Hayes v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 7:2018cv00234 - Document 23 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Michael F. Urbanski on 07/17/2019. (aab)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CLERK' S OFFICE t).S.DIST.C'OURT AT m OKE:VA FILED JUL 13 2219 IN TH E UN IT ED STATE S D ISTY CT CO U RT FO R TH E W E STERN D IST M CT O F W RG IN IA JULIAC.DUDLEY C RK BY; DU A y RO AN O K E D IV ISION U L LY H ., I3lfdtltiff CO M M ISSIO N ER O F SO CIAL SECU RITY , CivilA cdon N o.7:18-CV -00234 B y: M ichaelF .U tbansld ChiefUnited StatesDistrictJudge D efendant M E M O RAN D U M O PIN ION This socialsecurity disability appealw asreferred to the H onorable RobertS.Ballou, UnitedStatesMagistrateludge,pursuantto28U.S.C.j6369$(1)7),fotproposedhndingsof factandatecommendeddisposidon.Themagisttatejudgeflledazeportandrecommendaéon (R. & R)onMay30,2019,recommendingthattheplaindff'smodon forsllmmaryjudgmentbe denied, the Commissioner's moéon for sllmmaty judgment be granted, and the Commissioner'sfinaldecisionbeafiitmed.PlaindffKellyH.(<fKelly77)hasflledobjecdonsto thereportand thism aaerisnow ripe forthe court'sconsideradon. 1.Standard ofReview ofM agistrateJudgeDecision The objecdon requirement setforth in Rule 72$)ofthe FederalRules ofCivil Hayes v. Commissioner of Social Security Doc. 23 Procedurelisdesigned to fftraing)the attention ofboth the distdctcourtand thecotzrtof appealsupon only thoseissuesthatremain in dispute after tlae magisttate judge hasmade 1fW ithin 14 daysafterbeingservedwith acopy oftherecomm ended disposidon,apartym ay serveand file speciscwritten objecdonstotheproposedfindingsandrecommendadons.''Fed.R.Civ.P.72@ . Dockets.Justia.com ûnclingsandrecommendadons.''UnitedStatesv.Mid ette,478F.3d616,621(4thCir.2007) (cidng Thomasv.Arn,474 U.S.140,147-48 (1985)).An objecéng party mustdo so Tfwith sufhcient specihcity so as reasonably to alert the distdct courtof the tnze ground for the objection.''Iduat622. To concludeotherwisewould defeatthepurposeofreqlliringobjections.W e would be perm itdng a party to appealany issue thatw asbefote the m agisttate judge,zegardlessofthenatuzeandscopeofobjecdonsmadetothemagistrate judge'sreport.Eitherthedistrictcolzrtwotzld then havetoreview everyissuein themagistzatejudge'sproposed findingsand recommendadonsorcouttsof appeals would be required to review issues that the disttict court never considered.In eithercase,judicialresoutceswould bewasted and the disttict coct's effecdveness based on help from magistrate judges would be undetm ined. = Id ThedistrictcourtmustdetermineA novo anypordon ofthemagisttatejudge'sreport andrecommendadon towllich aproperobjection hasbeen made.ffl'hedistrictcouttmay accept,reject,ormodifytherecommendeddisposiéon;receiveGlttherevidence;orreturnthe mattertothemagistratejudgewithinstrtzctions.''Fed.R.Civ.P.72q$(3)9accord28U.S.C.j 6369$(1). 1f,however,a party Tffmakesgeneralorconclusory objecdonsthatdo notditectthe courtto aspecihc errorin themagistratejudge'sproposed finclingsand recommendationsy''' X novo review isnotrequired.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)(quodng HowardYellow Cabs,Inc.v.United States,987F.Supp.469,474 (W .D .N .C.1997)(quoting Omianov.Johnson,687F.2d 44,47 (4th Cir.19821 .ffT' hecourtwillnotconsiderthoseobjecdonsbytheplaindffthatatemerely conclusory orattemptto objectto the entitety ofthe Report,witlaoutfocusing thecourt's attendon on specihcerrorsthezein.''Cam erv.Com m 'tofSoc.Sec.,N o.4:08cv69,2009W L 9044111,at*2(E.D.Va.May6,2009),aff'd,373F.App'x346(4th Cir.);seeMid ette,478 F.3dat621rfsection6369$(1)doesnotcountenanceaform ofgeneralizedobjecdontocovet allissuesaddressed by themagistratejudge;itcontemplatesthataparty'sobjecdon to a magisttatejudge'szeportbespecificandpazticulazized,asthestatuteditectsthedistrictcoutt tpreview onlyGthoseportionsofthereportorj pecf';d#propösedfinclingsotrecommendationsto v&ô' /7objection is>J#4.'7').Such genezalobjecéonsffhave the sameeffectasa failuteto object, or asawaiverofsuch objecdon.'