Epting v. Berryhill

• Decision Date: 25 October 2017
• Docket Number: No. 16-CV-3118-LTS,16-CV-3118-LTS
• Parties: RANDALL BROOKS EPTING, III, Plaintiff, v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

RANDALL BROOKS EPTING, III, Plaintiff, v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

No. 16-CV-3118-LTS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA CENTRAL DIVISION

October 25, 2017

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

I. INTRODUCTION

This case is before me on a Report & Recommendation (R&R) by the Honorable C.J. Williams, Chief United States Magistrate Judge. Doc. No. 18. Judge Williams recommends that I affirm the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (the Commissioner) denying the applications by plaintiff Randall Brooks Epting, III, for disability insurance benefits (DIB) and supplemental security income (SSI) under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 401 et. seq. (Act).

Epting filed timely objections (Doc. No. 19) to the R&R on August 17, 2017. The procedural history and relevant facts are set forth in the R&R and are repeated herein only to the extent necessary.

II. APPLICABLE STANDARDS

A. Judicial Review of the Commissioner's Decision

The Commissioner's decision must be affirmed "if it is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole." Pelkey v. Barnhart, 433 F.3d 575, 577 (8th Cir. 2006); see 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) ("The findings of the Commissioner of Social Security as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive . . . ."). "Substantial evidence is less than a preponderance, but enough that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Lewis v. Barnhart, 353 F.3d 642, 645 (8th Cir. 2003). The Eighth Circuit explains the standard as "something less than the weight of the evidence and [that] allows for the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions, thus it embodies a zone of choice within which the [Commissioner] may decide to grant or deny benefits without being subject to reversal on appeal." Culbertson v. Shalala, 30 F.3d 934, 939 (8th Cir. 1994).

To determine whether the Commissioner's decision meets this standard, the court considers "all of the evidence that was before the ALJ, but it [does] not re-weigh the evidence." Vester v. Barnhart, 416 F.3d 886, 889 (8th Cir. 2005). The court considers both evidence which supports the Commissioner's decision and evidence that detracts from it. Kluesner v. Astrue, 607 F.3d 533, 536 (8th Cir. 2010). The court "must search the record for evidence contradicting the [Commissioner's] decision and give that evidence appropriate weight when determining whether the overall evidence in support is substantial." Baldwin v. Barnhart, 349 F.3d 549, 555 (8th Cir. 2003) (citing Cline v. Sullivan, 939 F.2d 560, 564 (8th Cir. 1991)).

To evaluate the evidence in an appeal of a denial of benefits, the court must apply a balancing test to assess any contradictory evidence. Sobania v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 879 F.2d 441, 444 (8th Cir. 1989). The court, however, does not "reweigh the evidence presented to the ALJ," Baldwin, 349 F.3d at 555 (citing Bates v. Chater, 54 F.3d 529, 532 (8th Cir. 1995)), or "review the factual record de novo." Roe v. Chater, 92 F.3d 672, 675 (8th Cir. 1996) (citing Naber v. Shalala, 22 F.3d 186, 188 (8th Cir. 1994)). Instead, if, after reviewing the evidence, the court "find[s] it possible to draw two inconsistent positions from the evidence and one of those positions represents the Commissioner's findings, [the court] must affirm the [Commissioner's] denial of benefits." Kluesner, 607 F.3d at 536 (quoting Finch v. Astrue, 547 F.3d 933, 935 (8th Cir. 2008)). This is true even if the court "might have weighed the evidence differently." Culbertson, 30 F.3d at 939 (quoting Browning v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 817, 822 (8th Cir.1992)). The court may not reverse the Commissioner's decision "merely because substantial evidence would have supported an opposite decision." Baker v. Heckler, 730 F.2d 1147, 1150 (8th Cir. 1984); see also Goff v. Barnhart, 421 F.3d 785, 789 (8th Cir. 2005) ("[A]n administrative decision is not subject to reversal simply because some evidence may support the opposite conclusion.").

