Opinion
Civil Action 2:21-cv-45
03-24-2022
KIMBERLY G., Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM ORDER
RAYMOND A. JACKSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter comes before the Court on Kimberly G.'s ("Plaintiff) Objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge dated December 7, 2021. Pl.'s Objs. R. & R., ECF No. 25 ("Pl.'s Objs."). For the reasons set forth below, the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED, Plaintiffs objections are OVERRULED, and the decision of the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") is AFFIRMED.
The Committee on Court Administration and Case Management of the Judicial Conference of the United States has recommended that, due to significant privacy concerns in social security cases, federal courts should refer to claimants only by their first names and last initials.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The facts and administrative procedural background are adopted as set forth in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. See R. & R. Dec. 7, 2021, ECF No. 24 ("R. & R."). On January 18, 2019, Plaintiff initially filed for disability benefits ("DIB") and supplemental security income ("SSI"). Administrative Record 203-19, ECF No. 11 ("R."). Plaintiff alleged disability beginning March 28, 2007, based on seizures, hypothyroid, diabetes, encephalitis, mood disorder, problems swallowing, depression, short-term memory, and dysphagia. R. at 240. These claims were denied, initially on March 29, 2019, and upon reconsideration on June 27, 2019. R. at 15. Plaintiff then requested an administrative hearing. Id. The hearing was held via telephone on June 4, 2020. R. at 32-62. Counsel represented Plaintiff at the hearing and a vocational expert ("VE") testified. Id.
Plaintiff has alleged disability beginning March 28, 2007, but there are very few medical records until 2018. See R. at 37. At her administrative hearing, Plaintiff testified that her prior employment ended in 2007 because of conflicts stemming from her prioritizing her son's health concerns. R. at 41. The court considers these discrepancies a credibility concern.
On August 5, 2020, the ALJ denied Plaintiff s claims for DIB and SSI, finding she was not disabled during the period alleged. R. at 26. The ALJ found that Plaintiff did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled the severity of one of the impairments listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. R. at 21. On November 17, 2020, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiffs request for review. R. at 1.
On January 21, 2021, Plaintiff brought this action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3) seeking this Court's review of the Commissioner's decision. Compl., ECF No. 1. On May 27, 2021, this Court entered an Order referring this action to United States Magistrate Judge Douglas E. Miller ("Magistrate Judge") to conduct hearings, and submit proposed findings of fact, if applicable, and recommendations for the disposition of this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Order May 27, 2021, ECF No. 12. That same day, Magistrate Judge Miller entered an order directing Plaintiff to file a motion for summary judgment within thirty (30) days from the date of the order, and for Defendant to file a responsive memorandum, a cross-motion for summary judgment if desired, and a statement of his position within thirty (30) days from Plaintiffs filing of a motion for summary judgment. Mag. Judge Order May 27, 2021, ECF No. 13. On September 22, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. Pl.'s Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 18. On October 22, 2021, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. Def.'s Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 21.
On December 7, 2021, Magistrate Judge Miller filed his Report and Recommendation ("R. & R."), in which he recommended the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment be GRANTED, Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment be DENIED, and the decision of the Commissioner be AFFIRMED. R. & R. at 22. On December 21, 2021, Plaintiff filed the instant Objections to the R. & R. Pl.'s Objs. On December 23, 2021, Defendant filed a response to Plaintiffs objections. Def.'s Response to Pl.'s Objs. R. & R., ECF No. 26. Accordingly, this matter is now ripe for disposition by the Court.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
When considering a party's objections to the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, a district judge "must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to." Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3); see also Wimmer v. Cook, 774 F.2d 68, 73 (4th Cir. 1985) ("[A]ny individual findings of fact or recommendations for disposition by [a magistrate judge], if objected to, are subject to final de novo determination. .. by a district judge."). Under de novo review, the magistrate judge's report and recommendation carries no presumptive weight, and the district court may accept, reject, or modify the report, in whole or in part, and may recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. See Halloway v. Bashara, 176 F.R.D. 207, 209-10 (E.D. Va. 1997); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) ("The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended decision, receive further evidence, or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions."). When conducting this "fife novo determination," a district court judge must give "fresh consideration" to the relevant portions of the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 675 (1980).
A court reviewing a decision made under the Social Security Act must determine whether the factual findings are supported by substantial evidence and were reached through application of the correct legal standard. See Craig v. Chafer, 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; [i]t consists of more than a mere scintilla of evidence but may be somewhat less than a preponderance." Id. (citations omitted). In reviewing for substantial evidence, the court does not re-weigh conflicting evidence, make credibility determinations, or substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner. Id. The Commissioner's findings as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive and must be affirmed. See Richardson v. Per ales, 402 U.S. 389, 390 (1971).
III. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge's finding that "the ALJ did not err in determining Plaintiffs mental impairments were non-severe." Pl.'s Objs. at 1. Plaintiff raises several challenges to the Magistrate Judge's reasoning. See id.
First, Plaintiff argues the Magistrate Judge's "failure to consider [two pieces of] evidence was a mischaracterization of the evidence." Id. at 2. Plaintiff grounds her argument in Arakas v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 983 F.3d 83, 99 (4th Cir. 2020), in which the Fourth Circuit refused to uphold an ALJ's disability determination where the ALJ "cherry-pick[ed] certain facts ... [and] also misstated or mischaracterized other material facts." Plaintiff argues the Magistrate Judge committed the same error here by failing to consider two pieces of evidence: (1) "[Plaintiff) testified during the June 2020 hearing that she called her psychiatrist because she wanted to set up a time to see her again"; and (2) "Plaintiff also testified that she had not gone out much due to the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic." Pl.'s Objs. at 2. Plaintiff concludes the failure to consider this evidence renders "invalid" "the Magistrate Judge's finding that Plaintiff failed to seek additional mental health treatment." Id