69,2009W L 9044111,at*2 (E.D.Va.May6,2009),aff'd,373 F.App'x 346 (4th Ci. r.);seeMid ette,478 F.3dat621rfsecdon636@ (1)doesnotcountenanceaform ofgeneralizedobjectiontocover allissuesaddtessed by the magistrate judge;itcontemplatesthata partfsobjecéon to a magisttatejudge'sreportbespeciEcandpatdculadzed,asthestamtedirectsthectistHctcourt to review only zthoseportionsofthereportorJ>:c#:#proposedSnclingsortecommendadonsto . which p/ r ' /lbrJkmade.Dà.Such generalobjecdons'fhavethesameeffectasafailureto object, .#J ozasa waiver ofsuch objection.''Moon v.BW X Technolo 'es,742 F.Supp.2d 827,829 (W.D.Va.2010),aff'd,498F.App'x268(4thCir.2012).SeealsoArn,474U.S.at154rfrllhe statutedoesnotreqllirethejudgetoreview an issue. d. tnovo ifno objectionsareftled....''). Rehaslling argumentsraised before the magistrate judge does notcomply with the requirementsetforthintheFederalRlzlesofCivilproceduretoftlespecihcobjecdons.lndeed, objecdonsthatsimplyzeiterateatgamentsraisedbeforethemagistratejudgeateconsideredto begenetalobjecdonstotheentitetyoftherepoztandzecommendaéon.SeeVene v.Asttue, 539F.Supp.2d 841,844-45 (W.D.Va.2008).Asthecourtnotedin y-qg-e-y: Allowing a liégant to obtain de novo review of her entire case by m erely zeformainganearlierbriefasanobjecdonffmakgesjtheitzidalreferencetothe m agistrateuseless.The funcdonsofthe disttictcout'tazeeffectively duplicated as lloth the m agistrate and the district cout't perform idendcal tasks.Tllis duplication ofdm eandeffortwastesjudicialresotucestatherthan savingthem , andnmscontraryto thepum osesoftheM agistratesAct''H oward (v.Sec'y of Health & Human Servsj,932F.2d (505,)g509 g(6th Cir.1991)1. 3 539 F.Supp.2d at846.A plnindffwho reiteratesherpzeviously-raised argum entswillnotbe given ffthe second bite atthe apple she seeksi''instead,herre-ftled briefwillbe treated asa generalobjecdon,wlzich hasthesameeffectaswould afailuretoobject.Lda II.JudicialRed ew ofSocialSecurity Determinations Itis notthe province of a federalcouzt to m ake aclm inistrative disability decisions. Rather,judicialreview ofdisabilitycasesislimitedtodeterminingwhethersubstandalevidence supportstheCom m issionet'sconclusion thattheplaintifffailed to m eetllisbutden ofproving disability.See Ha s v. Sllllivan,907 F.2d 1453, 1456 (4th Cit.1990)9see also Laws v. Celebrezze,368F.2d640,642(4thCir.1966).Insodoing,thecotutmayneitherundertakea X novo review oftheCommissioner'sdecision norre-weigh theevidenceofzecord.Hunter v.Sullivan,993F.2d 31,34 (4th Cit.1992).Evidenceissubstandalwhen,considedng the zecord asawhole,itmightbedeem ed.adequateto supporta conclusion by areasonablem ind, Richardson v.Perales,402 U.S.389,401(1971),orwhen itwould be sufficientto refusea Hitectedverdictin ajuryttial.Smithv.Chater,99F.3d 635,638 (4th Cir.199$.Substandal evidenceisnota fflarge orconsiderable am ountofevidence,''Piercev.Underwood,487 U .S. 552,565 (1988),butismore than amere scindllaand somewhatlessthan apreponderance. Perales,402 U .S.at4019Law s,368 F.2d at642.Ifthe Com m issioner'sdecision is supported bysubstandalevidence,itmustbeaffi= ed.42U.S.C.j405/);Perales,402U.S.at401. 