Lafferty v. O'Malley

U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota March 21, 2024

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Jennifer C. L., No. 22-cv-3135 (KMM/DLM)

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

Martin J. O’Malley, Commissioner of
Social Security,

Defendant.

Plaintiff Jennifer C. L. brought this action after the then Acting Commissioner of
Social Security, Kilolo Kijakazi,1 denied her application for disability benefits, and asks
the Court to reverse Defendant’s final decision for an award of benefits or remand for
further proceedings. [Compl., ECF No. 1]. The parties filed cross-motions for summary
judgment. [ECF Nos. 15, 19]. On November 28, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge
Douglas L. Micko recommended denying Ms. L.’s Motion for Summary Judgment and
granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. [ECF No. 21]. Ms. L. timely
objected to the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). [Obj. to R&R, ECF No. 22].
Having reviewed the R&R, Ms. L.’s objections, and the record, the Court overrules

1 Martin J. O’Malley became the Commissioner of Social Security on December 20,
2023. Press Release, Social Security Administration, available at
https://www.ssa.gov/news/press/releases/2023/#12-2023-2 [archived at https://perma.cc/2FF2-
GV8T]. Under Rule 25, as the successor to former Defendant Kilolo Kijakazi,
Mr. O’Malley is “automatically substituted as a party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d).
Ms. L.’s objections, accepts Judge Micko’s R&R, grants Defendant’s summary judgment
motion, and denies Ms. L.’s summary judgment motion.

I. BACKGROUND
Judge Micko included a detailed discussion of the factual record in the R&R, and
the Court does not restate that overview here. Ms. L. does not object to the findings of fact
in the R&R, but to the conclusions Judge Micko drew from the record. Although the Court
has considered the record as a whole, the two most important documents for the discussion
below are the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) Opinion [Op. at 35, ECF No. 10] and

the Consultative Examination Report of Dr. Lyle Wagner [R. at 1634, ECF No. 10-1].
II. DISCUSSION
A. Legal Standard
The Court reviews de novo any portion of the R&R to which specific objections are
made.

28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1); D. Minn. LR 72.2(b).  “The objections should specify the 

portions of the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation to which objections are made 
and provide a basis for those objections.”  Mayer v. Walvatne, No. 07-cv-1958 (JRT/RLE),

2008 WL 4527774

, at *2 (D. Minn. Sept. 28, 2008). Here, Ms. L. did object, so the lens
of review for the Court’s consideration of her objection is de novo. Applying these
standards, the Court concludes that Judge Micko’s R&R contains no error and accepts his

recommendation.
B. Analysis
Ms. L.’s objection raises essentially the same argument that she raised to Judge
Micko: that the ALJ failed to properly incorporate the limitations suggested by the SSA’s
own consultative medical examiner, Dr. Lyle Wagner, into the RFC. [Obj., ECF No. 22].
She argues generally that Dr. Wagner concluded that Ms. L. experienced “moderate”

limitations in certain areas related to her mental status, and that the ALJ erred by not
including corresponding restrictions for each area of limitation into the RFC. Additionally,
Ms. L. criticizes Judge Micko’s suggestion that the ALJ adopted greater functional
limitations in the RFC than Dr. Wagner recommended, arguing that the inclusion of a more
restrictive limitation in one functional area does not mean that the overall RFC comported
with Dr. Wagner’s opinion. [ECF No. 22 at 4].

Based upon de novo review, the Court disagrees with Ms. L.’s objections and
accepts Judge Micko’s conclusions. For starters, the ALJ is not required to defer or give
specific weight, including controlling weight, to any medical opinion. See Austin v.
Kijakazi,

52 F.4th 723, 728

 (8th Cir. 2022) (citing

20 C.F.R. § 404

.1520c(a)).  Instead, the 
ALJ must consider how persuasive he finds any medical opinion about a claimant’s 

impairments.  Austin,

52 F.4th at 728

.  And if substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s 
conclusions, including the RFC, the Court should not reverse even if another decision could 
have been reached.  See Wildman v. Astrue,

596 F.3d 959, 964

 (8th Cir. 2010).  Neither 
this Court nor the Magistrate Judge can reverse an ALJ’s decision simply because we might 
have reached a different conclusion if we were in the ALJ’s chair.        

    Here, as Judge Micko noted, the ALJ explored Ms. L.’s mental impairments in detail 
at steps two and three of the sequential process, demonstrating clearly that he was aware 
of Ms. L.’s specific mental impairments and considered their impact on Ms. L.’s life.  
[R&R at 6].  The ALJ then adopted some functional limitations into the RFC to account 
for those impairments, including a limitation on the complexity of instructions Ms. L. could 
handle, and the requirement that her interactions with others should be “superficial.”  [Op., 

ECF No. 10 at 47].  The ALJ also observed that Dr. Wagner was “most persuasive” among 
the psychological opinions before him, and he discussed the opinion in some detail.  [ECF 
No. 10 at 13].  As required, the ALJ’s conclusions about the RFC were well grounded in 
his review of the record as a whole, not just one expert report.          
    Although Ms. L. criticizes Judge Micko’s observation that the ALJ actually imposed 
a greater limitation in one area (the complexity of instructions) than Dr. Wagner suggested, 

the Court does not find the critique persuasive.  Judge Micko did not suggest that, as long 
as an ALJ adopts some more stringent limitations that an expert suggests, the decision not 
to adopt other limitations is somehow beyond review.  Instead, here, the ALJ’s careful 
consideration of Dr. Wagner’s opinion and comparison of it to the record as a whole are 
demonstrated by his express adoption of one stricter limitation.  Nothing about the ALJ’s 

decision to do so undermines either Judge Micko’s conclusion or that of this Court that the 
RFC is adequately supported by the record and the ALJ’s opinion.          
    Finally, the Ms. L. criticizes Judge Micko’s R&R for its brevity, suggesting that he 
did not fully consider whether additional aspects of Dr. Wagner’s opinion should have been 
incorporated into the RFC.  [ECF No. 22 at 4–5].  But the Court rejects Ms. L.’s suggestion 

that a magistrate judge must expressly address every aspect of every argument raised by 
counsel, or every facet of an opinion drafted by the ALJ in order for their analysis to be 
correct.  Judge Micko reviewed and considered the record and the briefing, reached a 
conclusion based on the law, and explained his reasoning.  No more is required.  And based 
on its own de novo review, this Court reaches the same conclusions.       

    Based on its own review, this Court finds  no error in the Magistrate Judge’s 
conclusion that the ALJ understood Ms. L.’s mental impairments and imposed appropriate 
RFC limitations in light of those impairments.                            
 III.  ORDER                                                             
    For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:                
    1.  Plaintiff Ms. L.’s Objections to the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 21] 

      are OVERRULED;                                                     
    2.  The  Magistrate  Judge’s  Report  and  Recommendation  [ECF  No.  22]  is 
      ACCEPTED;                                                          
    3.  Ms. L.’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 15] is DENIED;     
    4.  Defendant Martin J. O’Malley’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 19] 

      is GRANTED; and                                                    
    5.  This matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.                         

    LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.                                 

Date: March 21, 2024            s/Katherine Menendez                     
                                Katherine Menendez                       
                                United States District Court