Chevalier v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

Background

Cathy Chevalier brought the action as the survivor of Robert Kaelin and on behalf of K.K., a minor. She sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying Kaelin’s application for disability insurance benefits and finding that he was not disabled.

The district court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Victoria Reznik, who issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Chevalier’s motion for an order remanding the case for calculation of benefits only be denied and that the Commissioner’s decision be affirmed. Chevalier filed objections, and the Commissioner responded.

Court’s Analysis

The court considered Chevalier’s objections under the standards governing review of a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation. It concluded that the objections largely repeated arguments previously presented to the magistrate judge and that the record showed no clear error.

First, the court rejected the argument that the administrative law judge should have addressed absenteeism and time spent off-task. Chevalier relied on vocational-expert testimony stating that a hypothetical person would be unable to work if absent more than three days per month or off-task for more than 15 percent of the workday. The court agreed with the magistrate judge that Chevalier had not identified evidence showing that Kaelin actually had limitations with attendance or staying on task.

Second, the court upheld the residual functional capacity finding. Residual functional capacity is the most a claimant can still do despite medical limitations. The administrative law judge found that Kaelin could perform light work with no more than frequent hand manipulation for fine and gross motor activities. The court found no error in that conclusion. It also agreed that Dr. Simon H. Chin’s testimony was too vague because it did not identify specific functional restrictions, and that Kaelin’s complaints of hand discomfort and weakness, without sufficient supporting medical evidence, did not establish greater limitations.

Third, the court rejected Chevalier’s argument that Kaelin could not perform the jobs of price marker, routing clerk, and mail sorter because those jobs required substantial or constant hand movement. The court treated that argument as another challenge to the residual functional capacity finding and agreed with the magistrate judge that jobs existed in the national economy that Kaelin could perform.

Disposition

The court adopted Magistrate Judge Reznik’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety and DENIED Chevalier’s Motion. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 12 and the case.