?Moon v.BWX Technologies,742 F.Supp.2d 827,829 (W .D.Va.2010),aff'd,498F.App'x268(4th Cir.2012).SeealsoA. rn,474U.S.at154 rfrllhe stamtedoesnotreqllirethejudgetoreview anissue. d. tnovoifnoobjectionsareftled....77). Rehashing argumeqtsraised beforethemagistratejudge doesnotcomplywith the requitementsetforthin theFedèrallkulesofCivilProceduretofllespecificobjecdons.Indeed, objecéonsthatsimplyreiterateargumentsraisedbeforethemagisttatejudgeareconsideredto begeneralobjecdohsto theentiretyofthereportand recommendaéon.SeeVene v.Astnze, 539F.Supp.2d 841,844-45(W.D.Va.2008).Asthecourtnoted inlEç. s.ç. y: Allowing a litigant to obtain de novo review of her entire case by m erely reformate gan eatlierbriefasan objection Kfmakgesqtheinidalzeferenceto the m agistrateuseless.The functionsofthe distdctcouztare effectively duplicated as 130th the m agistrate and the disttict colzrt perform idendcal tasks.Tllis duplicaéonoftimeandeffortwastesjudicialresouzceszatherthansavingthem, andnm sconttaryto thepurposesoftheM agistratesAct.''Howard (v.Sec'yof H ealth & Human Setvsj,932 F.2d (505,)g 509 g(6th Cit.1991)j. 539 F.Supp.2d at846.A plsindffwho reitezatesherpreviously-raised argum entswillnotbe given <rtlae second bite atthe apple she seeksi''instead,herre-ftled briefw. i . tlbe tteated as a generalobjecdon,wllichhasthesameeffectaswould afailureto object.Lda 3 II.JudicialReview ofSocialSecurity Determ inations Itis not the province of a federalcourt to m ake aclm inistrative disability decisions. Rather,judicialreview ofdisabilitycasesislimitedto detet-miningwhetlaersubstandalevidence supportstheCom m issionèr'sconclusion thattheplaintifffailed to m eethisbutden ofproving disability.See I-la s v.Sullivan, 907 F.2d 1453,1456 (4th Cir. 1990)9see also Laws v. Celebtezze,368F.2d 640,642 (4th Cir.1966).ln sodoing,thecouttmayneitherundertakea X novoreview oftheCommissioner'sdecision norre-weigh theevidenceofrecord.Hunter v.Sullivan,993 F.2d 31,34 (4th Cir.1992).Evidenceis substandalwhen,considedng the recozd asawhole,itnnightbe deem ed adequateto suppotta conclusion by areasonablem ind, mchardson v.Perales,402U.S.389,401(1971),orwhen itwotlld besufficienttotefusea clitected verdictin a jury trial.Snnitlav.Chater,99 F.3d 635,638 (4th Cir.1996).Substandal evidenceisnotafflargeorconsidetable am ountofevidence,''Piercev.Underwood,487 U .S. 552,565 (1988),butismorethan amerescintilla and somewhatlessthan apreponderance. Perales,402 U .S.at401;Laws,368 F.2d at642.Ifthe Com m issioner'sdecision issupported by substantialevidence,itmustbeaffifvned.42 U.S.C.j405(g);Perales,402U.S.at401. 111. PlaintifpsObjectionsz In herobjecdonsto theR&R,Kellyassertsthatthemagistratejudgeerredwhen he madethe following O dings:(1)thatsubstantialevidencçsupported theAT, J'Sdeterminaéon that Kelly's m oderate im pnit-ment in concentradng,persisdng,and m aintaining pace w as 2D etailed factsaboutKelly'simpairmentsand m edicaland procedurallsistoly can befounditztheeeportand recommendauon (ECF Ko.20)andintheadministrativefranscript@ CF No.T andwillnotberepeated here. adequately accounted forin theRFC;(2)thatthe ATJ adequately explained why plninéff's m ild lim itadonsin interacdngwit.h