Opinion
Case No. 00-7404
February 28, 2002
OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On March 29, 2001, Magistrate Judge Thomas A. Carlson issued a Report and Recommendation ("R R") recommending that the Court deny Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment and grant Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff filed objections to the R R on April 9, 2001. The Court has now reviewed the parties' motions, the R R, Plaintiffs objections, and the other materials in the record. For the reasons discussed briefly below, the Court agrees with the analysis of the Magistrate Judge, and adopts the R R in its entirety.
As her first objection to the R R, Plaintiff asserts that the Magistrate Judge did not address the purported failure of the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") to properly assess Plaintiffs psychological limitations and incorporate them into the hypothetical questions posed to the vocational expert ("VE") at the administrative hearing. As pointed out in Defendant's motion, however, the ALJ complied with the governing regulations by completing a "Psychiatric Review Technique Form" and appending it to his decision. Moreover, the Court finds that the ALJ's assessment in this form and in his decision — specifically, that Plaintiffs psychological limitations did not amount to severe impairments — is supported by substantial evidence where, as noted by the ALJ, Plaintiff was able to perform daily activities such as household chores and caring for her daughter, and where there was no evidence that Plaintiff ever experienced problems at work or in a work-like setting as a result of a mental condition. Given these findings, the ALJ need not have incorporated any psychological limitations into his hypothetical questions to the VE.
Plaintiff next argues that the Magistrate Judge misconstrued the medical record in stating that one of Plaintiffs treating physicians, Dr. William P. Prechel, had characterized Plaintiffs back condition and symptoms as "not chronic." (R R at 6 (citing Admin. Record at 240).) The Court finds, however, that the Magistrate Judge accurately characterized Dr. Prechel's findings, where this physician reported that Plaintiff experienced symptoms of pain, muscle spasms, and significant limitation of motion "during the attacks of the LS Spine." (Admin. Record at 237, 240.) In any event, regardless of any uncertainties in Dr. Prechel's report, the ALJ noted Dr. Prechel's ultimate conclusion that Plaintiffs condition neither matched nor was medically equivalent to section 1.05C of the Listing of Impairments. ( See id. at 238.) Moreover, the ALJ did not give dispositive weight to Dr. Prechel's findings or conclusions, whether as to a "chronic" condition or otherwise, but instead pointed to the dearth of objective medical evidence of a disabling back condition, such as diagnostic test results or the need for surgery, assistive devices, or physical therapy. The Court finds, therefore, that substantial evidence supports the ALJ's conclusion that Plaintiffs back impairment, while severe, did not meet or equal Listing 1.05C.
The administrative record actually includes two versions of Dr. Prechel's findings, one handwritten and the other typewritten for ease of reading.
Finally, Plaintiff challenges the Magistrate Judge's treatment of her allegations of severe and disabling back pain. The Court, however, does not read the R R as requiring "objective evidence of pain." (Plaintiffs Objections at 3.) Rather, the Magistrate Judge appropriately surveyed the record for objective evidence that either (i) confirms the severity of the alleged pain rising from Plaintiffs back condition, or (ii) reflects a medical condition of a severity that could reasonably be expected to give rise to the alleged pain. (See R R at 10 (citing Duncan v. Secretary of HHS, 801 F.2d 847, 853 (6th Cir. 1986)).) As explained in the R R, and as the ALJ found, there simply is insufficient objective evidence in the record to either confirm Plaintiffs reports of severe and disabling pain, or to suggest a back or other medical condition that would result in such pain.
To be sure, Plaintiff points to a variety of medical evidence in the record that would be consistent with some degree of pain, or with a condition that would give rise to a degree of pain. Yet, much of this evidence rests upon Plaintiffs subjective reports, which the ALJ appropriately accounted for in his assessment of Plaintiffs credibility, and the remainder is fully in line with the ALJ's conclusion that Plaintiffs back condition, while impaired, would not reasonably be expected to give rise to the severe, disabling pain alleged by Plaintiff Thus, the Court, like the Magistrate Judge, finds that the ALJ's treatment of Plaintiffs complaints of pain is supported by substantial evidence in the record.
Accordingly, for these reasons,
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's March 29, 2001 Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED in its entirety.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED, and that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.