Frederick W. B. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia overruled the plaintiff’s objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in a Social Security disability benefits case. The court adopted the report and recommendation, denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, granted the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment, and affirmed the denial of disability insurance benefits for the period from October 9, 2021, through January 12, 2024. The court also directed the Clerk to enter judgment for the defendant and close the case.

Holdings

1. Because Plaintiff's objections substantially repeated arguments made in the summary-judgment briefing, the court reviewed the relevant portions of the report and recommendation for clear error; in any event, the objections failed under de novo review as well.
2. The ALJ's source-level persuasiveness analysis was adequate even though it did not separately discuss every limitation in Dr. Russell's opinion, and the ALJ permissibly omitted Dr. Russell's suggested sitting restriction from the RFC because that restriction was based on Plaintiff's subjective report and was outside Dr. Russell's psychological specialization.
3. The ALJ properly applied the two-step process for evaluating subjective statements about symptoms and adequately explained why Plaintiff's allegations concerning the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of his symptoms were not entirely consistent with the record.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the magistrate judge clearly erred or otherwise erred in concluding that the ALJ adequately evaluated Dr. Russell's medical opinion, including her suggested seated-work restriction.
2. Whether the magistrate judge erred in concluding that the ALJ properly evaluated Plaintiff's subjective statements under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and SSR 16-3p and supported the resulting findings with substantial evidence.

Disposition

affirmed