4 111.The Commissioner'sObjectionsz InlaisobjecdonstotheR&R,theCommissionerasseêtsthatthemagistratejudgeezzed when he found thatthe ATJ failed to properly evaluate Lisa's mentalzesidualfuncdonal capacity IIkFCI and failed to account for her modetate imp/irment itz concentradon, pezsistence,or pace.Lisazespondsthatthe Comm issionerism aking the sgm e argum entshe madein llisoriginaland supplem entalbriefsandthattheATJadclressed them appropdately. The ATJ found thatLisahad severementalimp/itments,namely majordepressive disozder,generalized anxiety clisorder,panic disozdet,and clustet B personality ttaits.R.12. Aftetanalyzingtheevidencerelatedtohermentalimp/irments,theAT, JassessedLisa'smental residualfuncéonalcapacityIIIFCIapd foundthatshecouldunderstand,remember,andcarry out sim ple instrtzctions and perform sim ple, one-to-two step tasks. She could have no interacdon with thegenetalpublicand occasionalintetaction with coworkersand supervisors, butsholald wotk independently and notin tandem with others.She could occasionally m ake decisionsand could adaptto occasionalchangesin acustom ary work place setdng.Shecould notttavelasawotkdutyand couldnothavesttictptoduction quotas.R.16.TheATJthen concluded thatLisacould notretatn to herpastw ork asazestautantow net,butcotzldpetform thew ork ofa gntvnentfoldet,housekeeping cleanet,otclothing bagger. ThemagistratejudgefoundthatwhentheATJassessedLisa'sILF'C,hefat iedtoaccount forherm oderateimpairm entin concentradon,persistence,orpace.Although theATJlimited her to Tfno sttictproducdon quotas,''he did notexplain whatthe tet'm m eantand clid not 2D etailed factsaboutH sa'simpnirmentsand medicaland proceduralhistorycan be found in thereportand ' recommendadon(ECFNo.23)andintheaclministrativetranscript(ECFNo.8)andwillnotberepeated ' here. 5 discusswhetherLisacouldperfo= thejob-zelatedtasksonasustainedbasis.Themagistrate judgefound thatthelack ofan explanadon offfsttictproducdon quotas''and thelack ofa discussion ofwhetherLisa could perform work on a sustzned basis frustrated lzis ability to conductmeaningfulreview ofthe AT, Jdecision.Herecommended remanclingLisa'scase for fi't-rlnezconsidezadon ofhetm oderateim pairm entin concentradon,petsistence,orpace. In Thomasv.Bez hill,916 F.3d 307 (4th Cir.2019),theFourth Circuitnoted thata ptoperRFC analysishasthree elem ents:evidence,alogicalexplanadon,and a conclusion.Id. at311.ffT'hesecondcomponent,theAT, J'Slogicalexplanadon,isjustasimportantastheother two....M eaningfulreview isfmsttated when an AT, Jgoesstraightfrom listing evidenceto statingaconclusion.''Id.,citingW oodsv.Ber lnill,888F.3d 686,694 (4th Cir.2018).The courtthen pointed to folzrflawsin the AT, J'Sdecision. First,the ATJ did notdraw explicitconclusionsregarcling how theclnimant'smental limitaéonsaffected herability to perfot'm job-related tasksfora fullwotkday,which isa benchm ark established by SocialSecurity regtzladons.JIL at312(ciéngSSR 96-817,1996W L -. 374184at*2andMasciov.Colvin,780F.3d632,637(4thCir.2015).Second,theAIJdidnot explain sufficiently the weightshe gave to various opinions in the record by health care ptofessionals.JdxThird,theATJexpressed theclnimant'sR-FC firstand onlythen concluded thatthe limitadons caused by the impairmentswere consistentwith herRFC.J-d.a(citing Monroev.Colvin,826F.3d 176(4th Cit.2016)(stadng aclnimant'sRFC beforeconduce ga ftm cdon-by-ftm ction analysis is an error,even though,on itsown,it does not necesssrily reqlniteremandl). 