Annette S. v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

On January 25, 2022, Magistrate Judge Jones recommended denying Wileisa Annette S.’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and granting the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. Judgment on the pleadings is a decision based on the parties’ written submissions when there is no material factual dispute. Wileisa Annette S. objected to the recommendation, and the Commissioner opposed those objections.

The underlying dispute concerned the administrative law judge’s evaluation of Wileisa Annette S.’s Social Security disability claim. The administrative law judge gave greater weight to a consulting physician’s opinion than to the opinions of treating physicians. The treating physicians described severe limitations, including constant pain, an inability to walk city blocks without resting, and substantial restrictions on looking up, down, or sideways. The administrative law judge relied on the consulting physician’s consistency with the medical and treatment history, clinical examinations, conservative treatment such as medication and physical therapy, and Wileisa Annette S.’s reported daily activities.

Objections and Analysis

Wileisa Annette S. made three objections. First, she argued that the magistrate judge incorrectly concluded that the administrative law judge properly weighed the medical-opinion evidence under the applicable regulations. The district court found this objection conclusory because it did not identify specific evidence that had been ignored or improperly weighed. The court therefore reviewed that portion of the recommendation for clear error and found none.

Second, she argued that the administrative law judge and magistrate judge improperly gave more weight to the consulting physician than to the treating physicians. She emphasized that lupus and fibromyalgia can produce symptoms that vary over time. Because she had made the same argument before the magistrate judge and did not identify a specific error in the recommendation, the district court again reviewed for clear error and found none. The court stated that the consulting physician’s opinion was supported by substantial evidence because it was more consistent with the medical and treatment history.

Third, she argued that the magistrate judge did not adequately explain how her daily activities— including standing for 15 minutes without pain—related to her ability to perform full-time work. The district court acknowledged that the recommendation did not clearly explain how each activity related to the treating physicians’ opinions. But, reviewing this issue independently, the court concluded that the recommendation did not contain an error. The magistrate judge had relied primarily on clinical examinations and the overall treatment records, not on daily activities alone. The court also concluded that activities such as standing for 15 minutes without pain, driving to appointments, and occasional shopping could reasonably be viewed as inconsistent with opinions describing constant pain and more extreme restrictions.

The court explained that its task was not to decide whether it would have reached a different factual conclusion. Its task was to determine whether the administrative law judge’s findings were supported by substantial evidence, meaning more than a mere trace of supporting evidence. The court found that standard satisfied. To the extent the third objection merely challenged the administrative law judge’s consideration of daily activities, rather than the magistrate judge’s recommendation, the court also stated that the argument had not been raised before the magistrate judge and declined to review it.

Disposition

The court reviewed the rest of the recommendation for clear error and found none. It ordered that the Report and Recommendation be adopted in its entirety, with the additional clarifications in the memorandum and order. This adopted the recommendation to deny Wileisa Annette S.’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and grant the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The clerk was directed to close docket entries 16 and 22.