Long v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 21

ORDER overruling 20 Plaintiff's Objections to the Report and Recommendation; adopting 19 Report and Recommendation; affirming the Commissioner's decision; and directing the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment and close the file. Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on 3/5/2025. (JW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
BRIAN GARRETT LONG,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 3:23-cv-1208-MMH-LLL

LELAND DUDEK,
Acting Commissioner of the
Social Security Administration,1
Defendant.
ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation
(Doc. 19; Report) entered by the Honorable Laura Lothman Lambert, United
States Magistrate Judge, on January 17, 2025. In the Report, Judge Lambert
recommends that the Commissioner’s decision be affirmed. See Report at 17.
On January 31, 2024, Plaintiff Brian Garrett Long filed objections to the Report.
See Objection to Report and Recommendation (Doc. 20; Objections).

The

Commissioner did not file a response to the Objections, and the time for doing
so has passed. Thus, the matter is ripe for review.

Leland Dudek became the Acting Commissioner of Social Security on February 16,
2025. Thus, pursuant to Rule 25(d), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule(s)), Leland Dudek
is substituted for Carolyn Colvin as the defendant in this action.
1

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).

Pursuant to Rule 72, the Court “must determine de novo any part of the
magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” See Rule
72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, a party waives the right to
challenge on appeal any unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See 11th
Cir. R. 3-1. 2

As such, the Court reviews those portions of the Magistrate

Judge’s findings to which no objection was filed for plain error and only if
necessary, in the interests of justice. See id.; see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S.
140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district
court review of a magistrate [judge’s] factual or legal conclusions, under a de
novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”);
Dupree v. Warden, 715 F.3d 1295, 1304-05 (11th Cir. 2013) (recommending the
adoption of what would become 11th Circuit Rule 3-1 so that district courts do
not have “to spend significant amounts of time and resources reviewing every
issue—whether objected to or not.”).
In the Objections, Long challenges the Magistrate Judge’s finding that
the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) properly evaluated the opinion of

The Magistrate Judge properly informed the parties of the time period for objecting
and the consequences of failing to do so. See Report at 1.
2

-2-

consultative psychologist Dr. Susan E. Davis.

See generally Objections. 3

Specifically, Long challenges the Magistrate Judge’s finding that the ALJ
appropriately considered both the supportability and consistency factors when
evaluating the opinion. See id. at 2. Notably, the supportability factor speaks
to the support a medical source provides to justify the opinions rendered. See
20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(c)(1) (“The more relevant the objective medical evidence
and supporting explanations presented by a medical source are to support his
or her medical opinion(s) or prior administrative medical finding(s), the more
persuasive the medical opinions or prior administrative medical finding(s) will
be.”); Cook v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 6:20-cv-1197-RBD-DCI, 2021 WL 1565832,
at *3 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 6, 2021), report and recommendation adopted by 2021 WL
1565162 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 21, 2021) (“Overall, supportability relates to the extent
to which a medical source has articulated support for the medical source’s own
opinion[.]”). 4

Upon review of the record, the Court concludes that the

The Court notes that Long states “[t]he Court should decline to adopt the Magistrate
Judge’s finding that the ALJ properly evaluated the opinion of Dr. Lambert-Dorne, and thus,
properly found Plaintiff’s mental impairments were nonsevere.” See Objections at 1
(emphasis added). However, in the Objections, Long challenges the evaluation of the opinion
of Dr. Davis, not Dr. Lambert-Dorne. See Objections at 2. Indeed, the record does not
contain any reference to Dr. Lambert-Dorne. Accordingly, the Court assumes that Long
inadvertently misstated the name of the doctor, and the Court will evaluate the ALJ’s analysis
of the opinion of Dr. Davis.
3

The Court notes that although decisions of other district courts are not binding, they
may be cited as persuasive authority. See Stone v. First Union Corp., 371 F.3d 1305, 1310
(11th Cir. 2004) (noting that, “[a]lthough a district court would not be bound to follow any
other district court’s determination, the decision would have significant persuasive effects”).
4