othersdo notzesultin any lim itationsin tlae R-F'C finclings; (3)thattheATJ ,'sopinionregardingKelly'sphysicalRFCissupportedbysubstanéalevidence; and (4)thatthe ATJpropetlyassessed hezsubjecéveallegadonsofimpai= ent. A.M entalRFC Assessm ent Indetet-miningthatKellyclidnotm eetalisdngforamentalimpnitment,theATJfound thatshehad am oderatelim itadon in understanding,rem em bering,orapplying infot-mation;a m oderate lim itation in concenttating, persiséng,or m aintaining pace;a m ild lim itaéon in interac% g with others;and a naild lim itation in adapting or m anaging oneself.R.38.Then, when determirzing her mental RFC, the ALJ concluded that because of her mental im pnitvnents,K elly waslim ited to sim pleroutinetasksand thatshew ould beofftasklessthan ten petcentofthework day.R.43. The magistrate judge,in reviewing the ATJ'Sassessment of Kelly's mentalRFC, considered therequirementthatthe AIJ includeanarrativediscussion ofhow theevidence supportshisRFC,assetoutitlSSR 96-817,1996W L 374184 (1996),and rellvantcaselaw. ECF No.20at14-16.SeeMonroev.Colvin,826F.3d176,189(4th Cir.2016)(finclingthata necessarypredicateto engagingin a substantialevidencereview isarecord ofthebasisforthe AT, J'Smlling,includingafffdiscussion ofwhich evidencetheATJfound credibleandwhy,and speciûc applicadon ofthe pertinerttlegalrequirements tothe record evidencen) (quoting Radford v.Colvin,734 F.3d 288,295 (4th Cit.2013)).The magistrate judge discussed the poo on oftheILF'C wheretheAT, Jslxmmarized conflictingevidenceregarding Kelly'smental impnirmentand cited to specifk exhibitsand pagesin therecord.The magistrate judge 5 concluded that because the ATJ consideted the medical opinions, evidence of mental im pnitm ent,and K elly's testim ony,and because he expbined the basis for his mlling,he satished therequirem entsofSSR 96-817and M onroe. Kellyobjectstothemagisttatejudge'sconclusionandazguesthatthattheAIJprovided no explanation of how he dete= ined that her m oderate im pqirm ents in concenttaéng, persiséng,and m aintaining pace wereaccom m odated in theRFC by a fm ding thatshewould beofftasklessthan tenpercentoftheworkday.Shealsorepeatslterargumentthatthemild lim itaéonsin intetacting with othersshould haveresultedin addiéonallim itadonsin theRFC. A d-qnovo review ofthe ATJ'sdetetvninaéon regarding Kelly'sILF'C showsthatitis . svppozted by substantialevidence.The courtin M onroe set outthe assessm ent ofRFC as ' . follows: The pzocessfor assessing RFC is setoutin SocialSecurity Ruling 96-8p.See (Mascio v.Colvin,780 F.3d 632,636 (4th Cir.2015)j.Underthattnlling,the Tffassessm ent m ust fust idenéfy the individual's ftm cdonal lim itadons or restricéonsand assesshisorherwork-telatedabilitieson a funcéon-by-function basis,includingthefunctions'ûstedin theregulations.':1d.(quotingSSR 96-814, 61Fed.Reg.at34,475).Onlyaftersuch afunction-by-funcdon analysismayan AIJexptessRFC fffin termsoftheexettionallevelsofwotk.'''Id.(quotingSSR 96-817,61Fed.Reg.at34,475).W ehaveexplnined thatexpressingRFC before analyzing the clnim ant'slim itaéonsftm ction by function createsthe dangerthat' f'Ttl' leadjudicator gwillloverlook limitationsortesttictionsthatwotlld narrow the ranges and types ofw ork an individualm ay be able to do.'''ld.at 636 (quoting SSR 96-817,61Fed.Reg.at34,476). Monroe,826 F.3d at187-188.In addiéon,the AT. J'S assessmentmustinclude a narrative discussion ofhow theevidence suppoztseach conclusion,citing m edicalfactsand nonm edical 6 evidence, and dftm ust build an accurate and logical btidge ftom the evidence to llis conclusion.'''Id.at189(quoéng Cliffozdv.A fel,227 F.3d 863,872 (7th Cir.2000)).3 The ATJ assessed Kelly'sm entalimpaitmentson a f'uncdon-by-function basis and, relevantto hetargum ent,found thatshehad am oderatelilnitaéon in concentradng,persiséng, and m sintzning pace.R.38.Thislim itadon wasbased on the following: $ qtellylteported theabititytopayattenéon forfiveminutesatatime,and stated thatshedoesnotfinish whatshestartsbutshewascapableoffollowing threestep com m andsduting am entalstat'usexam inaéon. 