6 Finally,andrelevanttoLisa'scase,whiletheATJ stated thattheclsimantcouldnot perform work ffrequiling a producéon rate or dem and pacey''she did notpzovide sufcient information to allow the couttto understand the m eaning ofthe terms.JA The lack of definidon m ade itclifficultto assesswhetherthe inclusion ofthe lim itadonsitlherIIFC was supported by substantial evidence.The Com m issioner argued that ffproducdon rate''and ffdem and pace''welr Tfcom m on vocatbnally relevantfuncéonallim itadonsy''but the court disas eed, firldir,g the term s in only a sm all n'am ber of cases,m ost of wllich w ere RF'C dete- inationsbythesam eATJwhohadctecided thecbimant'scase.LdaThecourtconcluded . thatthe com bination ofmisstepsin theRFC evaluadon fnzstrated areviewing couu'sability to conductam eaningfulreview,and tequited remand.LdaThecourtfuttherditected thaton temand,the AIJ would need to detetmine for how long and under whatcondidons the cbim antw ould be ableto focusherattendon and stay on task ata sustained rate.Id.atn.5. In Lisa'scase,themagisttatejudgecitedThomasand found thatthe ATJ erred when he concluded that Lisa could petfol' m sim ple one-to-two step tasks, carry out sim ple instrtzcdons,and could nothave ffstlictproduction quotas,''butclid notexplnin the m eaning offfsttictproducdon quotas.''ECF No.23at10.N ordid theATJ discusswhetherLisacotzld pezfot.m thejob-relatedtasksonasustainedbasis.Id.at11. Themagisttatejudgefurthernoted thattherecordcontained evidenceshowing that Lisawould havetrouble m lintairzing concenttation,persistence,orpace,inclucling statem ents she m ade to tteadng physicians, het tesHm ony at the heating, and the state agency psychologicalopinions.H owever,the state agency psychologists did notspecificazy address her ability to perform sim ple one-two step tasks on a sustained basis.Id.at 11-12.The 7 magistzatejudgeconcludedthatremandwaswarzantedbasedontheA1, J'sfailuretoproperly accountfozLisa'sm oderate im plim aentin concentratbn,persistence,and pace. TheCommissionerobjectsto themagistratejudge'sdecision toremand,argum 'gtlzat henlisread Thomasasreqllif-ingmore than afflogicalbridge''to facilitatejudicialreview and thenezzedbyapplyingThomascategoricallytofindthattheATJshotzldhavedefinedffsttict Ptoducdon quotas.?'3However,areview ofthemagisttatejudge'sR&R makesclearthathe did notapplyThomascategorically.Rather,themagistratejudgedetetmined tlaatthe ATJ madethesameerrorastheALJclidinThomas,with thesamerestzlt. The Commissioner argues that the ATJ ,'s hnding thatLisa could do Tfsimple work without stdctproducdon quotas''clearly connotes aw otk environm entwhere an individual doesnothavesignificantand inflexiblepzoducéon requitem ents.ECF N o.24.H ow ever,that defsnidon,notablyprovidedby theCommissionerit'zllisbriefand nottheATJ,isnothelpful, becauseitstillisunclearwhataffsignificantand inflexibleproducdon teqlnitem ent''would be in the contextof an em ployee lim ited to sim ple one-to-two step tasks.At the henting,the vocadonalexpertexplained thatwhen he said ffno strictptoducdon quotasy''hew aslooking atjobswhereptimqtilytherewasacertain amountofworktobeaccomplished,butifapezson slowed down,itw ould notimpactthework ofothers,asitwould in an assem bly posidon.R. 52.W hile thatdefinition goes a little way towatd de6ning frno stdctproducdon quotas,''it 3A review oftheCommissioner'sobjecdonsshowsthattheobjecdonsarethesnmeastheargt unentsraiseditz theCommissioner'ssupplementalbriefsubmittedto themagisaatejudge.In somecases,entizeparagraphsate repeatedalmostword-for-word.CompareDeft'sSupp.Bdef,ECF No.21at1-5,withDeft'sObjecdons,ECF No.24 at3-7.Asdiscussedabovein Vene ,allowing alidganttoobtain Aq' novoreview ofherentirecaseby merelyreformatdnganearlierbriefasan objecdonmakestheitzitialreferencetothemagistrateuseless,wastes judicialresources,and runscontraty to thepum oses ofthe MagistratesAct.Veney,539 Rsupp.zd at509. N evertheless,thecourthasreviewedtheR&. R and conclusionsofthemagistratejudgeX novo. 8 leavesunansweted thequestion ofhow m uch wotk isexpected to be accom plished duting