Snider v. Commissioner, No. 7:2018cv00294 - Document 29 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Michael F. Urbanski on 09/09/2019. (aab)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CLEFX S OFFSCE U.S.DIST.COURT AT ROANOKE,VA FILED IN TH E U N ITED STATE S D IST RICT CO U RT FO R TH E W E STERN D IST M CT O F W RG IN M R OAN O U D IW SION sEP 29 2212 JUL C UDLEX CLERK BY; D= JAMIE S.for L SAM TTEL S.ydeceased, CivilAction N o.7:18-CV-00294 Plaintiff AN D RRW SAU L,Com m issionetof SocialSecuritp By: M ichaelF.U rbansld ChiefUnited StatesDistrictJudge D efendant M EM ORAN D U M O PIN IO N Tllis socialsecurity disability appealwasreferred to the H onotable RobertS.Ballou, UitedStatesMagistrateludge,putsuantto28U.S.C.j636q$(1)7),fotproposedfinclingsof factandarecommendeddisposidon.Themagistratejudgeflledareportandrecommendadon (R&R)onlune14,2019,tecommendingthattheplaindff'smodonforsummaryjudgmentbe denied, the Commissioner's modon for summary judgment be granted, and the Commissioner'ssnaldecisionbeaffirmed.PlainéffSamuelS.r<Somuel'')hasflledobjecdons to the reportand thism atterisnow ripe forthe court'sconsideraéon.l 1.Standard ofReview ofM agistrateJudgeDecision Snider v. Commissioner The objection requirementsetforf .h in Rule 72$)ofthe FederalRtzles ofCivil Doc. 29 Procedurezisdesigned to ffttaingjthe attention of130th the distdctcout'tand tlaecourtof 1SamueldiedonJanuary30,2019andlliswife,lnmieS.,wassubsdtutedaspbindff.ECF No.25.Toavoid confusion,theplnintiffwt 'llstillbereferred to as<<Sam ue1.'' 2fw ithin 14 daysafterbeing serv' ed with acopyoftherecomm ended disposition,aparty m aysezveand ftle speciscwrit'tenobjecdonstotheproposedfmrlingsandrecommendadons.''Fed.R.Civ.P.72$). Dockets.Justia.com appealsupon only thoseissuesthatremainin disputeafterthemagisttatejudgehasmade hndingsandrecommendaéons.''UnitedStatesv.Mid ette,478F.3d616,621(4thCir.2007) (citingThomasv.Arn,474U.S.140,147-48(1985)).An objecdngpartymustdo so Tfwith suffk ient specificity so as reasonably to alett the disttictcourtof the true ground for the objection-''Id.at622. To concludeotherwisewould defeatthepumose ofrequiring objecdons.W e w ould be perrniténg aparty to appealany issue thatwasbefore the m agistrate judge,regardlessofthenatureandscopeofobjecéonsmadeto themagisttate judge'srepozt.Eitherthedisttictcotzrtwouldthenhavetoteview everyissuein the magistratejudge'sproposed Endingsand tecommendadonsorcourtsof appeals would be required to zeview issues that the district coutt never considered.In eithercase,judicialzesourceswould bewasted and the clistdct coutt's effectiveness based on help from magistrate judges wotzld be tm detvnined. Id Thedistdctcourtmustdete= ineA novpanypordonofthemagisttatejudge'sreport andrecommendation to which aproperobjecdon hasbeen made.Tfl'hedistrictcourtmay acceptatejectaormodifytherecommended disposidon;receivefllttlnerevidence;orreturn the mattertothemagistratejudgewithinstructions.''Fed.R.Civ.P.729$(3);accord28U.S.C.j 636q$(1). If,however,apartyTffmakesgeneralorconclusoryobjecdonsthatdo notdirectthe co''t'tto aspecifk errorin themagistratejudge'sproposed Sndingsandrecommendationsy''' X novo review isnotrequired.Di ros ero v.Colvin,No.5:13-cv-00088-FDW -DSC,2014 WL 1669806,at*1 (W.. D .N.C.Apr.28,2014)(quodngHoward Yellow Cabs,Inc.v.United States,987F.Supp.469,474 (W.D.N.C.1997)(quodngOmianov.Johnson,687F.2d44,47 (4th Cir.19821 .ffT' hecout'twillnotconsiderthoseobjecdonsbytheplaindffthataremerely 2 conclusoryorattemptto objecttotheentiretyoftheReport,withoutfocusing thecourt's attenéon on specihc errorstherein.''Cam erv.Comm 'rofSoc.Sec.,N o.4:08cv69,2009W L 9044111,at*2(E.D.Va.M ay6,2009),aff'd,373F.App'x346(4th Cir.2010)9seeMid ette, 478F.3dat621rfsection6369$(1)doesnotcountenanceaform ofgenetalizedobjecdonto coverallissuesaddressedbythemagistratejudge;itcontemplatesthatapartfsobjecdontoa magistratejudge'sreportbespecificandpardcularized,asthestatm edirectsthedisttictcoul't toreview onlyGthosepomhnsofthereportorjpecl fedproposedSndingsorrecommendadonsto séJ* ô' ob .hc tion/' .rmade.'''t.Suchgeneralobjecéonsffhavethesameeffectasafailtuetoobject, orasawaivetofsuch objection.''Moon v.BWX Technolo 'es,742F.Supp.2d 827,829 (W .D.Va.2010),aff'd,498F.App'x268(4thCit.2012).SeealsoArn,474U.S.at154rfrllhe stamtedoesnotzeqllitethejudgetoreview anissueéqnovoifnoobjectionsateftled....''). Rehashing argumentsraised befote the magisttate judge doesnotcomply wit.h the requirementsetforthintheFederalRulesofCivilProceduretofllespecifk objections.Indeed, objecdonsthatsimplyreiterateargumentsraisedbeforethemagistratejudgeareconsideredto begenetalobjecdonsto theentitetyofthetepottand tecommendation.SeeVene v.Asttue, 539F.Supp.2d841,844-45 (W.D.Va.2008).Asthecourtnoted iny-çs-e-y: Allowing a litigant to obtnin de novo review of her entire case by m erely refotmattinganeatlierbriefasanobjecéonffmakles)theitaiéaltefetencetothe m agistrate useless.The Sm cdonsofthe districtcourtare effectively duplicated as both the m agisttate and the district court perform identical tasks.This duplicaéon (?ftimeandeffortwastesjudicialresourcesratherthan savingthem, and runscontraryto thepurposesoftheM agistratesAct.''Howard (v.Sec'yof Health& Hllman Servs.l,932 F.2d (505,)EI509 ((6t.11Cit.1991)j. 3 V ç. ac ,539 F.Supp.2d at846.A plaindffwho reiterateshispteviously-raised azgtzm entswill - ... notbegiven ffthesecond biteattheapple(helseeksi''instead,llisre-flledbziefwillbetreated asageneralobjecdon,wllichhasthesameeffectaswouldafailuretoobject.Id. I1.JudicialReview ofSocialSectzrityDeterminations Itis notthe province ofa federalcourtto m ake adm inisttadve clisability decisions. Rather,judicialreview ofdisabilitycasesislimitedtodetet-miningwhethersubstantialevidence supportstheCom m issioner'sconclusion thattheplaindfffailed to m eetllisburden ofproving disability.See Ha sv.Sullivan,907 F.2d 1453,1456 (4th Cir.1990)9see also Lawsv. Celebrezze,368F.2d640,642(4thCir.1966).In sodoing,thecourtmayneitherundertakea X novo review oftheCommissioner'sdecision nozre-weigh theevidenceofrecotd.Hunter v.Sllllivan,993 F.2d 31,34 (4th Cir.1992).Evidenceissubstandalwhen,considetitng the record asawhole,itm ightbedeem ed adequateto supportaconclusion by areasonablem ind, m chardson v.Perales,402 U .S.389,401 (1971),orwhen itwould be sufhcientto refuse a Hirectedverdictin ajurytrial.Smithv.Chater,99F.3d 635,638(4th Cit.1996).Substanéal evidenceisnota fflatge orconsiderable am ountofevidencey''Piercev.U nderwood,487 U.S. 552,565 (1988),butismotethan amerescindllaand somewhatlessthan apreponderance. Perales,402 U .S.at401;Laws,368 F.2d at642.Ifthe Comm issionez's decision issupported by substanéalevidçnce,itmustbeaffirmed.42U.S.C.j405(g);Perales,402 U.S.at401. 