-3-

Magistrate Judge’s finding that the ALJ properly considered the supportability
factor in evaluating Dr. Davis’s opinion is correct. See Report at 8-11. In her
report, Dr. Davis provides little evaluative information yet assigns “mild” and
“moderate” limitations to Long’s work capacity. See Social Security Transcript
of Administrative Proceedings (Doc. 8; Transcript) at 3004-10. The ALJ found
that Dr. Davis’s opinion was not persuasive “given the normal mental status
findings in her own report.” See Transcript at 24. By addressing the degree
to which Dr. Davis’s own report supported her opinion, the ALJ appropriately
considered the supportability factor and concluded that the report did not
support the limitations assigned by Dr. Davis.
Long also challenges the Magistrate Judge’s acceptance of the ALJ’s
decision to discount the self-reported mental health symptoms included in Dr.
Davis’s report. See Objections at 2-3. In doing so, Long cites Brancazio v.
Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 2:19-CV-694-FTM-MAP, 2020 WL 3888199 (M.D. Fla.
July 10, 2020), and argues that given the subjective nature of Long’s mental
impairments, his subjective complaints should have been given greater weight.
Long’s reliance on Brancazio is misplaced because Long fails to recognize the
significant factual difference between that case and his. While it is true that
the plaintiff in Brancazio had similar mental health diagnoses, and arguably
normal mental status examinations, her medical record contained ample
evidence supporting her self-reported limitations.

-4-

Id. at *3-5.

And,

importantly, the Brancazio plaintiff’s medical provider had treated her for at
least sixteen months and prepared numerous reports detailing the plaintiff’s
symptomology and its impact on her ability to function. See id. at *5. In
contrast, here, Dr. Davis saw Long only one time “in order to assist in a
determination of eligibility for Social Security disability.” See Transcript at
3004.

And her report contained no information supporting her conclusions

regarding his limitations.

Id. at 3009-3010.

Moreover, contrary to Long’s

contention that the Magistrate Judge simply rubber stamped the ALJ’s opinion,
the Magistrate Judge provided a thorough analysis of the relevant medical
evidence in the record. See Report at 9-13. The Magistrate Judge detailed
Dr. Davis’s opinion regarding Long as well as the circumstances under which
she formed the opinion (that she met him on one occasion, reviewed records,
and completed a physical examination). See id. at 6-7. Noting that the ALJ
found Dr. Davis’s opinion regarding Long’s limitations to be unpersuasive, the
Magistrate Judge conducted an independent review of the medical record. Id.
at 8. He observed the lack of information supporting her conclusions regarding
Long’s limitations and noted that much of the assessment of Long’s appearance
and functioning in the report was positive. Id. at 8-9. He also noted that in
discounting Dr. Davis’s opinion, the ALJ cited other medical records which
contradicted Long’s self-reported limitations, as well as records predating and
post-dating Dr. Davis’s exam which were in conflict with Dr. Davis’s opinion.

-5-

Id. at 9-10. He concluded that “the other opinions relied upon by the ALJ
provide a more fulsome picture of Long’s abilities” and therefore conflict with
Long’s self-reports. Id. at 9. Having done so, the Magistrate Judge concluded
that “[b]y referencing the record medical evidence, including Long’s functional
abilities and normal mental status findings, the ALJ properly considered” Dr.
Davis’s opinion. Id. at 10.
Responding to Long’s challenge to the ALJ’s failure to accept his
subjective reports, the Magistrate Judge rejected Long’s reliance on a case
similar to Brancazio, Pierson v. Kijakazi, No. 8:20-cv-1600-SPF, 2022 WL
633379 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 4, 2022), because unlike Dr. Davis who performed a one
time consultative examination, the Pierson doctor had a continued treating
relationship with the patient. Report at 11. And he noted that the Pierson
ALJ misstated the doctor’s opinions and records whereas this ALJ accurately
captured Dr. Davis’s opinion. Id.
In assessing the relevant medical record, the Magistrate Judge found that
substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s evaluation of Dr. Davis’s opinion, and
that the record as a whole conflicted with Long’s self-reported symptoms.
Accordingly, the Court finds no error in the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion
regarding the ALJ’s consideration of Long’s self-reported symptoms.
Notably, the Eleventh Circuit has addressed the impact of a claimant’s
subjective testimony of his symptoms and stated:

