Opinion
Civil Action 2:08-CV-1132.
March 17, 2010
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff seeks review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying her applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. On January 20, 2010, the United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the decision of the Commissioner be affirmed and that the action be dismissed. Report and Recommendation, Doc. No. 16. This matter is now before the Court on plaintiff's objections to that Report and Recommendation, which the Court will consider de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); F.R. Civ. P. 72(b).
The administrative law judge found that plaintiff suffers the severe impairments of intermittent headaches, neck and left shoulder pain resulting from a cervical discectomy and cervical fusion, and obesity. Resolution of this case turns on the administrative law judge's evaluation of plaintiff's complaints of disabling headaches and pain. In the administrative decision, the administrative law judge found that plaintiff's subjective complaints of disabling pain are not fully credible in light of her daily activities and the objective medical record. A.R. 19. The United States Magistrate Judge reasoned that the Commissioner's credibility determination and evaluation of plaintiff's headaches enjoy substantial support in the record and followed all appropriate standards of evaluation. Report and Recommendation, pp. 8-9.
In his decision, the administrative law judge found that plaintiff's headaches constitute a severe, but not disabling, impairment. This finding is supported by the record of plaintiff's treating neurosurgeon who, although noting plaintiff's complaints of headaches, recommended only conservative treatment. Dr. [Abdi Ghodsi, M.D., plaintiff's treating neurosurgeon] did not express any opinion that plaintiff was rendered disabled by reason of headaches. Moreover, the administrative law judge properly applied the appropriate standards for evaluating Ms. Williams' credibility and in finding that, notwithstanding her subjective complaints, she does not suffer disabling symptoms. As the administrative law judge noted, plaintiff was not under the care of a physician. Although she reported visits to the emergency room, her testimony in that regard is not supported by the objective medical evidence. She cares for a small child, drives when she needs to drive, and although she complained of dizziness and blurred vision, the medical records reflect no such complaint to any medical provider.Id.
In her objections, plaintiff complains that neither the administrative law judge nor the Magistrate Judge properly considered plaintiff's testimony that her failure to obtain medical care was a consequence of financial constraints. See A.R. 256. Specifically, plaintiff contends that the Commissioner failed to comply with Social Security Ruling 96-7p, 1996 WL 374186, *7, which prohibits the Commissioner from drawing "any inferences about an individual's symptoms or their functional effects from a failure to seek or pursue medical treatment without first considering any explanations that the individual may provide, or other information in the case record that may explain infrequent or irregular medical visits or failure to seek medical treatment." However, as the Magistrate Judge noted, the administrative law judge gave lengthy and thoughtful consideration to plaintiff's testimony and found that that testimony lacked credibility. Moreover, plaintiff did not testify that she received no medical treatment; to the contrary, plaintiff testified that she goes to the hospital 3 or 4 times per year for her headaches, A.R. 239, testimony that is not supported by the objective medical evidence, and that she received prescription medication. A.R. 240.
Under these circumstances, this Court agrees that the administrative law judge's evaluation of plaintiff's credibility enjoys substantial support in the record and complies with all applicable regulations.
Plaintiff also complains that the Report and Recommendation failed to explain why the vocational expert's testimony was not accepted. The vocational expert testified that a claimant who suffers headaches 2 to 3 times per week and who is off-task 4 to 5 hours per episode could not maintain employment. A.R. 282. However, this opinion assumed the credibility of plaintiff's testimony regarding the frequency and severity of her headaches, which the administrative law judge declined to fully credit. It follows, then, that this opinion was properly rejected by the administrative law judge.
In short, and having carefully considered the entire record in this action, the Court concludes that plaintiff's objections are without merit and they are therefore OVERRULED. The Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED. This action is hereby DISMISSED.
The Clerk shall enter FINAL JUDGMENT pursuant to Sentence 4, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).