4 111. PlaindfpsObjections3 Snmuelobjectstotht'eefmclingsbythemagistratejudge:(1)thattheAT, J'sassessment ofSnmuel'sresidualfuncdonalcapacity I1lFCIissupported by substantialevidence;(2)that the ATJ considered and gaveproperweightto Samuel'ssubjecdve complaints;and (3)that new evidence sublnitted to the Appeals Councildid notwarrantrem and of his case.The Commissionerresponded thatthemagistratejudgecotrectly found thatsubstanéalevidence suppozted the AT, J'sconclusions. A.PhysicalRFC Assessm ent Theptocessforassessing aclqim ant'sILFC issetfot'th in SSR 96-817,1996W L 374184 (S.S.A.).Thelnlling setsoutinrelevantpartthefollowing: TheRFC m ustflrstidendfytheindividual'sfunctionallim itadonsorrestdctions and assess lais or her wozk-telated abilides on a f' uncdon-by-funcdon basis, includingthefuncéonsinparagraphs(b),(c),and(d)of20CFR 404.1545and 416.945.O nly after thatm ay the IIFC be expzessed in tet' m softhe exeo onal levelsofwork,sedentary,light,m edbpm ,heavy,and very heavy. 1d.at*1.Physicalabilitiessetoutin 20 C.F.R.404.1545@)and 416.945$)include sitdng, stanling, walking, lifting, carrying, pushing, plplling, zeaching, handling, stooping, and crouching.Mentalabilitiessetoutin subpatt(c)ofthereguladon include understancling, rem em bering,and catrying outinstrucdons,zesponding appropriately to supervision,co- workers,andwork pzessuresin aworksetdng.Othetabiliéessetoutin subpart(d)ofthe regulaéon include those affected by sldn impnirments or epilepsy,im plit-ment of vision, henting orother senses,ozim pairm entswllich im pose envitonm entalrestdcdons. 3D etailed factsaboutSamuel'sim pni- entsand m edicaland proceduralllistory can befounditzthereport andrecommendadon(ECFNo.26)andintheaclministradvetranscript(ECFNo.8)andwillnotberepeated here. 5 TheFotzrthCircuitmadeclearitlMonroev.Colvin,826F.3d176(4th Cir.2016),that the Tffassessm entm ustfltstidendfy the individual's funcdonallim itaéons orrestricdonsand ajsessl aisorherwork-related abilideson afunction-by-funcdon basis,inclucling thefuncdons' listedin theregtzladons.''Monroe,826F.3dat187-188(ciéngMasciov.Colvin,780F.3d 632, 636(4th Cir.2015)(quodngSSR 96-8P,61Fed.Reg.at34,475)).Onlyaftersuchafuncdonby-funcdon analysismay an ATJ expressILF'C ffV tet'msofthe exertionallevelsofwotk.''' Monroe,826F.3dat179(quodngSSR 96-817,61Fed.Reg.at34,475). Expressing ILF'C before analyzing the clnim ant's lim itaéons fancdon by R ncdon createsthedangerthatfrftheadjudicatot gwi11loverlook limitadonsorrestdcdonsthatwould natrow therangrsand typesofwork an individualmay beable to do.'''idaat187 (quodng Mascio,780 F.3d at 636 and SSR 96-8p,61 Fed.Reg.at 34,476).In addidon,the AT, J's assessm entm ustincludeanatradve discussion ofhow theevidencesupportseach conclusion, citing m edicalfactsand nonm edicalevidence,and fffm ustbuild an accurateand logicalbridge from theevidenceto hisconclusion.'''Id.at189(quodngCliffordv.A fel,227F.3d 863,872 (7thCit.2000)).4 In thiscase,the ATJ ftrstfound thatSamuelhad the severeimpnitments ofalcohol abuse and stattzs-post hip atthtoplasty fot left hip avasctzlar necrosis.She then discussed Snmuel'smedicalhistoryatlength and summrized llissubjecévecomplaints,incluclingthe testimony hegaveatthehearing.R.53-58.The ATJconcluded thatSamuelhad theRFC to 4InClifford,227F.3d at872,thecourtobsetved thatitisnotenoughforan ATJto statein aconclusory m annerthataclnimant'stestim onyregarcling limitationsplaced on llisdaily acdvitieswasunsupported by the medicaleddence.Rather,an ATJ ,mustardculateftsomelegitimatereason forllisdedsion''andRbut ' ldan accum teand logicalbridge from theevidenceto ltisconclusion.'' 