Flynn v. Social Security Administration Commissioner
JUDGMENT/ORDER AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER and Plaintiffs case is dismissed with prejudice and adopting the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as set forth in the 11 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Honorable P. K. Holmes, III on December 13, 2012. (sh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TRACY D. FLYNN
Case No. 3:11-CV-03053
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner
Social Security Administration
Currently before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 11) filed on September
5, 2012, by the Honorable Erin L. Setser, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of
Arkansas. Also before the Court are Plaintiff’s objections (Doc. 12).
Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate’s findings concerning the Administrative Law Judge’s
(“ALJ”) determination of her residual functional capacity (“RFC”), maintaining that the ALJ’s
findings relative to Plaintiff’s RFC are not supported by substantial evidence. Plaintiff argues the
ALJ did not properly consider whether Plaintiff’s alleged pain was intense enough to cause
functional limitations. Further, Plaintiff maintains that the Magistrate failed to consider objective
findings that Plaintiff has a severe impairment. After reviewing the record de novo as to Plaintiff’s
objections, the Court finds the Magistrate’s reasoning to be sound and further finds that Plaintiff’s
objections offer neither law nor fact requiring departure from the Magistrates’ findings. As stated
by the Magistrate, it does not appear that Plaintiff was prescribed any medications for pain, and there
was a period of four years in which Plaintiff claimed to have been experiencing severe pain, yet
received no medical care. See Singh v. Apfel, 222 F.3d 448, 452 (8th Cir. 2000) (“a claimant’s
allegations of disabling pain may be discredited by evidence that the claimant has received minimal
medical treatment and/or has taken only occasional pain medications”). Additionally, Plaintiff’s gait
and limb function were found to be normal, and any other physical limitations experienced by
Plaintiff were provided for in the ALF’s RFC. Based on the findings of the examining and nonexamining physicians during the relevant time period, there is an absence of objective medical
evidence in the record to support Plaintiff’s complaints. Hutton v. Apfel, 175 F.3d 651, 655 (8th Cir.
1999). The ALJ can consider these factors when making an RFC determination, and the Court finds
that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s findings.
Therefore, having reviewed this case, and being well and sufficiently advised, the Court finds
that the Report and Recommendation is proper and should be and hereby is ADOPTED IN ITS
ENTIRETY. Accordingly, the decision of the Administrative Law Judge is AFFIRMED.
Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 13th day of December, 2012.
s/P. K. Holmes, III
P.K. HOLMES, III
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?