1d.(ciéngR.290,309,965). Afterhnding Kelly waslimited in thisrespect,the ATJ , then assessed herRFC.He discussed herm entalhealt.h ttea% entfrom 2008 thtough 2014 and stated thatitw ascleatthat hersym ptom swerewellconttolled undetherzegim en ofm edicadon.R.42-43.H efound that shew asTtconsistently cooperaéve and com m unicadve,m aking good eye contactand sm iling with exanainers,and her reports of forgetfillness and lack of concentradon were not fully supported by hnclingsdtuing exalninaéons.''R.43,1362,1365,1366,1371,1376,1381,1386, 1400,360-364,1085,1098,963-965.TheATJthen concludedthefollowing: Theêefore, upon consideradon of tlze cllim ant's allegations regarding her mental impnitvnents, as well as the objecéve medical evidence, generally showing the clnim ant to be coopetative, com m unicadve, attendve, and responsive to m edicadon,the undersigned findsherm entally lim ited to sim ple rouénetasks,w1:11theadditionalrequirem entthatshew ould havebeen offtask lessthan ten percentoftieworkday,asstated above. 3In Clifford,227F.3dat872,thecotzrtobserved thatitisnotenough foran ATJto statein aconclusory m annerthatacbimant'stesfim onyrcgazrling lim itationsplaced on hisdat 'ly acdvitieswasunsupported by the meclicalevidence.Rafher,anATJmustarticulateffsomelegitimatereason forltisdecision''andRbuildan accurate and logicalbridge from theevidenceto hisconclusion.'' 7 R.43.KellyarguesthattheATJwasrequiredtoexplainhow lim iénghertoonlysimpleroutine tasks and finding thatwould be off task less than ten percentof the workday reflects her m odetate lim itation in concenttating,petsisting,and m nintnining pace, citing M ascio and Thomasv.Bez %ill,916F.3d 307 (4t.h Cir.2019). In Mascio,theçolzrtheldthatremand may beappropziptewhen an ATJ failsto assess aclnimant'scapacityto perfot'm relevantfunctions,orwhereotherinadequaciesin the AT. J's analysisfrusttate m eaningfulreview.M ascio,780 F.3d at636.N either concern ispresentin thiscase.The ATJ assessed Kelly'smentalcapaciéeson a funcdon-by-flmcdon basis,found she had m odezate difficlzldes in two areas, considered all the evidence of her m ental implirments,andadjustedherRFC accordingly.Thus,hesatisfiedtherequirementsofMascio. In Thom as,theFourth CitclzitCourtofAppealsreiterated thata properIIFC analysis has thzee com ponents--evidence, a logical explanadon, and a conclusion. ffT'he second component,the logicalexplanation,isjustasimportantas the other two.Indeed,ou. r precedentmakesclearthatmeaningfulreview isfmsttatedwhen an ALJ goesstraightfrom listing evidenceto statingaconclusion.'?Thomas,916F.3d at311 (citingW oodsv.Ber h111, 888 F.3d 686,694 (4th Cir.2018)).ln Kelly'scase,after setting outthe evidence,the AIJ expbined thatthe tecord m ade clear thather m entalim pni= entsw ere w ell-conttolled by m edicadon because shereceived tteatm entonly severalém esperyearand generally reported to pzovidersthatshewasdoingw elland thatthem edicationsw ereeffecdve.R.43.In adclidon, testingdid notshow dehcitsin hershortorlong-term mem ory.JdxThus,the ATJexplained why hediscounted Kelly'sallegationsofm ore seriousm entalim poitm entsand lim ited herto 8 being off-task lessthan ten percentduting