United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING
THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE
JUDGE
FREDERICK P. STAMP, JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
I.
Procedural History
The
plaintiff, by counsel, seeks judicial review of the
defendant's decision to deny his claims for disability
insurance benefits (“DIB”) under Title II of the
Social Security Act and supplemental security income
(“SSI”) under Title XVI of the Social Security
Act. The plaintiff applied for DIB and SSI on June 12, 2013,
alleging disability beginning April 15, 2012. He alleges that
he is unable to work due to anxiety, major depressive
disorders, obesity, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, obstructive
sleep apnea, and restless leg syndrome. His claim was denied
initially and again upon reconsideration. The plaintiff then
filed a written request for a hearing, and the ALJ held a
hearing on February 12, 2016. The plaintiff, represented by
counsel, and an impartial vocational expert appeared at the
hearing. The ALJ issued an unfavorable decision to the
plaintiff, and the plaintiff appealed. The Appeals Council
denied the plaintiff's request for review, and the
plaintiff timely brought his claim before this Court.
The ALJ
used a five step evaluation process pursuant to 20 C.F.R.
§§ 404.1420 and 416.920. Using that process, the
ALJ made the following findings: (1) the plaintiff had not
engaged in substantial gainful activity since April 15, 2012,
his application date; (2) the plaintiff had the following
severe impairments: anxiety and major depressive disorders;
(3) none of the plaintiff's impairments met or medically
equaled the severity of any of the impairments listed in 20
C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1; (4) the plaintiff is
capable of performing his past relevant work as a sorter and
cook helper; and (5) “[c]onsidering the claimant's
age, education, work experience, and residual functional
capacity, there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in
the national economy that the claimant can perform.”
Therefore, the ALJ found that the plaintiff did not have a
disability as defined under the Social Security Act.
The
plaintiff and the defendant both filed motions for summary
judgment. The plaintiff's motion for summary judgment
argues that the ALJ's decision is not supported by
substantial evidence. Specifically, the plaintiff contends
that the ALJ (1) erroneously assessed the plaintiff's
Residual Functional Capacity (“RFC”) and (2)
erroneously evaluated the plaintiff's subjective
complaints. The plaintiff requests that the Court reverse the
ALJ's decision and remand the case for further
administrative proceedings. The defendant's motion for
summary judgment argues that the ALJ's decision is
supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, the
defendant argues that (1) the ALJ appropriately accommodated
the plaintiff's moderate limitations in concentration,
persistence, or pace, and (2) the ALJ's assessment of the
plaintiff's subjective complaints is supported by
substantial evidence. Accordingly, the defendant requests
that this Court affirm the ALJ's decision.
United
States Magistrate Judge Robert W. Trumble then entered his
report and recommendation, to which neither party filed
objections. The magistrate judge recommends that this Court
deny the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, grant
the defendant's motion for summary judgment, and
accordingly dismiss with prejudice this civil action. For the
reasons set forth below, the report and recommendation of the
magistrate judge is affirmed and adopted.
II.
Applicable Law
Pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court must conduct a
de novo review of any portion of the magistrate
judge's recommendation to which objection is timely made.
As to those portions of a recommendation to which no
objection is made, a magistrate judge's findings and
recommendation will be upheld unless they are clearly
erroneous. Because neither party filed objections, this Court
will review the magistrate judge's findings and
recommendations under the clearly erroneous standard.
III.
Discussion
As the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has
held, “Under the Social Security Act, [a reviewing
court] must uphold the factual findings of the Secretary if
they are supported by substantial evidence and were reached
through application of the correct legal standard.”
Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 589 (4th Cir. 1996).
“Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.” Id. A reviewing court “does
not reweigh evidence or make credibility determinations in
evaluating whether a decision is supported by substantial
evidence; ‘[w]here conflicting evidence allows
reasonable minds to differ, ' we defer to the
Commissioner's decision.” Thompson v.
Astrue, 442 F. App'x 804, 805 (4th Cir. 2011)
(quoting Johnson v. Barnhart, 434 F.3d 650, 653 (4th
Cir. 2005)). Further, as the Supreme Court of the United
States stated in United States v. United States Gypsum
Co., “a finding is ‘clearly erroneous'
when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing
court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and
firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” 333
U.S. 364, 395.
After
reviewing the record before this Court, no clearly erroneous
findings exist concerning the magistrate judge's report
and recommendation. In making his recommendations, the
magistrate judge first found that the ALJ did not erroneously
assess the plaintiff's RFC. The plaintiff argues that the
assessment was erroneous because the ALJ (1) did not conduct
the requisite function-by-function analysis and (2) did not
include a limitation that accounted for the plaintiff's
moderate difficulty with concentration, persistence, or pace
in the plaintiff's RFC. As to the plaintiff's first
argument, the magistrate judge found that the ALJ's
analysis does not frustrate meaningful review because the
record is adequate and substantially supports the ALJ's
RFC determination. The magistrate judge noted that the
ALJ's thorough step-five analysis spans six-plus pages
and summarizes the plaintiff's mental history and
treatment from May 2012 to February 2016. ECF No. 9-2 at
26-32. The magistrate judge found the plaintiff's second
argument disingenuous because “[e]ven a cursory review
of the ALJ's RFC determination makes clear that the ALJ
included two nonexertional limitations in
Plaintiff's RFC.” ECF No. 28 at 10. Specifically,
the ALJ stated that the plaintiff is “limited to
unskilled, low stress (meaning work in a stable environment)
work with minimal (which is less than occasional, but more
than none) interaction with the public.” ECF No. 9-2 at
26.
Next,
the magistrate judge found that the ALJ's assessment of
the plaintiff's subjective complaints is supported by
substantial evidence. The plaintiff argues that the ALJ's
evaluation of the plaintiff's subjective complaints did
not satisfy the requisite two-step process under the
step-five analysis because “[t]he ALJ made no finding
regarding whether the Plaintiff had established by objective
medical evidence an impairment which could cause the degree
and type of subjective symptoms alleged.” ECF No. 13 at
11. However, the magistrate judge determined that, by
concluding that the plaintiff has two severe impairments, the
ALJ concluded that the plaintiff met his threshold obligation
of showing that a medical impairment exists that is capable
of causing the degree and type of pain alleged. ECF No. 9-2
at 23-24. The magistrate judge found that, once the plaintiff
made that showing, the ALJ was not required to rely
exclusively on the plaintiff's subjective complaints of
pain, but rather was required to weigh the subjective
complaints against the relevant evidence of record.
The
plaintiff also takes issue with the ALJ's ultimate
conclusion that the plaintiff's subjective complaints
were inconsistent with the evidence of record. However, the
magistrate judge concluded that, over the course of six-plus
pages, the ALJ properly considered all of the evidence of
record when determining the plaintiff's credibility and
that the ALJ's credibility assessment was sufficiently
specific. ECF No. 9-2 at 26-32.
This
Court finds no error in any of the above determinations of
the magistrate ...