Marcano v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Isabel Marie Marcano sued under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), asking the court to review the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision denying her applications for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income. The district court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Judith C. McCarthy, who issued a report and recommendation advising that Marcano’s motion for judgment on the pleadings be denied and that the Commissioner’s decision be affirmed.

Marcano filed objections to the recommendation. Her objections focused on whether the administrative law judge properly considered the number of absences and the amount of time away from tasks that her impairments and treatment would cause. She specifically relied on medical opinions stating that she was moderately limited in attending to a routine and argued that this limitation needed to be reconciled with vocational-expert testimony that an employee could not be absent more than one day per month or be off task more than 20 percent of the time. She also argued that the administrative law judge did not adequately explain the findings and failed to consider her history of missing appointments when deciding whether she could maintain a regular work schedule.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that a party’s specific objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation ordinarily receive a fresh review. But when objections merely repeat arguments already presented to the magistrate judge, the district court reviews the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake in the record. The court found that Marcano’s objections rehashed her earlier arguments and therefore applied clear-error review.

The court agreed with Magistrate Judge McCarthy that the administrative law judge adequately considered the medical opinions and reasonably concluded that Marcano had a moderate limitation in concentration and attending to a routine. The record supported the conclusion that medication sufficiently controlled her symptoms. The administrative law judge also gave multiple reasons based on the record for finding that Marcano could perform some work despite her moderate limitations. The court further stated that the administrative law judge had considered Marcano’s history of missed appointments but found that history unreliable.

After reviewing the relevant filings, the court found no error in the conclusion that Marcano could perform simple and routine work that was not done at a production-rate pace. It determined that the magistrate judge used the proper standards, accurately described the facts, and reasonably applied the law.

Disposition

Judge Nelson S. Roman adopted Magistrate Judge McCarthy’s report and recommendation in its entirety and denied Marcano’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at docket entry 11 and the case.