the workday.Accordingly,the cotuthndsthatthe ATJ satished therequitementsof130th M ascio andThomas. Regardingthemildlimitationininteractingwit. h others,themagisttatejudgefoundthat substanéalevidence suppotted the AT, J'Sdetetminadon thatKelly did notrequite a social intetacdon lim itation.H e recognized that she repoxed no longerw anting to socialize,but pointed outthatm edicalreportsdescribed herascooperaéve and com m unicadve.Also,she w entshoppingin publicand talked to her friendsdaily.ECF N o.20 at16;R.38. KellyarguesthattheATJmadethesefindingsaspartofhisdetetmiration thatshedid notm eeta lisdng foram entalhealth im poitm entand thathewasrequired to providea m ore detailed assessm entw hen detçt-mining her ILFC,citing Panna v.Colvin,N o.1:14-CV-229, 2015W L 5714403 (W .D.N .C.2015).In Panna,thecourtfound thatwherean ATJ failed to desctibe w hy m oderate clifficulées in social funcdorling clid not translate to w ork-rplated lim itaéons in the plaindffs RFC,rem and was w arranted.Jdxat *3-4.In this case,when - asjessing Kelly's IURC,the ATJ found that hçrmentalimpnitment symptoms were wellconttolled with m edication and thatshe genezally reported to her health care providersthat she was doing well.She wasrepeatedly described asbeing alert,cooperative,com m urzicadve, well-groom ed,and asmaking eye contact.R.43.Thus,the ATJ sufficiently explnined why K elly'sm ild lim itaéonsin interacting with othersdid notresultin work-related lim itaéons. Kelly also argues thatthe AIJ failed to pose a ptoperhypothedcalquestion to the voçaéonalexpertbecause the question did not address the m ild apd m oderate lim itaéons discussed above.However,thehearingttanscriptshowsthatthe ATJincluded thelimitadons regarding K elly being limited to only sim ple roudne tasks and being off-task less than ten 9 percentoftheworkday.R.78.Thus,the ATJ did include the limitadonshetecognized. M oreover,Kelly'sattorney had an opporttznity to includein herhypothedcalquesdon to the vocaéonalexperta question regarcling any adcliéopallim itadons she wanted the vocaéonal expert to consider and declined to do so. R.79.TfgAlny possible defects in an AT, J'S hypotheticalate cuted when theplainéff'sattorney isgiven an opportunity to posequeséons totheVE.7'Srnithv.Astrue,No.2:11-CV-025-MR-DCK,2012W L 3191296(W.D.N.C.2012) (ciéngShivel v.Heckler,739F.2d 987,990-91 (4th Cir.1984)). Basedontheforegoing,thecourtfmdsthatthemagistratejudgepropetlyassessedthe AT, J'SdecisionregardingKelly'smentalRFC underSSR 96-813andrelevantcaselaw,andalso hnds thatthe AT, J's conclusion regarding Kelly'smentalILF'C issupported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, Kelly's objections the magistrate judge's conclusions ate OVERRULED. B.PhysicalResidualFunctionalCapacity TheATJassessedKellyV ththeRFC todolightworkwith additionallimitadonsof only frequently balancing; occasionally stooping, kneeling, crouçhing, ctawling; and occasionally clim bing ram ps,stairs,laddersyropes,and scaffolds.She cotzld only occasionally reach and had to avoid concenttated exposure to exttem e cold,wetness,hazatds such as unprotected heights and m aclùnery,film es,odors,gasesand poorventiladon,and vibration. R .39. The magisttate judge found thatthe AT, J properly assessed Kelly's physicalRFC becausetheAT, Jdecision includedanarrativediscussionwith adetailedsllmmaryandanalysis of K elly's im pnitm ents,m edicalrecozds,tesHm ony,and opinion evidence.ln adcliéon,the magisttate judgeconcluded thattherewasno objecdve evidence suppot-fing herallegatbns thatshe could notm aintain astadcwork posture and would need to lie down during