Seyler v. Saul

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JESSICA SEYLER, :

Plaintiff : CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:21-581

v. : (JUDGE MANNION)

KILOLO KIJAKAZI, :

Commissioner of

Social Security, :

Defendant :

O R D E R

Pending before the court is the June 24, 2022 Report of Magistrate

Judge Arbuckle, which recommends that the decision of the Commissioner

of Social Security denying the plaintiff’s claim for disability insurance benefits

under Title II of the Social Security Act be affirmed, and the plaintiff’s appeal

be denied. (Doc. 20). The plaintiff has filed timely objections to the report,

(Doc. 21), to which the Commissioner has responded, (Doc. 22).1

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.

1As Acting Commissioner of Social Security, under Fed.R.Civ.P. 25(d),

Kilolo Kijakazi is substituted for Andrew Saul as the defendant in this case.

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

(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.

The plaintiff Jessica Seyler seeks judicial review of the Commissioner

of the Social Security Administration’s final decision finding that she was not

disabled commencing on her alleged onset disability date of October 18,

2018, due to the following medical conditions: chronic regional pain

syndrome, (“CRPS”); high blood pressure; depression; headaches; and high

cholesterol.

The plaintiff has essentially raised one argument in her objections to

Judge Arbuckle’s report which finds that substantial evidence supports the

ALJ’s decision that plaintiff can perform a limited range of light work with

limitations to account for her physical impairments, and that she was not

disabled.

Specifically, the plaintiff argues that the report erred since substantial

evidence does not support the ALJ’s determination regarding her

statements, her subjective complaints, and her alleged symptoms,

particularly related to her CRPS. The plaintiff also contends that both the ALJ

and Judge Arbuckle failed to consider that her household tasks are less

stressful and allow flexibility for breaks and that it was error for them to infer

she had the ability to handle the stress demands of “competitive,

remunerative employment on a sustained basis.” The plaintiff points out that

unlike a work setting, at home she is able “to stop when needed and to

postpone activities due to her symptoms and this is not possible in a typical

full-time employment position.”

Judge Arbuckle thoroughly discussed the ALJ’s findings with respect

to the evaluation of the plaintiff’s statements and subjective allegations,

including her symptoms related to CRPS, as required by SSR 03-2p, and

explained why they were consistent with the evidence in the record taken as

a whole. The record shows the ALJ found that the plaintiff’s CRPS

constituted a severe impairment and then included her chronic pain in

determining her RFC. (Doc. 14-2 at 16-27). Further, the report addressed the

plaintiff’s instant objections alleging that the ALJ placed too much weight on

her ability to perform a wide range of daily activities, and found that the ALJ

did not err in considering this evidence in determining the severity of the

plaintiff’s symptoms. In short, as the report concludes, the ALJ properly

considered the plaintiff’s subjective complaints to the extent that they could

“reasonably be accepted as consistent with the medical evidence and other

evidence” in the record. See 20 C.F.R. §§404.1529(a), 416.929(a) (Doc. 20

at 20-23). See Miller v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 2021 WL 3137439, at *3 (3d

Cir. July 26, 2021) (holding that plaintiff’s ability to perform “matters of

personal care, do laundry, and babysit a one-year-old child” were not

“sporadic” activities, and were “appropriately indicative of how her pain

affects her daily activities and ability to work.”).

The court has reviewed the evidence of record and finds no clear error

with regard to Judge Arbuckle’s findings, including the ones he made on the

stated issue. Moreover, the court agrees with the sound reasoning that led

Judge Arbuckle to the conclusions in his report. As such, the court will adopt

the report and recommendation of Judge Arbuckle as the decision of the

court.

In light of the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

(1) The plaintiff’s objections to the report and recommendation of Judge

Arbuckle, (Doc. 21), are OVERRULED.

(2) The report and recommendation of Judge Arbuckle, (Doc. 20), is

ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY, as the ruling of the court.

(3) The plaintiff’s appeal, (Doc. 1), of the Commissioner’s final decision

is DENIED.

(4) The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE THIS CASE.

s/ Malachy E. Mannion

MALACHY E. MANNION

United States District Judge

Date: September 27, 2022

21-581-01