Alexander et al v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 17

OPINION AND ORDER overruling 15 Objections; adopting 14 Report and Recommendations. The Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is affirmed. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close the file. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 6/23/2011. (RKR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
DONALD J. ALEXANDER,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No.

2:10-cv-437-FtM-29SPC

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of
Social Security,
Defendant.
___________________________________
OPINION AND ORDER
This

matter

is

before

the

Court

on

consideration

of

Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell’s Report and Recommendation
(Doc.

#14),

filed

on

May

27,

2011,

recommending

that

the

Commissioner’s decision to deny social security disability benefits
be affirmed.

Plaintiff filed Objections (Doc. #15), to which the

Commissioner filed a Response (Doc. #16). Plaintiff objects to the
Report and Recommendation’s findings that the Administrative Law
Judge (ALJ) did not err in finding claimant did not meet or equal
the

requirements

of

Medical

Listing

1.04A;

that

the

ALJ

appropriately applied the treating physician rule; that the ALJ
properly

evaluated

claimant’s

credibility;

and

that

the

ALJ

properly relied upon appropriate vocational expert testimony.
The Court reviews the Commissioner’s decision to determine if
it is supported by substantial evidence and based upon proper legal
standards.

Crawford v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1158

(11th Cir. 2004).

Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla

but less than a preponderance, and is such relevant evidence as a
reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208, 1211 (11th Cir. 2005); Crawford,
363 F.3d at 1158.

Even if the evidence preponderates against the

Commissioner’s findings, the Court must affirm if the decision
reached is supported by substantial evidence.

Crawford, 363 F.3d

at 1158-59. The Court does not decide facts anew, make credibility
judgments, reweigh the evidence, or substitute its judgment for
that of the Commissioner.

Moore, 405 F.3d at 1211; Dyer v.

Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206, 1210 (11th Cir. 2005).

The magistrate

judge, district judge, and appellate judges all apply the same
legal standards to the review of the Commissioner’s decision.
Dyer, 395 F.3d at 1210; Shinn v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 391 F.3d
1276, 1282 (11th Cir. 2004); Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232,
1240 n.8 (11th Cir. 2004).
The Court rejects the Commissioner’s argument that claimant
has waived the argument relating to vocational expert testimony by
not raising it as an objection (Doc. #16, p. 2, n.1).

Claimant did

raise this as an objection, albeit only in a footnote (Doc. #15, p.
5, n.2).
raised

However, after an independent review of all the issues
by

plaintiff,

the

Court

agrees

with

the

findings,

conclusions and recommendations in the Report and Recommendation.

-2-

Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
1.

The Objections (Doc. #15) are OVERRULED, and the Report

and Recommendation (Doc. #14) is ADOPTED by the Court.
2.

The Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is

AFFIRMED.
3.

The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly

and close the file.
DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this
June, 2011.

Copies:
Hon. Sheri Polster Chappell
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Counsel of Record

-3-

23rd

day of