the day. H er daily acévities included taldng care of her dog,preparing sim ple m eals,driving,and shopping in stores.Also,the AT, J explained why he gave greatweightto the state agency consultantsw ho found thatK elly wascapable oflightwork,and gave little weightto the opinion ofone ofhertreating physicianswho stated thatK elly needed to sitdown often to relieve pain and is perm anently disabled.The magistrate judgeconcluded thattl ae ALJ'S . opinion zegarding K elly'sphysicalRFC was supported by substantialevidence.ECF N o.20 at17-20. Kelly objectsthatthe magistratejudgeclid notacknowledgethatthe AT, Jcommitied reversibleerp rby failing tp addzessw hçtherK ellyw ould experiencepain requidng herto take x frequentbreakkand beabsentfrom work,how often thebreakswould occtm and theirim pact on hezability to sustain work activity overthe course ofa day oraw eek.She assettsthattlae lack ofobjectiveevidenceofherneed to liedown isnotrelevant,because onceshemether threshold obligaéon ofshowing by objective evidence thatshe hasa condition reasonably likelyto causethepnin alleged,sheisendtled to rely exclusivelyon subjectiveevidenceto pzove thatthe pain is so continuousor severe thatitpzeventsherfrom com pledng an eight- hourwotkday,citingin supportLewisv.Berrylnill,858F.3d858(4thCir.2017)andHinesv. Barnhatt,435F.3d 559,565(4th Cir.2906). Kellyiscorrectthatan ATJmaynotdiscountsubjectiveevidenceofpain solelyon the lack of objecdve evidence ofpain intensity.Lewis,858 F.3d at866 (cidng 20 C.F.R.jj 404.1529/)(2)and 416.929(c)(2));I-lines,453 F.3dat565.However,the ATJ clid notdo that in thiscase.H eacknowledgedthatK elly'sm edicallydetetm inedim paitm entscould reasonably be expected to ptoducepnin,and then looked atthe consistency ofherstatem entsin reladon to the other evidence in the record.H e noted that on exam inadon she was only in mild discom fott,exlzibited anorm algait,had anegadvesttaightlegtest,and norm alm ototsttength andsensation.Shetoldherhealthcareprovidersthatepiduralsteroidinjecdonsprovidedsome reliefand sheconénued to exhibitf'ullm otorstrength and asteady,non-antalgic gait.Physical therapy resulted in decreased sym ptom sand increased activity tolerance.She reported pain reliefwhen taking Tram adol.R.41-42.ln adctition,sheparticipated in abroad range ofdaily acdvities,including feeding herdog,dtessing and bathing herself,albeitwith som e difftctllty, prepating sim ple m eals,doing laundry and dishes,vacuum ing,dusdng,dtiving,shopping in stores,m anaging herpersonalSnances,and doing crafts.R.40. TheAT, Jfoundthattaken asawhole,theevidencewasinconsistentwithKelly'salleged limitations.R.42.Subjectiveallegationsofpain KfTneed notbeaccepted to theextenttheyare inconsistent wit.h the available evidence,including objecdve evidence of the underlying im pnitvnent,and the extentto which thatim pqirm entcan be expected to cause the pain the clnimantallegesshesuffers.'''Hines,453 F.3d at565 n.3 (quoéng Crai v.Chater,76 F.3d 585,598 (4th Cit.1996));seealso Beaversv.Colvin,No.5:13-CV-494-D,2014WL 4443291, *9(E.D.N.C.2014)(citingMicklesv.Shalala,29F.3d918,929(4th Cir.1994))(finclingthat ATJ ,m ayconsidetinconsistenciesbetweenaclnimant'stestimonyandtheevidenceofrecord). Thus,the ATJ did notrely solely on alack ofobjecdvemedicalevidenceto discountKelly's description oftheintensityofherpain.Rather,he found herdescription inconsistentwith the evidencein thetecotd.Thetefote,hisanalysisisconsistentw1:11Lewisand H ines. 12 Kelly also complainsthatthemagistratejudgeerredin fincling thatthe AIJ correctly gavelittlew eightto theopinion ofD r.Cieraszynski,one ofhertreating