6 do sedentaty work with the addidonalrestricdonsofstanding and walking for atotaloftwo hoursin an eight-hourworkday with each standing intervallasdng up to one-halfhourata tim e and walking up to fifteen m inutes ata tim e;occasionalbalancing,stooping,crouching, crawling,kneeling,and climbing,butnever on ladders,ropes,or scaffolds;he could do no pushing ozp'xlling w1t.11the low erexttem ides;w ould need to avoid concenttated exposure to tem pezatate exttem esofcold and heat,wem ess,hllm idity,and vibtations,and would requite acane foram bulaéon.R.53. The AT, J'S decision included a detailed slxmmary ofSamuel's medicalrecords,the medicalopinions,andhisheadngtestimony.ThemagistratejudgeconcludedthattheATJ's opinion included the parradve i scussion zequited by SSR 96-8P and contained suffkient information to allow meaningftzlreview.The courtwasnotleftto guessabouthow theAIJ reached herconclusionsbecause she adequately explnined them . Samuelargtzesthatthe AIJdidnotbuild thetflogicalbridge''requited byMontoeand Clifford.However,a review of the ATJ dete= inadon shows that she did exple her conclusions.Fotexam ple,shepointed outthatalthough Sam ueltestified thathewasunable to walk becauseofseverelzip pain,he also tesdfied thathecould walk the length ofa football Eeld without stopping to zest,and thathe could do chores M ound the house with frequent breaks.Following hislefttotalhip arthroplasty,Sam uelwasdescribed asdoing wellwith only lateralincision pain and minim alpain with range ofm odon.Five m onths after hip stugery, Sam uelwasdischarged from physicaltherapy forfailing to appearforappointm entsbutitw as noted thathisstrength,pain levels,gait,and funcdonalperform ancehad allimproved.R.54. The ATJ discussed additional medical tecotds wltich showed little evidence m usculoskeletalabnorm alides and also indicated that m ost ofSam uel's problem s were the resultofalcoholintoxicadon and abuse.H ereported using a bicycle fortransportadon and a psychiatdst he saw encouraged llim to retatn to wotk.W hen Sam uelwas not conslzm ing alcohol,he reported feeling betterbuthad som e lefthip pain and weakness. In sllm,the ATJ discussed alltheevidenceatlength befote concluding thattheRFC was supported by the longim dinalrecord,Sam uel's course oftreatm ent,llis daily acdvities includingworkacdvides,theobjecdvemedicaltvidence,andtheopinionevidence.Thus,the couttO dsthatthe ATJ provided afflogicalbridge''forherconclusionsregarding Samuel's RFC.The ALJ also conducted thefuncéon-by-funcdon analysiscalled forin thereguladons when shediscussed how long hecould walk,sit,and stand,and hisotherexeo onallim itadons. Accordingly, this court agtees with the magistrate judge's conclusion that the AT, J'S determinadonofSamuel'sRFCwassupportedbysubstantialevidence.Samuel'sobjecdonsto thisfm ding ate OVE RRU LED . B.Subjective Complaints Samuelalso argtzesthatthe ATJ merely summatized hissubjecdve complaintsand concluded that the allegadons were not fully supported without providing the