B. Review of Report and Recommendation

A district judge must review a magistrate judge's R&R under the following standards:

Within fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court. A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Thus, when a party objects to any portion of an R&R, the district judge must undertake a de novo review of that portion.

Any portions of an R&R to which no objections have been made must be reviewed under at least a "clearly erroneous" standard. See, e.g., Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) (noting that when no objections are filed "[the district court judge] would only have to review the findings of the magistrate judge for clear error"). As the Supreme Court has explained, "[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." Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985) (quoting United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). However, a district judge may elect to review an R&R under a more-exacting standard even if no objections are filed:

Any party that desires plenary consideration by the Article III judge of any issue need only ask. Moreover, while the statute does not require the judge to review an issue de novo if no objections are filed, it does not preclude further review by the district judge, sua sponte or at the request of a party, under a de novo or any other standard.

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Thus, a district court may review de novo any issue in a magistrate judge's report and recommendation at any time. Id. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has "emphasized the necessity . . . of retention by the district court of substantial control over the ultimate disposition of matters referred to a magistrate." Belk v. Purkett, 15 F.3D 803, 815 (8th Cir. 1994). As this court has previously stated, "[e]ven if the reviewing court must construe objections liberally to require de novo review, it is clear to this court that there is a distinction between making an objection and making no objection at all . . . ." Lynch v. Astrue, 687 F. Supp. 2d 841 (2010) (citing Coop. Fin. Assoc. v. Garst, 917 F. Supp. 1356, 1373 (N.D. Iowa 1996)). This court will provide de novo review of all issues that might be addressed by any objection, but will review for clear error matters to which no objection at all has been made. Id.

III. THE R&R

Epting alleged disability beginning November 2, 2012, due to numerous conditions including marked obesity, mood disorder NOS, major depressive disorder recurrent, generalized anxiety disorder, panic disorder without agoraphobia, bipolar disorder, Cluster B personality traits, schizoid personality disorder and history of ADHD, combined type. AR 26. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found Epting was able to perform past relevant work as a farm worker and, therefore, was not disabled. AR 35.¹

Epting raises three issues in arguing that the ALJ erred: (1) the ALJ's opinion was not supported by substantial evidence on the record, (2) the ALJ improperly rejected Epting's subjective allegations and (3) the ALJ failed to give appropriate weight to the opinions of his treating physicians. Doc. No. 14; Doc. No. 18 at 13. Judge Williams addressed each argument separately.

With respect to whether the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence, Judge Williams found that the ALJ properly considered all symptoms reflected in the medical records and assigned appropriate weight to the medical opinions to the extent they were consistent with the record as a whole. Doc. No. 18 at 13-14. Judge Williams stated:

[T]he ALJ's residual functional capacity assessment is supported by the required substantial medical evidence, and the ALJ gave appropriate weight to the medical opinions and reconciliation of those opinions with the medical records. See Fentress v. Berryhill, 854 F.3d 1016, 1017 (8th Cir. 2017) (holding that a court will uphold a decision to deny benefits if that decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole). In my own review of the administrative and medical records, I find support for the ALJ's conclusion that claimant's interactions with both Dr. Lassise and Dr. Roland are inconsistent with the other records and level of claimant's functioning. Additionally, I find that the records as a whole do not describe physical or mental limitations that would support a finding of disability as defined in 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A). Igo v. Colvin, 839 F.3d 724, 731 (8th Cir. 2016) (holding ALJ's adverse credibility determination for was supported by substantial evidence, including the ALJ's finding that claimant's alleged limitations were inconsistent with claimant's daily activities).

Id. at 14-15.

Regarding the ALJ's assessment of Epting's credibility and subjective complaints, Judge Williams found that the ALJ properly weighed the record and adequately detailed the inconsistencies between Epting's testimony and the medical reports. Id. at 16. Judge Williams noted that the ALJ considered Epting's work history, ability to attend appointments, complete household chores and engage in self-care. Id. at 17. Heultimately found that the ALJ properly assessed Epting's credibility and, therefore, was...