Joseph A. v. Kijakazi

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
___________________________________
)
JOSEPH A., )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) C.A. No. 22-293 WES
)
MARTIN O’MALLEY, )
ACTING COMMISSIONER, )
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, )
)
Defendant. )
___________________________________)
ORDER
WILLIAM E. SMITH, District Judge.
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Sullivan’s Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”), ECF No. 20, recommending that the Court
uphold the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) denial of Plaintiff
Joseph A.’s application for Supplemental Security Income pursuant
to Title XVI of the Social Security Act. Plaintiff filed
Objections to the R&R, ECF No. 22, and Defendant Martin O’Malley
filed Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Objections to the R&R,
ECF No. 23. For the following reasons, the Court adopts in full
the reasoning and conclusions of Judge Sullivan’s R&R.
Plaintiff asserts that Judge Sullivan and the ALJ erred in
not relying on the previous ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff’s
fibromyalgia constituted a severe medically determinable
impairment. Pl.’s Objs. R&R 2-6, ECF No. 22. However, Judge
Case 1:22-cv-00293-WES-PAS Document 25 Filed 02/13/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Sullivan and the ALJ were not bound by the previous administrative
findings, as those findings were made sixteen months prior to the
filing of the instant application, involved a period of time
separate from the current case, and addressed a period that does
not fall within the current record. See R&R 9-10; see also Tegan
S. v. Saul, 546 F. Supp. 3d 162, 171 n.10 (D.R.I. 2021) (noting
that the ALJ was not limited to the previous ALJ’s finding that
Plaintiff suffered from fibromyalgia); Saeed v. Berryhill, No. 16-
CV-11928-ADB, 2018 WL 1243953, at *7-8 (D. Mass. Mar. 9, 2018);
Watkins v. Berryhill, No. 3:16-CV-30117-KAR, 2017 WL 4365158, at
*13 (D. Mass. Sept. 29, 2017) (holding that the second ALJ was not
bound by the first ALJ’s decision because “Plaintiff filed the
second application almost one and one-half years after the first
ALJ issued her decision”). Moreover, the Court concurs with Judge
Sullivan’s assessment that the current record is devoid of evidence
reflecting a diagnosis of fibromyalgia or even permitting an
inference that previously diagnosed fibromyalgia persisted into
the period at issue. See R&R 10.
Plaintiff’s second objection is that Judge Sullivan did not
adequately account for the evidence of Plaintiff’s migraines as a
severe impairment. Objs. 6-7. Plaintiff avers that Judge Sullivan
erred by only considering the improvement of Plaintiff’s migraines
on medication, rather than the potential effects of future flare-
ups. Id. Nonetheless, as Defendant correctly contends, the
Case 1:22-cv-00293-WES-PAS Document 25 Filed 02/13/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
findings of the state agency physicians, the conclusions of the
testifying expert, and the treatment record all support Judge
Sullivan’s finding on that issue. See Def.’s Resp. Pl.’s Objs.
R&R 4, ECF No. 23. As a result, Judge Sullivan properly found
that the ALJ’s findings were supported by substantial evidence in
the record. See R&R 14-18.
Thus, after careful review of the record and applicable law,
the Court ADOPTS the reasoning and recommendations of the
thoughtful R&R in full. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Reverse
the Decision of the Commissioner, ECF No. 12, is DENIED, and
Defendant’s Motion for an Order Affirming the Decision of the
Commissioner, ECF No. 15, is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
William E. Smith
District Judge
Date: February 13, 2024
Case 1:22-cv-00293-WES-PAS Document 25 Filed 02/13/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>