Norton v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
19
ORDER adopting 17 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Complaint filed by Robert G. Norton. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 17) is ADOPTED, CONFIRMED, AND MADE A PART HEREOF; The Plaintiff's Objections (Doc. 1 8) are OVERRULED and his request for remand is DENIED;Pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the Commissioner'sDecision denying the Plaintiff's claim for Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income Benefits is AFFIRMED. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly, terminate all other pending motions and close the file. Signed by Senior Judge Wm. Terrell Hodges on 6/20/2017. (LAB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION
ROBERT G. NORTON,
Plaintiff,
-vs-
Case No. 5:16-cv-130-Oc-10PRL
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
___________________________________/
ORDER
On March 3, 2017, the United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report (Doc. 17)
recommending that the Commissioner’s Decision denying the Plaintiff’s claims for
Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income Benefits be affirmed. The
Plaintiff has filed Objections (Doc. 18) to the Report and Recommendation. The Court will
therefore conduct a de novo review of the case. See 28 U.S.C. § 636, M.D. Fla. Local Rule
6.02.
Plaintiff raises three arguments:
1.
Plaintiff objects to the findings of fact and law as to whether the
Commission erred in failing to include any upper extremity manipulative
limitations in the residual functional capacity assessment.
2.
Plaintiff objects to the findings of fact and law as to the Commissioner’s
failure to analyze the opinion of Dr. Coleman (state agency doctor)
showing that Plaintiff would have limited gross and fine manipulation,
and failed to address other evidence of record showing that Plaintiff
was having difficulty with grasping or fine manipulation due to his thumb
condition.
3.
Plaintiff objects to the findings of fact and law as to whether the
Appeals Council improperly failed to remand this matter based on new
and material evidence and whether the evidence as a whole requires
remand.
(Doc. 18).
With respect to the first and second objection, Plaintiff argues that the
limitations contained in the residual functional capacity do not account for his thumb
osteoarthritis and surgery, and the ALJ failed to identify any upper extremity
manipulative limitations. Plaintiff states that the ALJ’s analysis of his left upper
extremity impairment was superficial and failed to meaningfully analyze the
impairment, the resulting surgery or his recovery from surgery. Related to this
argument is Plaintiff’s contention that the Commissioner failed to discuss, analyze
or assign weight to Dr. Coleman’s opinion that Plaintiff has a limited ability to perform
handling and fingering.
The Magistrate Judge correctly found that the substantial evidence supports
the residual functional capacity. Plaintiff failed to meet his burden of showing that
his thumb osteoarthritis causes disabling or additional limitations not accounted for
by the residual functional capacity. None of the evidence undermines the ALJ’s
decision not to include manipulative limitations in the residual functional capacity.
The Court also agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s finding that Plaintiff failed to show
that Dr. Coleman’s opinion is inconsistent with the residual functional capacity, and
that any failure by the ALJ to state the weight he gave the opinion does not warrant
2
a remand. The ALJ’s consideration of the evidence and the residual functional
capacity assessment is supported by substantial evidence.
With respect to the third objection, Plaintiff argues that the appeals council
erred by finding that two pieces of additional evidence were not relevant: (1) results
from a MRI study performed after the ALJ rendered his decision; and (2) an opinion
from a physician who started treating Plaintiff after the ALJ’s decision. Plaintiff
argues that this opinion is retrospective on its face. (Doc. 15). The appeals council
found that Plaintiff’s “new information is about a later time.”
Upon due consideration, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation that the appeals council properly rejected the post-hearing
evidence. In sum, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request for reversal and remand, and
the Commissioner’s decision should be affirmed.
Accordingly, upon due consideration, and a de novo review of the case, it is
hereby ORDERED as follows:
(1)
The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 17) is
ADOPTED, CONFIRMED, AND MADE A PART HEREOF;
(2)
The Plaintiff’s Objections (Doc. 18) are OVERRULED and his request
for remand is DENIED;
(3)
Pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the Commissioner’s
Decision denying the Plaintiff’s claim for Disability Insurance and Supplemental
Security Income Benefits is AFFIRMED; and
3
(4)
The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly, terminate all other
pending motions and close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DONE and ORDERED at Ocala, Florida this 20th day of June, 2017.
Copies to:
Counsel of Record
Hon. Philip R. Lammens
Mari Jo Taylor
4
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?