requited explanadon ofhow shearrived atherconclusions.Themagisttatejudgefound thatthe ATJ included a detailed descripéon ofSam uel's m edicalhistory along with llis own allegadons before fincling thathisallegadonswere notene ely consistentwit.h the m edicalevidence and otherevidenceinthetecord.Forexample,theATJfoundthatSnmuel'ssubjecdvecompbints w ere not 6A11y supported by the reportsof doctorswho tzeated him ,im aging studies ofhis 8 hip,and the state agency physicians.In addidon,llisrepol'ts ofllis dat 'ly acdvides wete not consistentwith eitherhisclnim ed physicalozm entalim paitm ents. In his objecdons,Samuelatgues thatthe AI, J engaged in speculation and made generalized statem ents thathisallegadons are notentitely consistentwith other eddence in therecordandthatthemagisttatejudgefailedtoTfacknowledgetheevidencepointedtobythe ATJ does not disprove plaindff's pain allegadons.'' However, Samuel does not specify examplesofspeculation orgeneralized statements to wlzich he objects,wllich makesit impossibletoaddresstheobjecdon. Moreover,itisthedutyoftheATJtomakefindingsoffactand toresolveconflictsin theevidence.1gl y-q,907F.2d at1456.lfthe AIJ cited substandalevidencein suppottofher determination thatSamuel'ssubjecdve complaintswere notsuppotted by therecord,she committednoerror.SeeBisho v.Comm'rofSoc.Sec.,583F.App'x.65,68(4thCir.2014) (finding AT. J'S determinadon suppozted by substandalevidence where she cited specihc contzadictorytestimonyand evidencein analyzingclnimant'scredibility). Also,w1:. 11regard totheazgumentthattheevidencecitedbythe ATJ doesnotdisprove Snm uel's allegadons, the role of the reviewing court is lim ited to dete= ining w hether substandal evidence supports the AT. J's detetminadon.Thecourt may not teweigh the evidence and is notatlibertyto determine whether the evidence pointed to by the ATJ disprovesSnmuel'ssubjecéveallegations.SeeH a sv.Sullivan,907 F.2d 1453,1456 (4th Cit. 1990)rfgfjtisnotwithin thepzovince ofa reviewing courtto deternaine theweightofthe evidence,norisitthecourt'sf'uncéontosubstimteitsjudgmentforthatoftheSecretaryifhis decision issupportedbysubstandalevidence.'') 9 Rather,aslongasthe AIJcitesto substanéalevidence--motethan ascine abutless than a prepondetance-the dete= inadon m ustbe upheld.Peazson v.Colvin,810 F.3d 204, 207(4thCit.2015).SeealsoCtai v.Chatet,76F.3d585,589(4t.hCit.1996)(notingthatthe decisionbefotetlaecokutisnotwhethetthecbimantisdisabled,butwhethettheAIJ'sSnding ofnoclisabilityis'supportedbysubstandalevidence);Fo v.Ber 13i11,No.C8D-17-2743,2018 W L 3707837 at*5 (D.Md.2018)(fincling thatwhileevidencecited by plnindffcould be construedassupportforplaindff'sviewpoint,itisnotcourt'szoletoreweigh evidence);Clark v.Colvin,No.5:13-cv-00157,2014 W L 7005366 at*1 rfl'he Couttcannotsubsdtazte its judgmentforthatoftheCommissioner,eveniftheCourtwouldhavedecideddifferently,so long asthe AT, J'Sdecisionissupponedbysubstandalevidence.'')Forthesezeasons,thecourt OVERRULES Samuel'sobjecdon thatthemagistratejudgeettedwhen hefound thatthe ATJ properly considered Snmpel's complnints of disabling pain and his other subjecdve com plaints. C.N ew'Evidence In Wilkinsv.Sec' De 'tHealth andHumanServs.,953F.2d 93,96 (4th Cit.1991), theFourth Citcuitheld thatffTheAppealsCouncilm ustconsiderevidencesubm ittedw1t. 11the requestforreview in decidingwhethetto grantreview <iftheaddidonalevidenceis(a)new, (b)material,and(c)relatestotheperiodonorbeforethedateoftheAT, J'Sdecision.'''