Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Rachels v. Berryhill

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Greenville Division

March 9, 2018

Linda Rachels, Plaintiff,
Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.


         This matter is before the court pursuant to Magistrate Kevin F. McDonald's Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that the Commissioner's decision be affirmed and Plaintiff Linda Rachels' claims for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits be denied. (ECF No. 22.) For the reasons set forth below, the court ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report (id.).


         The court concludes upon its own careful review of the record that the factual and procedural summation in the Report (ECF No. 22) is accurate; therefore, the court adopts this summary as its own. The court will only recite herein procedures pertinent to the court's review of the Report (id.). On January 24, 2018, the Magistrate Judge filed the Report (id.), and on February 7, 2018, Plaintiff timely filed an objection (ECF No. 24). On February 15, 2018, the Commissioner replied to Plaintiff's Objection (ECF No. 26).


         The court has jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) which gives the court jurisdiction over a review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security.


         The Magistrate Judge's Report is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(a) for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court, which has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which specific objections are made. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2)-(3).

         IV. ANALYSIS

         The parties were advised of their rights to file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 22.) On February 7, 2018, Plaintiff filed an objection. (ECF No. 24.) In his Objection, Plaintiff asserts that: (1) the Magistrate Judge erred in his evaluation of the opinion of Plaintiff's counselor, Ms. Brooks-Bacote; (2) the Magistrate Judge erred in determining the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) accounted for all of Plaintiff's mental functional limitations in the ALJ's residual functional capacity (“RFC”) assessment; (3) the Magistrate Judge erred in his evaluation of Plaintiff's subjective complaints; and (4) the Magistrate Judge erred in finding that substantial evidence supports the ALJ's RFC assessment. (Id.)

         As to Plaintiff's first assertion, the court finds that the Magistrate Judge correctly found that the ALJ's evaluation of Ms. Brooks-Bacote's opinion was supported by substantial evidence. The court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the ALJ appropriately determined that, under the regulations that are controlling in this matter, Ms. Brooks-Bacote is not an acceptable medical source. (ECF No. 22 at 17.) For claims like Plaintiff's, filed before March 27, 2017, the regulations define “acceptable medical sources” as licensed physicians, psychologists, optometrists, podiatrists, and qualified speech-language pathologists. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1502(a)(1)-(5), 416.902(a)(1)-(5).[1] Further, Ms. Brooks-Bacote's name appears on only four documents in the entire record; three of those are progress summaries for particular periods of time and the other document is a plan of care. (ECF No. 22 at 18.) Moreover, as the ALJ acknowledged, the language of Ms. Brooks-Bacote's assessment suggests that she based her statements primarily on the assertions made by Plaintiff and not clinical findings. (Id.) In addition, the Magistrate Judge aptly relied on the ALJ's finding that the severity of the limitations Ms. Brooks-Bacote opined was not supported by the findings of other sources treating Plaintiff at Aiken Barnwell Mental Health. (Id.)

         Next, the court finds that the Magistrate Judge appropriately determined that the ALJ's assessment of Plaintiff's subjective complaints was supported by substantial evidence. With regard to the analysis of a claimant's subjective complaints, the Fourth Circuit has stated as follows:

[T]he determination of whether a person is disabled by pain or other symptoms is a two-step process. First, there must be objective medical evidence showing the existence of a medical impairment(s) which results from anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities and which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged . . . It is only after a claimant has met her threshold obligation of showing by objective medical evidence a medical impairment reasonably likely to cause the pain claimed, that the intensity and persistence of the claimant's pain, and the extent to which it affects her ability to work, must be evaluated.

Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 594-95 (4th Cir. 1996).

         However, a claimant's symptoms, including pain, are considered to diminish his capacity to work only to the extent that the alleged functional limitations are reasonably consistent with objective medical evidence and other evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404, 1529(c)(4), 416.929(c)(4). The Magistrate Judge properly concurred with the ALJ's determination that, while Plaintiff's medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to cause the alleged symptoms, her statements concerning the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the symptoms were “not entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence in the record.” (ECF No. 22 at 22.) Notably, although the ALJ found Plaintiff's subjective complaints as ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.