-6-

If a claimant provides subjective testimony on the severity of his
symptoms, as [the claimant] did here, the ALJ “must articulate
explicit and adequate reasons” for rejecting the complaints. Foote
v. Chater, 67 F.3d 1553, 1561-62 (11th Cir. 1995). The ALJ's
“credibility determination does not need to cite particular phrases
or formulations[,] but it cannot merely be a broad rejection” that
fails to consider a claimant's “medical condition as a whole.” Dyer,
395 F.3d at 1210-11 (cleaned up). We will not disturb “[a] clearly
articulated credibility finding with substantial supporting evidence
in the record.” Foote, 67 F.3d at 1562.
Taylor v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 21-12804, 2022 WL 1634086, at *5-6 (11th
Cir. May 24, 2022).

Here, substantial evidence in the record supports the

ALJ’s finding that Long’s self-reported symptoms are mild limitations, and the
ALJ properly weighed the “normal mental status findings” in Dr. Davis’s own
report and found that even Dr. Davis’s own record did not support a finding of
moderate limitations that would have an impact on Long’s functional
capabilities in a work environment.

Accordingly, Long’s objection to the

Magistrate Judge’s determination that the ALJ properly considered the
consistency factor in analyzing Dr. Davis’s opinion, because he did not give
sufficient weight to the self-reported limitations, is due to be overruled.
Long also argues that the Magistrate Judge wrongly concluded that his
challenge to the ALJ’s consistency analysis was a “call to reweigh the evidence.”
Objections at 4.

But, the Magistrate Judge was correct in that

characterization.

For the reasons discussed above, the Magistrate Judge

correctly found that the ALJ’s discussion of the medical record, “including

-7-

Long’s functional abilities and normal mental status findings” reflected that he
properly considered both the supportability and consistency factors. Long’s
contention that the ALJ based his decision not to credit Dr. Davis’s opinion only
on a comparison of mental status examinations rather than the records as a
whole is simply without merit.
Long also reiterates an argument made to the Magistrate Judge
concerning the ALJ’s finding that Long had no severe mental impairments.
See Objections at 3-4; Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law (Doc. 14; Plaintiff’s Brief)
at 13-15. According to Long, the ALJ’s alleged failure to properly evaluate Dr.
Davis’s opinion “led to the erroneous finding that [Long] had no severe mental
impairments, which in turn went on to impact [the ALJ’s] findings at Steps 3
and 5 of the decision.” See Objections at 3. As the Magistrate Judge notes,
Long’s contention that his mental impairments should have been characterized
as severe primarily rests upon his argument that Dr. Davis’s opinion is
persuasive—however, as the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded, the ALJ
properly considered and discounted Dr. Davis’s opinion. See Report at 16-17.
The ALJ determined that Long’s medically determinable impairments caused
no more than a “mild” limitation and therefore found the mental impairments
non-severe.

See Transcript at 21.

Long identifies no legal error in the

Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that the ALJ properly evaluated the evidence in

-8-

accordance with the applicable regulations. As such, the Court finds no error
in the Magistrate Judge’s finding.
In sum, having reviewed the Report, the Objections, and the relevant
record, the Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s determination to be fully
supported by the record and the applicable authority.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED:
1. The Objection to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 20) is
OVERRULED.
2. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 19) is
ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
3. The Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED.
4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of the
Commissioner and against Brian Garrett Long and to close the file.
DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida this 5th day of March,
2025.

Lc34
Copies to:
Counsel of Record

-9-