Sajko v. Saul

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MICHAEL SAJKO, JR., :

Plaintiff : CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:20-1723

v. : (JUDGE MANNION)

KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting :

Commissioner of Social

Security,1 :

Defendant :

MEMORANDUM

Before the court is the report of United States Magistrate Judge Joseph

F. Saporito, Jr. which recommends that the decision of the Commissioner

denying the plaintiff's claim for disability insurance benefits and supplemental

security income (“SSI”) be affirmed. (Doc. 21). The plaintiff has filed timely

objections to the report. (Doc. 22). Upon review of the record, the plaintiff's

objections will be overruled and the report and recommendation will be

adopted in its entirety.

1 Kilolo Kijakazi became the Commissioner of Social Security effective

July 9, 2021, to succeed Andrew Saul. Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 25(d)(1) and 42

U.S.C. §405(g), Kilolo Kijakazi is automatically substituted as the defendant

in this action.

When objections are timely filed to the report and recommendation of

a magistrate judge, the district court must review de novo those portions of

the report to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1); Brown v.

Astrue, 649 F.3d 193, 195 (3d Cir. 2011). Although the standard is de novo,

the extent of review is committed to the sound discretion of the district judge,

and the court may rely on the recommendations of the magistrate judge to

the extent it deems proper. Rieder v. Apfel, 115 F.Supp.2d 496, 499 (M.D.

Pa. 2000) (citing United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980)).

For those sections of the report and recommendation to which no

objection is made, the court should, as a matter of good practice, “satisfy

itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept

the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), advisory committee notes; see

also Univac Dental Co. v. Dentsply Intern., Inc., 702 F.Supp.2d 465, 469

(M.D. Pa. 2010) (citing Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir.

1987) (explaining judges should give some review to every report and

recommendation)). Nevertheless, whether timely objections are made or not,

the district court may accept, not accept, or modify, in whole or in part, the

findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C.

§636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.31.

By way of relevant background, the plaintiff originally filed for disability

insurance benefits and SSI under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act

(“SSA”) on January 5, 2018, alleging an onset of disability on March 31,

2014. The plaintiff's original application was denied. Subsequently, a hearing

was held before an administrative law judge (“ALJ”), who determined that the

plaintiff was capable of making an adjustment to other work that exists in

significant numbers in the national economy. On September 23, 2020, the

plaintiff filed the instant appeal which was assigned to the undersigned and

referred to Judge Saporito. (Doc. 1).

In his appeal, the plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred in (1) failing to

properly weigh the opinion of plaintiff’s treating psychologist, Ms. Andrey-

Bailey, and (2) failing to properly evaluate plaintiff’s symptoms. The same

arguments which the plaintiff raises in support of his appeal are now raised

as the bases for his objections to Judge Saporito’s report and

recommendation. The totality of the plaintiff's objections spans a mere three

pages.

As to the first objection, the plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred by failing

to properly consider Ms. Andrey-Bailey’s finding that the plaintiff had marked

limitations. However, the court has reviewed the report of Judge Saporito

and finds that it adequately addresses why there is substantial record

evidence to support the ALJ’s decision that plaintiff was not as limited in

function as Ms. Andrey-Bailey had opined. For instance, while Ms. Andrey-

Bailey indicated that plaintiff would be unable to complete a normal workday,

the plaintiff himself reported generally mild to moderate symptoms that

improved with medication. (Doc. 21 at 16). Further, the ALJ, having

concluded that the evidentiary record was sufficient to make a disability

determination, was not obligated to contact Ms. Andrey-Bailey for

clarification of her opinion. Byrson v. Commissioner Social Sec., 639

Fed.Appx. 784, 787 n. 8 (3d Cir. 2016) (“recontacting a medical source is

now discretionary”). The court finds no reason to belabor the matter and

adopts the report of Judge Saporito in its entirety in this respect.

In his second objection, the plaintiff argues that the ALJ’s symptom

evaluation violates Social Security Ruling 16-3p, which provides that in

making a disability determination, an adjudicator considers the “extent to

which the [claimant’s] symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent

with the objective medical and other evidence...” 20 C.F.R. §404.1529(a);

Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 16–3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *4–*10. Upon

review of the relevant record, the court finds that the ALJ adequately

considered plaintiff’s symptoms. As indicated in Judge Saporito’s report, the

ALJ properly concluded that plaintiff’s reports of the limiting effects of his

symptoms are not consistent with the medical and other evidence in the

record, which indicated mild to moderate symptoms and limitations. (Doc 21

at 24; Doc. 15-2 at 22). The court agrees with Judge Saporito’s reasoning

and finds that the ALJ’s decision properly considered plaintiff’s symptoms.

In light of the above, the court will overrule the objections of the plaintiff

and adopt the report and recommendation of Judge Saporito in its entirety.

An appropriate order shall issue.

s/Malachy E. Mannion

MALACHY E. MANNION

United States District Judge

DATED: June 27, 2022

20-1723-01