(quoting W illinmsv.Sullivan,905 F.2d 214,216 (8th Cir.1990)).ln addidon,there mustalso be a teasonableptobabititythattheaddidonalevidencewould changetheoutcom eofthedecision. 20C.F.R.j404.970.Snmuelsubnlitted new evidenceto theAppealsCouncil,wllich consisted of21pagesfrom New HorizonsHealthcare datedJuly 19,2017 thtough Febt'uary 14,2018, and 14 pagesfrom Carilion ClinicPain M anagem ent,dated February 21,2018 through M atch 13,2018.TheAppealsCouncildeclined to considerthe evidencebecausethe AIJ decided Sam uel'scbim on April28,2017 and the evidencew asproduced afterthatdate. Samuelarguedtothemagistratejudgethattheevidencewasnew,material,andrelevant totheissuesthatwerebeforetheATJ.HearguedthattheAIJ ,discountedSamuel'sallegaéons ofpain because he was noton condnued pain m edicationsand the new evidence confit-med that opioids w ere not presczibed for lnim because of his past substance abuse issues and psychiatricillness.The evidence furthetshow ed thatSam uelcondnued to have signihcantleft hip pain and w alked with a lim p aftethiship replacem ent. Themagistratejudgç found thatthenew evidencedid notzelateto yhçpedod on or beforethedateoftheAT, J'Sdecision.Themagistratejudgealsofoundthatthenew evidence wasnotin conflictwitlltheevidencealreadyconsideredbythe ATJ and thuswotzldnotlikely have changed herdecision. ln llisobjections,Samuelraisedthesameargumentsheraised to themagistratejudge. Although Samuelarguesthatthe ATJ discounted lzisallegationsofpain becausehewasnot oncon% uedpainmedications,thatisnotacompleterecitaéon oftheAT, J'Sreasons.TheATJ fotm d that Snm uel's use of alcohol since lais sutgery and his requests for narcodc pain m edicadon were notstrong evidence ofseverepain sym ptom sbecause he had a long history ofheavyalcoholusepriortothesym ptoms.TheATJalso notedthattheorthopedicsurgeon had not found a frgood reason''for Sam uel's pain and had notprescribed addidonalpain m ei cadons or ueatnent except for physical therapy, wllich Sam uel did not attend. In addidon,although he testifed thatpnin lim ited hisability to concentrate,he also tesdhed that hewatchedtelevision,enjoyedreadingbooks,andcompletedcrosswordandSudokupuzzles. R.56-57. The factthata doctorwho saw Sam uelafterApril28,2017 found the use ofopioid m edicadon contraindicated because of Sam uel's history of alcohol abuse w ould not have changedtheAT, J'Sopitlion.Samuel'salcoholism waswell-doclzmentedintherecordandwas a concern forotherdoctorswho pzescribed m edicatb ns.R.896.H e typically wasprescribed non-narcodc pain relieverssuch asCelebtex,ibupzofen,acetnm inophen,and aspitin.R.696, 895,896,730.Sam uelpointsto nothing in eithertherecord orthenew evidence thatinclicates itwould havechanged the AIJ ,'sdecision with tegard to hissubjectiveallegationsofpain. Therçfore,llisobjecdonsonthisissueareOVERRULED. CO N CLU SIO N Forthereasonsstated,thecourtfmdsnoerzozinthemagistratejudge'sconclusion thattheA1, J'sdecision issupportedbysubstantialevidence.Assuch,themagisttatejudge's reportand recom m endadon willbe adopted in itsentirety. An appropriate Orderw. illbe entered. Entered:& %j OQ M 11 r M ichaelF.Urbansld ChiefUrlited StatesDistrictludge
]]>
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.
