Strople v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 21

ORDER adopting 18 Report and Recommendations. The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED. Signed by Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. on 3/12/2016. (VMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
PAULA JEAN STROPLE,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 6:14-cv-1962-Orl-37DAB

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
ORDER
This cause is before the Court on the following:
1.

U.S. Magistrate Judge David A. Baker’s Report and Recommendation
(Doc. 18), filed August 28, 2015;

2.

Plaintiff’s Objections to Report and Recommendation dated August 28,
2015 (Doc. 19), filed September 10, 2015; and

3.

Defendant’s

Response

to

Plaintiff’s

Objection

to

Report

and

Recommendation of Magistrate (Doc. 20), filed September 15, 2015.
In this Social Security case, Plaintiff challenges the Commissioner’s decision to
deny her social security disability benefits. (Doc. 1.) U.S. Magistrate Judge David A.
Baker recommends that the Court affirm the final decision of the Commissioner.
(Doc. 18 (“R&R”).) Plaintiff objected to the R&R on the grounds that: (1) the
administrative law judge (“ALJ”) failed to fully and fairly develop the record; and (2) the
ALJ failed to apply the correct legal standards to the opinion of Dr. Youssef Guerges.
(Doc. 19 (“Objections”)). Defendant responded to Plaintiff’s Objections. (Doc. 20
(“Response”).) The matter is now ripe for the Court’s consideration.

When a party objects to a magistrate judge’s findings, the district court must
“make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is
made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole
or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id. The
district court must consider the record and factual issues based on the record
independent of the magistrate judge’s report. Ernest S. ex rel. Jeffrey S. v. State Bd. of
Educ., 896 F.2d 507, 513 (11th Cir. 1990).
In light of Plaintiff’s Objections, the Court conducted an independent, de novo
review of the entire record. Upon consideration, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge
Baker and finds that his R&R is due to be adopted. The Court writes separately only to
add that any error committed by the ALJ in failing to state with particularity the weight he
assigned Dr. Guerges’s medical opinion is harmless, as it did not affect the ALJ’s
ultimate conclusion. 1 It is clear from the record that the ALJ considered Dr. Guerges’s
opinion in its entirety. (See Doc. 12-2, p. 27.) Moreover, given that Dr. Guerges was a
one-time examining physician, the ALJ was not required to give his opinion
considerable weight. Crawford v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1160 (11th Cir.
2004). The Commissioner’s decision is, therefore, due to be affirmed.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1.

Plaintiff’s Objections to Report and Recommendation Dated August 28,

1

See Wright v. Barnhart, 153 F. App’x 678, 684 (11th Cir. 2005) (“[W]hen an
incorrect application of the regulations results in harmless error because the correct
application would not contradict the ALJ’s ultimate findings, the ALJ’s decision will
stand.”); see also Hunter v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 609 F. App’x 555, 558 (11th Cir.
2015).

2

2015 (Doc. 19) are OVERRULED.
2.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Baker’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 19) is
ADOPTED and CONFIRMED and made a part of this Order.

3.

The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED.

4.

The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of Defendant and
against Plaintiff and to close this case.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida, on March 12, 2016.

Copies:
Counsel of Record

3