• 

. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

Brazil M. Lee, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner 

of Social Security, 

Defendant. 

Civil Action 2:11-cv-01149 

Judge Michael H. Watson 

ORDER 

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff Brazil M. Lee's objections to 

Magistrate Judge Abel's Report and Recommendation. The Court, having 

reviewed the record de novo, determines that there is substantial evidence 

supporting the administrative law judge's determination that plaintiff Brazil M. Lee 

is not disabled within the meaning of the Act. The Court further finds for the 

reasons set out below that plaintiff's objections to the Report and 

Recommendation are without merit. 

Plaintiff argues the administrative law judge failed to properly define 

"moderate limitations." Specifically, Plaintiff maintains the administrative law 

judge's attempts to define "moderate" were fundamentally inconsistent. She 

contends the administrative law judge only viewed limitations as either disabling 

Case: 2:11-cv-01149-MHW-MRA Doc #: 17 Filed: 03/18/13 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
or not disabling. Under such a view, a claimant's moderate impairments cannot 

fairly be reflected in a hypothetical question. Plaintiff argues based on the 

confused attempts by the administrative law judge to define moderate, there is no 

way to know what standard the vocational expert believed was the operative 

definition when he answered the question. 

Plaintiff also argues the administrative law judge erred by not recognizing 

Raynaud's phenomenon as a severe impairment. At the hearing, plaintiff testified 

to worsening symptoms related to Raynaud's phenomenon, which limited her 

daily activities. Plaintiff maintains that the administrative law judge relied on old 

evidence and minimized more recent evidence. Plaintiff, who was limited to a 

range of sit-down jobs, cannot perform repetitive actions such as handling, 

grasping, and fingering, and says the administrative law judge's refusal to 

acknowledge her limitations with respect to her hands constitutes reversible error. 

Discussion. The administrative law judge adequately distinguished 

between slight, moderate and marked limitations when posing her hypothetical 

question to the vocational expert. At the hearing, the administrative law judge 

stated, "moderate means that she could be doing repetitive tasks for at least up to 

a third of the workday or more .... I think that's how Social Security defines it." 

(R. 109.) She further elaborated by saying that an individual with moderate 

limitations would still be able to function satisfactorily. There is no indication in 

the record that the vocational expert was confused by the administrative law 

2 

Case: 2:11-cv-01149-MHW-MRA Doc #: 17 Filed: 03/18/13 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
judge's definition of moderate limitations, and he provided testimony regarding 

the number of jobs that plaintiff could perform based on that definition. Notably, 

plaintiff's counsel failed to object to the definition articulated by the administrative 

law judge or seek clarification on the vocational expert's understanding of the 

definition at the hearing. 

The administrative law judge properly considered plaintiff's allegations 

concerning Raynaud's phenomenon when formulating a residual functional 

capacity. In particular, the administrative law judge acknowledged that plaintiff 

testified that she had suffered constant weakness and numbness in her hands; 

however, the administrative law judge also considered other substantial evidence 

in the record that contradicted her allegations. In May 2006, plaintiff reported to 

her treatment provider that she had numbness in her fingers when she had 

Raynaud's phenomenon, but she otherwise denied weakness, numbness or 

tingling. An examining physician observed that plaintiff had good capillary refill in 

her hands, and a treating physician noted that her ability to do fine and gross 

manipulation was "ok". Moreover, the medical expert testified that there was no 

objective medical evidence in the record confirming the diagnosis of Raynaud's 

phenomenon. The administrative law judge relied on substantial evidence in the 

record to determine that plaintiff's alleged impairment did not impact plaintiff's 

ability to work. 

3 

Case: 2:11-cv-01149-MHW-MRA Doc #: 17 Filed: 03/18/13 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Upon de novo review in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 

§636(b)(1 )(B), the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. Plaintitrs 

motion for summary judgment is DENIED. Defendant's motion for summary 

judgment is GRANTED. The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED. The 

Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter JUDGMENT for defendant. This action is 

hereby DISMISSED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

4 

ICHAEL H. ATSON, JUDGE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

Case: 2:11-cv-01149-MHW-MRA Doc #: 17 Filed: 03/18/13 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>