Kendrick v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
23
OPINION AND ORDER accepting and adopting 21 Report and Recommendation; affirming the Decision of the Commissioner. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close the file. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 3/10/2014. (RKR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
DENISE KENDRICK, on behalf
of D.K.,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No: 2:12-cv-523-FtM-29DNF
COMMISSIONER
SECURITY,
OF
SOCIAL
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
This
matter
is
before
the
Court
on
consideration
of
Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier’s Report and Recommendation
(Doc. #21), filed on February 11, 2014, recommending that the
Commissioner’s
affirmed.
decision
to
deny
social
security
benefits
be
Plaintiff filed Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation (Doc. #22) on February 19, 2014.
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)(citing Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1439
(11th Cir. 1997)).
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)(citing
Crawford,
363
F.3d
at
1158-59).
Even
if
the
evidence
preponderates against the Commissioner’s findings, the Court must
affirm
if
evidence.
the
decision
Crawford,
reached
363
F.3d
is
at
supported
1158-59
by
substantial
(citing
Sullivan, 894 F.2d 1520, 1529 (11th Cir. 1990)).
Martin
v.
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 (citing Bloodsworth v. Heckler, 703 F.2d
1233, 1239 (11th Cir. 1983)); Dyer v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206,
1210 (11th Cir. 2005)(citing Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232,
1240 n.8 (11th Cir. 2004)).
The Court reviews the Commissioner’s
conclusions of law under a de novo standard of review.
Comm’r
of
Soc.
Sec.
Admin.,
496
F.3d
2007)(citing Martin, 894 F.2d at 1529).
1253,
1260
Ingram v.
(11th
Cir.
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, 357 F.3d at 1240 n.8.
Plaintiff asserts that the magistrate judge erred in finding
that the ALJ properly evaluated the medical assessments from Dr.
Silver and Dr. Reback and in finding that substantial evidence
supported the ALJ’s decision.
Plaintiff incorrectly states that
the magistrate judge stated that the ALJ fully devoted a full page
to a comprehensive discussion of D.K.’s ability to attend and
complete tasks.
(Doc. #22, p. 2.)
What the magistrate judge
actually stated, however, was that “[t]he Commissioner argues that
. . . the ALJ in fact devoted a full page to a comprehensive
- 2 -
discussion of D.K’s symptoms . . . .”
(Doc. #21, p. 12.)
After
citing to the legal standard, the magistrate judge began his own
analysis of the ALJ’s decision.
(Doc. #21, pp. 12-14.)
As the
magistrate judge found, the ALJ properly evaluated the medical
assessments of both non-treating physicians and the Decision is
supported by substantial evidence.
After an independent review,
the Court agrees with the findings and recommendations in the
Report and Recommendation.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
1.
The Report and Recommendation (Doc. #21) is accepted and
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
of March, 2014.
Copies:
Hon. Douglas N. Frazier
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Counsel of Record
- 3 -
10th
day
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?