Opinion
CIVIL ACTION No. 02-2584-CM
February 6, 2004
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the court on plaintiff's Motion for Judgment (Doc. 5) seeking judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security's (the "Commissioner") decision to deny supplemental security income ("SSI"). By minute order dated July 22, 2003, this court referred plaintiff's motion to United States Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara for report and recommendation. Judge O'Hara recommended that the court affirm the Administrative Law Judge's (the "ALP") decision to deny plaintiff's request for SSI. Plaintiff then filed objections, within the ten-day time period prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, to Judge O'Hara's proposed findings and recommendations.
A Plaintiff's Credibility
Plaintiff first objects to the magistrate judge's conclusion that the ALJ properly evaluated plaintiff's credibility regarding his subjective complaints of pain. Plaintiff contends that the ALJ did not consider the fact that plaintiff does not socialize or engage in social contact before determining plaintiff's credibility with regard to his complaints of pain.
The court, however, approves and adopts the magistrate judge's recommendation to affirm the ALJ's conclusion regarding plaintiff's credibility. As detailed in the magistrate judge's report, the record contains substantial evidence to support the ALJ's conclusion that the objective medical evidence did not support plaintiff's subjective complaints.
B. Plaintiff's Mental Impairments
Plaintiff next objects to the magistrate judge's conclusion that the ALJ properly assessed plaintiff's mental impairments. Plaintiff contends that the ALJ improperly rejected the diagnosis of Gerald H. Vandenberg, Ph.D., and did not take into account plaintiff's history of mental impairments.
The court adopts the magistrate judge's report and recommendations, but supplements it with the following evidence from the record. First, Dr. Vandenberg's evaluations of plaintiff were not entirely unequivocal. During Dr. Vandenberg's first evaluation, he diagnosed plaintiff as having recurrent major depression with psychotic features. At the second evaluation, Dr. Vandenberg reported that there was no evidence of psychotic features and that plaintiff's thoughts were organized. However, Dr. Vandenberg reported that he could not properly evaluate plaintiff's intelligence because, in Dr. Vandenberg's opinion, plaintiff intentionally faked his responses as "an immature, passive-dependent plea for help."
During a separate mental status evaluation, Bruce W. Bean, Ph.D., assessed plaintiff as having mild depression, but found that plaintiff did not have problems with attention or concentration, and was able to perform simple mental calculations. Further, Robert E. Schulman, Ph.D., reviewed plaintiff's file and concluded that plaintiff had mild depression but could perform simple tasks, make decisions, and perform goal-directed activities.
Plaintiff also points to several instances in his personal history that he contends demonstrate the severity of his mental impairment. The court, however, concludes that the ALJ's decision properly took plaintiff's history into account. The ALJ found that plaintiff had been diagnosed with major depression and borderline personality disorder. However, after reviewing the evidentiary record as a whole, the ALJ determined that plaintiff was capable of "simple, routine, repetitive work with no public contact and no more than occasional contact with coworkers and supervisors." The court concludes that the record contains substantial evidence to support the ALJ's decision.
C. Plaintiff's Ability to Perform Work in the National Economy
Finally, plaintiff objects to the magistrate judge's recommendation to affirm the ALJ's conclusion that plaintiff could perform work in the national economy. Specifically, plaintiff argues that Dr. Vandenberg's conclusion that plaintiff demonstrated a poor ability to complete a normal workday or workweek or perform at a consistent pace contradicts the ALJ's conclusion.
The court adopts the magistrate judge's report, but supplements it with the following evidence that the ALJ relied upon in reaching his decision. As plaintiff points out, Dr. Vandenberg rated his ability as poor in two key areas, but Dr. Vandenberg's report also rated plaintiff as good or fair in several other work-related abilities. Additionally, Dr. Schulman reported that plaintiff was moderately limited in his ability to perform activities within a schedule and maintain regular attendance, but that plaintiff was not significantly limited in most other work-related skills. Further, R. Diller, Ph.D., also rated plaintiff as moderately limited or not significantly limited in nearly all work-related abilities. Finally, Dr. Bean stated that plaintiff could perform simple and complex tasks, and that there was no evidence of significant concentration or attention difficulties that would preclude employment.
Even in light of Dr. Vandenberg's assessment of plaintiff's ability to complete tasks on time, the record substantially supports the ALJ's conclusion that plaintiff was not mentally impaired from performing at certain jobs. Three other doctors reported that plaintiff would be capable, at the least, of performing simple, goal-oriented tasks. Therefore, given this assessment of plaintiff and the testimony of a vocational expert, the ALJ determined that plaintiff could perform jobs such as hand packaging, hand assembly, and filing operations. The court concludes that the ALJ's decision that plaintiff is capable of performing work in the national economy is substantially supported by the record.
ORDER
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that United States Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara's Report and Recommendation is adopted in its entirety, along with the court's supplementation. The decision of the Commissioner denying plaintiff's request for SSI is hereby affirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.