Strong v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 19

ORDER overruling 17 Plaintiff's Objections; adopting 16 Report and Recommendation. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment affirming the Commissioner's decision and close the file. Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on 2/22/2016. (JW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

ALESHIA JOYCE STRONG,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 3:14-cv-1434-J-34JBT

-vsCAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration,
Defendant.
_________________________________/

ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Joel B. Toomey’s Report and
Recommendation (Doc. No. 16; Report), entered on September 8, 2015. In the Report,
Judge Toomey recommends that the Court affirm the Commissioner’s denial of Plaintiff
Aleshia Joyce Strong’s application for a Period of Disability, Disability Insurance Benefits,
and Supplemental Social Security Income. See Report at 2. On September 22, 2015,
Plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report, in which she requests that the
underlying case be remanded to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings.
See Objections to Report and Recommendation Dated September 8, 2015 (Doc. No. 17;
Objections). Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration,
(“Commissioner”), filed a response to the Objections on October 2, 2015 (Doc. No. 18;
Response). Accordingly, the matter is ripe for review.

The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If no specific
objections to findings of facts are filed, the district court is not required to conduct a de novo
review of those findings. See Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993);
see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, the district court must review legal conclusions
de novo. See Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994);
United States v. Rice, No. 2:07-mc-8-FtM-29SPC, 2007 WL 1428615, at *1 (M.D. Fla. May
14, 2007).
In the Objections, Plaintiff re-asserts the arguments she presented to the Magistrate
Judge in Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Opposition to the Commissioner’s Decision filed on
March 27, 2015 (Doc. No. 14; Plaintiff’s Memorandum).

Indeed, the content of the

Objections is largely copied from Plaintiff’s Memorandum. Specifically, in the Objections,
Plaintiff re-asserts her contention that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) failed to apply the
correct legal standards in determining the weight to be given to the opinions of Plaintiff’s
treating physicians, Dr. Usitalo and Dr. Sims. However, she fails to address or identify any
error in the Magistrate Judge’s consideration of these claims as presented in Plaintiff’s
Memorandum.
The opinion of a treating physician must be given substantial or considerable weight
unless ‘good cause’ is shown to the contrary. Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232, 1240
(11th Cir.2003) (citing Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1440 (11th Cir. 1997)). Good
cause exists when the “(1) treating physician's opinion was not bolstered by the evidence;
(2) evidence supported a contrary finding; or (3) treating physician's opinion was conclusory
‐2‐

or inconsistent with the doctor's own medical records.” Id. Further, “when electing to
disregard the opinion of a treating physician, the ALJ must clearly articulate its reasons.”
Id.
Upon review of the record as a whole, the undersigned observes that the Magistrate
Judge identified the correct legal standard. The Magistrate Judge then applied that standard
in determining whether the ALJ erred in concluding that the opinions of Dr. Usitalo and Dr.
Sims should be given little weight. Ultimately, the Magistrate Judge determined that the
ALJ’s decision as to each opinion of the doctors was supported by good cause. Moreover,
the Magistrate Judge found the reasons for the ALJ’s determination were supported by
substantial evidence. Although Plaintiff disagrees with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions,
she fails to identify any legal or factual error in his analysis. Accordingly, the Objections are
due to be overruled.
Upon independent review of the record and the Report, the Court will overrule the
Objections and accept and adopt the legal and factual conclusions recommended by the
Magistrate Judge.
In light of the foregoing, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiff’s Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation

(Doc. No. 17) are OVERRULED.
2.

Magistrate Judge Joel B. Toomey’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. No.

16) is ADOPTED, as the opinion of the Court.

‐3‐

3.

The Clerk is directed to enter judgment AFFIRMING the Commissioner’s

decision and close the file.
DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida, this 22nd day of February, 2016.

i32
Copies to:
The Honorable Joel B. Toomey
United States Magistrate Judge
Counsel of Record

‐4‐