LOUISE W. FLANAGAN, District Judge.
This matter is before the court on the parties' cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings. (DE 17, 19). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), United States Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr., entered memorandum and recommendation ("M&R"), wherein it is recommended that the court deny plaintiff's motion, grant defendant's motion, and affirm defendant's decision. Plaintiff timely filed objections to the M&R, and the issues raised are ripe for ruling. For the reasons that follow, the court adopts the M&R as its own, grants defendant's motion, denies plaintiff's motion, and affirms defendant's final decision.
On October 22, 2014 plaintiff filed applications for a period of disability, disability insurance benefits, and supplemental security income, alleging disability beginning September 10, 2014. The claims were denied initially and upon reconsideration. Plaintiff requested hearing before an administrative law judge ("ALJ"), who, after a February 6, 2017, hearing, denied plaintiff's claims by decision entered May 2, 2017. Following the ALJ's denial of the applications, plaintiff timely requested review, and the Appeals Council denied plaintiff's request for review, leaving the ALJ's decision as defendant's final decision. Plaintiff then filed a complaint in this court on February 5, 2018, seeking review of defendant's decision.
The court has jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to review defendant's final decision denying benefits. The court must uphold the factual findings of the ALJ "if they are supported by substantial evidence and were reached through application of the correct legal standard."
"A necessary predicate to engaging in substantial evidence review is a record of the basis for the ALJ's ruling," including "a discussion of which evidence the ALJ found credible and why, and specific application of the pertinent legal requirements to the record evidence."
To assist it in its review of defendant's denial of benefits, the court may "designate a magistrate judge to conduct hearings . . . and to submit . . . proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition [of the motions for judgment on the pleadings]."
The ALJ's determination of eligibility for Social Security benefits involves a five-step sequential evaluation process, which asks whether:
In the instant matter, the ALJ performed the sequential evaluation. At step one, the ALJ found that plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since September 10, 2014. At step two, the ALJ found:
(Tr. 13). However, at step three, the ALJ further determined that these impairments were not severe enough, either individually or in combination, to meet or medically equal one of the listings in the regulations.
Before proceeding to step four, the ALJ determined that during the relevant time period plaintiff had the following residual functional capacity ("RFC"):
(Tr. 16). At step four, the ALJ concluded plaintiff was unable to perform any past relevant work. At step five, the ALJ determined that there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that plaintiff can perform. Thus, the ALJ concluded that plaintiff was not disabled under the terms of the Social Security Act.
Plaintiff argues in his objections that the ALJ erred in 1) failing to discuss his functional limitation to have limited interaction with the public due to severe depression, and 2) finding that plaintiff could perform frequent handling and fingering despite evidence of carpal tunnel syndrome confirmed by nerve testing. The magistrate judge thoroughly and cogently addressed both arguments, (
Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred "in failing to discuss th[e] functional limitation" alleged of limited interaction with co-workers and the public, including the report of Robert D. Radson, M.S. (Obj. at 5). However, the ALJ in fact discussed this alleged functional limitation and report in detail. He discussed the alleged limitation as follows:
Although the claimant testitied to trouble being around others, in his function report, he denied having problems getting along with others, which is inconsistent with his testimony (Ex 4E/9). lie noted attending church on a regular basis as well as going out alone and shopping in stores (Ex. 4E/7-8). The undersigned also notes that the claimant has a history of performing semiskilled work as a home attendant (which required him to be around others) despite his mental impairments, helping lo support the residual functional capacity (Hearing Testimony).
(Tr. 23). The ALJ also discussed the report of Robert D. Radson, M.S., noting that its findings regarding this alleged limitation are not consistent with the record, including plaintiff's conduct in the consultative examination, the treatment notes, as well as plaintiff's "history of semi-skilled work, lack of regular urgent or emergency care for mental health symptomology, and inconsistent mental health treatment prior to 2016." (
In sum, the ALJ sufficiently "identif[ied] the individual's functional limitations or restrictions and assess[ed] his . . . work-related abilities on a function-by-function basis, including the functions listed in the regulations."
Plaintiff also argues that the ALJ erred in finding that plaintiff could perform frequent handling and fingering in spite of evidence of carpal tunnel syndrome confirmed by nerve testing. Plaintiff points to a September 8, 2015, evaluation by Dr. R. Stewart, confirming bilateral median nerve focal demyelinating sensimotor mononeuropathies at or near the wrist. Again, however, the ALJ discussed in detail the carpal tunnel symptoms, findings, and treatment in the record, including the September 8, 2015, evaluation by Dr. R. Stewart (Tr. 20;
In weighing the evaluation by Dr. R. Stewart, the ALJ noted that "the record does not show that the claimant required [carpal tunnel syndrome] release or physical therapy for [carpal tunnel syndrome]." (Tr. 20). The ALJ discussed examination findings and treatment notes "finding normal motion, strength, and sensation in general," coupled with the fact that there "are only a few examinations specifically dealing with CTS and/or hand pain, and such treatment only occurred [for] a period of about 7 months," including "limited treatment for upper extremity neuropathy and the evidence of intact wrist motion, strength, and sensation despite CTS." (
In sum, the ALJ properly discussed and weighed the evidence in the record bearing on functional limitations of frequently handling and fingering bilaterally, and the ALJ's determination was supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, the court rejects plaintiff's objection regarding limitations caused by carpal tunnel syndrome, and remand is not required for further function by function analysis.
Based on the foregoing, upon careful review of the M&R and the record, the court ADOPTS the M&R as its own. Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings (DE 17) is DENIED, and defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings (DE 19) is GRANTED. The clerk of court is DIRECTED to close this case.
SO ORDERED.