United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Cedar Rapids Division
WENDY L. SWAN, Plaintiff,
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON REPORT AND
LEONARD T. STRAND, CHIEF JUDGE.
case is before me on a Report and Recommendation (R&R) by
the Honorable Kelly K.E. Mahoney, United States Magistrate
Judge. See Doc. No. 18. Judge Mahoney recommends
that I affirm the decision of the Commissioner of Social
Security (the Commissioner) denying plaintiff Wendy
Swan's application for Social Security disability
benefits (DIB) under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42
U.S.C. § 401 et seq. (Act).
has filed timely objections (Doc. No. 19) to the R&R. The
Commissioner has filed a response (Doc. No. 20). The
procedural history and relevant facts are set forth in the
R&R and are repeated herein only to the extent necessary.
Judicial Review of the Commissioner's
Commissioner's decision must be affirmed “if it is
supported by substantial evidence on the record as a
whole.” Pelkey v. Barnhart, 433 F.3d 575, 577
(8th Cir. 2006); see 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)
(“The findings of the Commissioner of Social Security
as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall
be conclusive . . . .”). “Substantial evidence is
less than a preponderance, but enough that a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”
Lewis v. Barnhart, 353 F.3d 641, 645 (8th
Cir. 1999.) The Eighth Circuit explains the standard as
“something less than the weight of the evidence and
[that] allows for the possibility of drawing two inconsistent
conclusions, thus it embodies a zone of choice within which
the [Commissioner] may decide to grant or deny benefits
without being subject to reversal on appeal.”
Culbertson v. Shalala, 30 F.3d 934, 939 (8th Cir.
determining whether the Commissioner's decision meets
this standard, the court considers “all of the evidence
that was before the ALJ, but it [does] not re-weigh the
evidence.” Wester v. Barnhart, 416 F.3d 886,
889 (8th Cir. 2005). The court considers both evidence which
supports the Commissioner's decision and evidence that
detracts from it. Kluesner v. Astrue, 607 F.3d 533,
536 (8th Cir. 2010). The court must “search the record
for evidence contradicting the [Commissioner's] decision
and give that evidence appropriate weight when determining
whether the overall evidence in support is
substantial.” Baldwin v. Barnhart, 349 F.3d
549, 555 (8th Cir. 2003) (citing Cline v. Sullivan,
939 F.2d 560, 564 (8th Cir. 1991)).
evaluating the evidence in an appeal of a denial of benefits,
the court must apply a balancing test to assess any
contradictory evidence. Sobania v. Sec'y of Health
& Human Servs., 879 F.2d 441, 444 (8th Cir. 1989).
The court, however, does not “reweigh the evidence
presented to the ALJ, ” Baldwin, 349 F.3d at
555 (citing Bates v. Chater, 54 F.3d 529, 532 (8th
Cir. 1995)), or “review the factual record de
novo.” Roe v. Chater, 92 F.3d 672, 675 (8th
Cir. 1996) (citing Naber v. Shalala, 22 F.3d 186,
188 (8th Cir. 1994)). Instead, if, after reviewing the
evidence, the court finds it “possible to draw two
inconsistent positions from the evidence and one of those
positions represents the Commissioner's findings, [the
court] must affirm the [Commissioner's] denial of
benefits.” Kluesner, 607 F.3d at 536 (quoting
Finch v. Astrue, 547 F.3d 933, 935 (8th Cir. 2008)).
This is true even if the court “might have weighed the
evidence differently.” Culbertson, 30 F.3d at
939 (quoting Browning v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 817, 822
(8th Cir. 1992)). The court may not reverse the
Commissioner's decision “merely because substantial
evidence would have supported an opposite decision.”
Baker v. Heckler, 730 F.2d 1147, 1150 (8th Cir.
1984); see Goff v. Barnhart, 421 F.3d 785, 789 (8th
Cir. 2005) (“[A]n administrative decision is not
subject to reversal simply because some evidence may support
the opposite conclusion.”).
Review of Report and Recommendation
district judge must review a magistrate judge's R&R
under the following standards:
Within fourteen days after being served with a copy, any
party may serve and file written objections to such proposed
findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court. A
judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of
those portions of the report or specified proposed findings
or recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of the
court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The
judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the
matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b). Thus, when a party objects to any portion of an
R&R, the district judge must undertake a de novo review
of that portion.
portions of an R&R to which no objections have been made
must be reviewed under at least a “clearly
erroneous” standard. See, e.g., Grinder v.
Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) (noting that
when no objections are filed “[the district court
judge] would only have to review the findings of the
magistrate judge for clear error”). As the Supreme
Court has explained, “[a] finding is ‘clearly
erroneous' when although there is evidence to support it,
the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the
definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
committed.” Anderson v. City of Bessemer City,
470 U.S. 564, 57374 (1985) (quoting United States v. U.S.
Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). However, a
district judge may elect to review an R&R under a
more-exacting standard even if no objections are filed:
Any party that desires plenary consideration by the Article
III judge of any issue need only ask. Moreover, while the
statute does not require the judge to review an issue de
novo if no objections are filed, it does not preclude
further review by the district judge, sua sponte or at the
request of a party, under a de novo or any other
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985).
Mahoney noted that Swan alleged disability due to depression,
anxiety and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
Doc. No. 18 at 1. After setting forth the relevant facts, she
discussed the ALJ's decision to discount the treating
sources' work-related limitations as follows:
As part of their RFC assessments, Drs. Netolicky and Perkins
had to evaluate Swan's mental ability to perform various
work activities, including her ability to concentrate, to
follow instructions, to interact with coworkers and the
public, and to maintain regular attendance. AR 469-71,
474-76. They both noted serious limitations in Swan's
ability to pay attention for more than two hours and to deal
with work stress, and they both found that she would miss
more than four days of work a month due to her impairments.
Id. At the time they evaluated Swan's RFC, Dr.
Netolicky had been treating Swan every one to three months
for more than four years, and Dr. Perkins had been treating
Swan biweekly for almost two years. AR 467, 471, 472, 476.
This treatment consisted primarily of psychotherapy and, in
Dr. Netolicky's case, prescribing medications, although
Dr. Perkins administered several neuropsychological tests
when she first evaluated Swan in 2012. AR 448-55, 467, 472.