Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
Cynthia Smith-Butts v. Michael J. Astrue
December 14, 2012
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Cynthia M. Rufe, J.
Plaintiff Cynthia Smith-Butts filed this action requesting judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, denying her claim for Supplemental Security Income and Disability Insurance Benefits under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. This Court referred the matter to United States Magistrate Judge Linda K. Caracappa who issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") that the Commissioner's decision be affirmed. Plaintiff filed timely objections to the R&R.
The Commissioner affirmed the decision of the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"), who found that Plaintiff suffered from a severe impairment of cervical spondylosis with shoulder pain, but that Plaintiff had the residual functional capacity to perform medium work with no overhead lifting, and that Plaintiff could work as a bill collector, lab technician, or administrative assistant. *fn1
The Magistrate Judge determined that the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence. In her objections, Smith-Butts argues that (1) the Magistrate Judge erred in not concluding that the ALJ was required to include in the hypothetical question to the vocational expert ("VE") mild difficulties with regard to maintaining social functioning and concentration, persistence, or pace; (2) the Magistrate Judge erred in concluding that the ALJ's finding that Plaintiff does not have a severe mental impairment was supported by substantial evidence; and (3) the Magistrate Judge should have recommended that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment be granted.
The Court has conducted a de novo review of
those parts of the R&R to which objections have been made, and has the
discretion to "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
findings or recommendations made by the magistrate." *fn2
Upon careful review, the Court agrees with the Magistrate
For a VE's answer to a hypothetical question to be considered
substantial evidence, the question must reflect all of the claimant's
impairments that are supported by the record. *fn3
In eliciting testimony from a VE, the ALJ's hypothetical
need not contain every impairment alleged by the claimant; it must
only convey the claimant's credibly established limitations.
*fn4 Plaintiff argues that the ALJ found that
Plaintiff suffered from mild depression, including mild difficulties
with activities of daily living; maintaining social functioning; and
maintaining concentration, persistence or pace, but failed to include
these limitations in the hypothetical questioning of the VE. The Court
disagrees. The ALJ found that Plaintiff's depression "results in no
more than mild activities [sic] of daily living; mild difficulties in
maintaining social functioning; mild difficulties in maintaining
concentration, persistence, or pace . . . ." *fn5
The Court agrees with the conclusion in the R&R that the
ALJ did not find that Plaintiff had mild difficulties in maintaining
concentration, persistence, or pace, but instead found only that
Plaintiff did not reach the level of moderate difficulties that would be required to meet a listing of
impairment, as explained at greater length in the R&R.
*fn6 Thus, there was no finding of mild impairment
to be included in the hypothetical to the VE, and no error in failing
to do so.
Plaintiff also argues that the ALJ erred in failing to conclude
that Plaintiff suffered from a severe mental impairment, specifically
depression. The ALJ addressed Plaintiff's diagnosis of depressive
disorder, but noted that her intake evaluation at COMHAR stated that
Plaintiff had normal grooming and hygiene, was calm, cooperative,
alert, and oriented, and had no impairment of attention or
concentration. *fn7 This finding is
consistent with other evaluations at COMHAR, where Plaintiff received
regular treatment, *fn8 as well as other
evaluations that stated that although Plaintiff suffers from
depression, her concentration and attention are intact.
*fn9 The ALJ also discussed Plaintiff's Global
Assessment of Functioning ("GAF") score of 60, and explained why it
was not considered evidence of severe impairment. *fn10
In addition, in her testimony, Plaintiff did not cite her
depression as a reason she could not work, and testified that her
weekly treatment at COMHAR was helping her. *fn11
Although the ALJ could have addressed the medical records
in more detail, there is no indication that the ALJ "'cherry-pick[ed]'
or ignor[ed] medical assessments that ran counter to [his] finding"; the decision is
supported by substantial evidence, and remand is not warranted.
AND NOW , this 14th day of December 2012, after careful review and consideration of Plaintiff's request for review, Defendant's response, the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Linda K. Caracappa, the objections thereto and the response to the objections, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's Objections are OVERRULED ;
2. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED ;
3. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED ; and
4. The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED . It is so ORDERED .
Buy This Entire Record For