United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia, Bluefield
MEMORANDUM OPINION
DAVID
A. FABER, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This
action seeks review of the final decision of the Commissioner
of Social Security, who denied plaintiff's application
for disability insurance benefits (“DIB”). By
Standing Order, this case was referred to United States
Magistrate Judge Omar J. Aboulhosn to consider the pleadings
and evidence, and to submit proposed findings of fact and
recommendation for disposition, under 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B). (Doc. No. 4). On March 30, 2017, Magistrate
Judge Aboulhosn issued Proposed Findings & Recommendation
(“PF&R”), recommending that the court deny
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, grant
Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, and
dismiss this case with prejudice. (Doc. No. 22).
Under
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), the parties had fourteen days,
plus three mailing days, from the date of the filing of the
PF&R to file objections.
On
April 17, 2017, plaintiff timely filed objections to the
PF&R (Doc. No. 23). The Government responded three days
later. (Doc. No. 24).
I.
Background
Plaintiff,
Tina Louise Green, through counsel, filed the instant DIB
application on September 28, 2012, under Title II of the
Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-433. The
Social Security Administration (“SSA”) initially
denied plaintiff's application and again upon
reconsideration. (Tr. at 98-108). Plaintiff requested and
received a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge
(“ALJ”) held on January 9, 2015 before the
Honorable Benjamin McMillion. (Tr. at 34-63). The ALJ
determined that plaintiff was not entitled to disability
benefits in a decision dated April 9, 2015. (Tr. at 14-33).
Plaintiff
filed a request for review by the Appeals Council and
submitted new evidence in support of her claim, which was
incorporated into the administrative record. (Tr. at 9,
303-307). On July 20, 2016, the Appeals Council denied
plaintiff's request for review, thereby making the
ALJ's decision the final decision of the Commissioner.
(Tr. at 1-5).
Plaintiff
timely filed the present civil action seeking judicial review
under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) on September 19, 2016. (Doc.
No. 2). On March 30, 2017, the PF&R recommended that the
court deny Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, grant
Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, and
dismiss this case with prejudice.
A
detailed factual description of plaintiff's ailments and
alleged disability can be found in the PF&R (Doc. No. 22
at 10- 17) and in the ALJ's decision (Tr. at 20-26).
These descriptions adequately and faithfully summarize the
factual information in the entire record, making it
unnecessary to detail the medical evidence once more.
Therefore, this opinion will only describe the facts as
necessary to address plaintiff's specific objections.
II.
Standard of Review
Pursuant
to Rule 72(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
district court reviews de novo any part of a
magistrate judge's disposition to which a party has
properly filed an objection. However, this court is not
required to review, de novo or under any other
standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate
judge regarding those portions of the findings or
recommendations to which the parties have addressed no
objections. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985).
The
court's review concerns only whether substantial evidence
supports the Commissioner's conclusion that plaintiff
failed to meet the conditions for entitlement established by
and pursuant to the Social Security Act. If such substantial
evidence exists, the final decision of the Commissioner must
be affirmed. Hays v. Sullivan, 907 F.2d 1453, 1456
(4th Cir. 1990). Stated briefly, substantial evidence has
been defined as such relevant evidence, considering the
record as a whole, as might be found adequate to support a
conclusion by a reasonable mind. Richardson v.
Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971). “If there is
evidence to justify a refusal to direct a verdict were the
case before a jury, then there is ‘substantial
evidence.'” Blalock v. Richardson, 483
F.2d 773, 776 (4th Cir. 1972) (quoting Laws v.
Celebrezze, 368 F.2d 640, 642 (4th Cir. 1966)).
Supposing error by the Commissioner, this court need not
reverse a decision “where the alleged error clearly had
no bearing on the procedure used or the substance of the
decision reached by the ALJ.” Ngarurih v.
Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 190 n. 8 (4th Cir. 2004).
III.
Plaintiff&# ...