the w orkday,wlzich is the heat'tof the issue ofwhether a person can m aintain concentradon, persistence,orpace. In thiscase,limiéngLisato jobsreqlpitingno dtstrictproduction quotas''isperhaps evenmoreconfusingthanthesimilaztesttictioninThomas,giventhattheATJconcludedthat Lisacould do thework ofar t-m entfolder,housekeeping cleaner,orclothing bagger.A11three ofthose exam ples ofwork presllm ably require an em ployee to ptoduce a certain am otmtof wotk in a patdculat tim e fram e,whetheritbe gnf-ments folded,zoom s cleaned,or clothes bagged.Withoutan explanadon ofthe tet.m T<strictpzoducéon quotas''ftom the ATJ,itis impossibleto detetminewhethersubstanéalevidencesupportsthe AT. J'sdetetminadon that Lisacan do thejobslistedandthusisnotdisabled.Accordingly,theCommissionet'sobjecdon , on tllisissueisO VERRU LE D . Themagistratejudge furtherfound thattherewasno medicalopinionin therecord addressing Lisa'sabilityto perform work on a sustnined basis,such asafm cling thatshe could sustdn concentration,despite her anxiety,for any specified petiod of tim e.The m agistrate judgeconcluded thatthelackofmedicalevidencedistinguished thecasefrom Sizemorev. Ber 1,i11,878F.3d72 (4thCir.2017).InSizemoretheplaintiffargued thattheATJerredin recognizing that the plaindff had m oderate difhctzlties wit.h regard to concentraéon, pezsistence, or pace but did not account for the lim itation when he detev ined that the plaindffhad tlaeRFC to wozk atallexeréonallevelsbutcouldw ork only in alow stresssetfing defmedasnon-productionjobswithoutfast-pacedwotkandnopubliccontact.Ldxat79.The disitict courtupheld the denialofbenehts.On appeal,the Fotut. h Citcuitaffirm ed,hncling 9 that state agency psychologists had provided opinions that despite lùs im pnirm ents, the pbindffcotzld genetallym nintnin attendon foratleasttwo houtsatatim eto do sim ple,roudne tasksand cotzld show sustnined attendon to perfo= sim plerepeééve tasks.Id.at80-81. ThemagistratejudgefoundthatinLisa'scase,therewasnomedicalopinionassessing het ability to perform work on a sustained basis.The Com m issionez atgues thattwo state agency opinionsin Lisa'scase provided supportsim ilarto thatin Sizem ore.H ow ever,neither ofthose opinionsdiscussed Lisa's ability to m aintoin concentzadon,persijtence,orpace for an am ountoftime.To the conttary,130th concluded only thatffgdjue to interrupéonsfrom sym ptom sofanxietythecbim antwould havedifficultywith m oredetailed and com plex tasks. Sheisabletoperform sim ple1-2 step tasksthatdo notrequireherto bearound otherpeople.'' R.82,98.Therefore,thecourtOVERRULES theCommissioner'sobjecdon thatopinions from stateagencypsychologistsprovided substandalevidenceto supporttheATJ'sconclusion regarding Lisa'sability to m nintnin concentration,persistence,and pace. TheCommissioneralso arguesthatthe ATJinLisa'scasedid notmaketheotherIIFC errorsnotedinThomas.However,themagisttatejudgelimitedhisteview oftheATJdecision tothetwoissuesdescribed above.Thus,theCommissioner'sotherobjecdonsatenotptoperly befozethe courtand have notbeen considered. CO N CLU SIO N Forthereasonsstated,thecourtfindsno errorin themagistratejudge'sconclusion thattheATJ'sdecisionisnotsupportedbysubstanéalevidence.Assuch,them agistrate judge'sreportandrecommendadon willbeadoptedin itsentitetyand thiscasewillbe remandedtotheSocialSecudtyAdministtadonpursuanttosentencefouzof42U.S.C.j 405/). A n appropriate O rdetw illbeentered. Entered:o #-/-4 -> ?y /w/ .' ' . aelF. rbansld hiefUnited StatesDistdctludge '
]]>
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.