physicians.In aletter datedluly14,2016,Dr.Cieraszynsld statedthatKellyhadbeenunderhercaresince2014.She opined thatK elly'slum ba. rstenosiscaused internûttentpain thtoughoutthe day,causing her to need to sitdown often to zelieve herpain and thatshe should be considered disabled.R. 1174.TheATJgavethatopinionlittleweight,fttstnotingthatwhethetanindividualisdisabled isnota m edicalissue butis an aclm inisttative issue thatisreserved to the Conunissioner.In . addition,D r.Cieraszynski'sopinionw asdated t'wo yearsaftertlae expiration ofK elly'sinsured statusand wasinconsistentwit. h the evidence ofnorm algaitand flzllstrength and sensadon throughouttherelevantperiod.R.42. ThemagistratejudgefoundthattheATJpropetlygavetheletterlitrleweightforthe sam ereasonsgivenbytheATJ.AlthoughKellydisagreeswif.hthatdeterm ination,sheisasking thecourtto reweigh theevidence,whichitisnotatlibeztyto do.Huntet,993F.2d at43 (4th Cit.1992)9Hays,907F.2d at1456. In sum,thecourtfindsthatthemagistzatejudgecorrectly analyzed the AT, J'sopinion witlaregard to Kelly'sphysicalRFC.The ATJ considered Kelly'sallegationsofpain and her need to lie down frequently and provided a detailed explanation ofw hy hez allegationswere inconsistentwith other evidence in the record.Thezefore,tlaecourt finds that the AT, J'S conclusion thatK ellycan do lightworkwith additionalrestricdonsissupported by substantial evidence and Kelly's objectionsto the findings ofthe magistrate judge on thisissue are O VE RRU LE D . C.Assessm entofSubjective Complaints 13 Kelly objectsthatthemagistratejudgeezred in concluding thatsubstanéalevidence supportedtheAT, J'Sassessmentofhersubjecévecomplaints.ShecbimsthattheATJ ,didnot explain how herdaily activiéesunderrnined herallegadon thatshehad difûcultydoing chores, needed to changepositionsfrequently,and had to lie down m uldpletim esduting theday.She also clftimsthatthe AT, J did notexplain why the factthatKelly wasdescribed atexamsas being alert,wellkem pt,cooperative,comm urticaéve and with no feelingsofhelplessnessor hopelessnessunde= ined herclnim sthatshew assad,depressed,and unableto sleep.Finally, shecl/imsthatthe ATJ should nothaverelied onthefactthatKellydeclined antidepressants to find thatherallegationsofdepression w erenotasseriousas she cbim ed.K elly clsim sthat withoutthese explanadons,the ATJ did notbuild thefflogicalbddge''called forin Clifford, 227 F.3d at872. AssetforthaboveriheATJexplainedthathediscountedKelly'saccountoftheseverity ofherim pairm entsbecausetheywereinconsistentwith otherevidencein therecord and that explanaéonisalegitimatereasontodiscounthersubjecdvecomplaints.SeeHines,453F.3d at565n.3and Cliffotd,227F.jdat872.Also,the ATJ'sfltvingsthatKellyoftentoldhet caregjvers that she was doing welland that she appeared smiling,communicadve, and cooperative at appointm ents supports the conclusion that she was not as debilitated by depression orbipolarclisorderasshe alleges. ThemagisttatejudgecorrectlyfoundthattheATJprovidedaclearexplanadon forwhy he found K elly able to do lightwork wit.h addidonallim itadons even after considering her subjective complnints. Accoringly, Kelly's objecdon that he failed to do so is OVE RRU I,RD . CON CLU SION Forthereasonsstated,thecourtfindsnoerzorin themagistratejudge'sconclusion thattheAIJ'sdecisionissupportedbysubstandalevidence.Assuch,themagistratejudge's reportand recom m endaéon willbe adopted in itsendrety. An appropriate O rderwillbe entezed. sntered, a p -/7- z-.a f; ' i ., . # / . r.r4m..J . . .' . w ' . . ,r *' , :..u .' ' .'. ' M icha F. r ansld CI/ United 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.
