Erazo v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 26

ORDER adopting 24 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Complaint filed by Omayra Perez Erazo. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter Judgment in favor of the Defendant Commissioner of Social Security and against Plaintiff Omayra Perez Erazo. The Clerk is further DIRECTED TO CLOSE this case. See PDF for additional details. Signed by Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. on 2/8/2018. (ctp)(JLC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
OMAYRA PEREZ ERAZO,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 6:16-cv-2163-Orl-37TBS

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
ORDER
This cause is before the Court on the following matters: (1) U.S. Magistrate Judge
Thomas B. Smith’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 24); and (2) Plaintiff’s Response to
Report and Recommendation (Doc. 25).
BACKGROUND
In accordance with 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), Omayra Perez Erazo (“Erazo”) timely
initiated this action against the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”)
seeking judicial review of a final unfavorable determination (“Decision”) on her claim
for payment of Social Security Disability and Supplemental Security Income benefits
(“Claim”). (Doc. 1, ¶ 1; see Doc. 17-3, pp. 58–78 (providing copy of Decision); see also
Doc. 17-2, pp. 2–5 (rejecting appeal); Doc. 17-5, pp. 5–11 (documenting initial claim).)
Alleging that the Decision “is not supported by substantial evidence and applies an
erroneous standard of law,” Erazo requests that the Court set the Decision aside. (See
Doc. 1, ¶ 8.) Seeking affirmance of the Decision, the Commissioner filed an Answer and
-1-

the transcript of the administrative proceedings. (Docs. 15, 17.)
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 6.01(c)(21), the matter was
referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith (“Judge Smith”), who entered a
Scheduling Order (Doc. 18). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(4). The
parties then filed a Joint Memorandum (Doc. 23), and Judge Smith issued a “Report and
Recommendation” (“Report”), which recommends that the Court affirm the Decision
pursuant to sentence four of § 405(g). (See Doc. 24.) Erazo then filed a “Response,” which
the Court construes as timely objections to the Report under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 72(b)(2) and Local Rule 6.02(a). (See Doc. 25.) The Commissioner did not
respond to Erazo’s objections, and the deadline to do so has passed. See Local Rule 6.02(a)
(requiring that any written response to objections be filed within fourteen days).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
“Within 14 days after being served” with a Report and Recommendation, an
objecting party may file “specific written objections” to the “proposed findings and
recommendations.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); see Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815, 822
(11th Cir. 1989)). Upon de novo review of the portions of the Report and
Recommendation to which timely and proper objection is made, the “district judge may
accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition, receive further evidence, or return
the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1); see also Olsen v. Astrue, 858 F. Supp. 2d 1306, 1309 (M.D. Fla. 2012).

-2-

ANALYSIS
The Social Security regulations require that the Commissioner: (1) develop the
claimant’s medical history for the 12 months preceding the month of application
(20 C.F.R. § 404.1512(b)(1)(ii)); (2) “review all of the evidence relevant” to a disability
claim (id. § 404.953(a)); and (3) issue “a written decision that gives the findings of fact and
the reasons for the decision” (id. § 404.1520b). 1 In reviewing the Commissioner’s written
decision, courts are required to determine whether it is “supported by substantial
evidence and based on proper legal standards.” Ellison v. Barnhart, 355 F.3d 1272, 1275
(11th Cir. 2003). Such review “is demarcated by a deferential reconsideration of the
findings of fact and an exacting examination of the conclusions of law.” Martin v. Sullivan,
894 F.2d 1520, 1529 (11th Cir. 1990).
In the Response, Erazo objects only to Judge Smith’s rejection of her argument that
the Decision is flawed because the ALJ failed to obtain all of her medical records. (See
Doc. 25, pp. 3–4.) Judge Smith fully addressed this argument in the Report and his
analysis finds proper support in the record evidence. (See Doc. 24, pp. 8–10; see also
Doc. 17-2, pp. 88–90, 122–23; Doc. 17-7, pp. 78–81; Docs. 17-8, 17-9, 17-10.) Further, after
an independent de novo review of the record in this matter, the Court agrees entirely
with the findings of fact and conclusions of law in Judge Smith’s Report. Thus, the Court

See Crawford & Co. v. Apfel, 235 F.3d 1298, 1304 (11th Cir. 2000) (noting that Social
Security proceedings follow an “investigatory model, where it is the duty of the
[Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”)] to investigate the facts”); Wilson v. Apfel,
179 F.3d 1276, 1278 (11th Cir. 1999) (rejecting argument that the ALJ had not fulfilled its
obligation to “develop the record fully and fairly”).
1

-3-

finds that the Erazo’s objection is due to be overruled and the Report is due to be accepted
and adopted.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1.

Omayra Perez Erazo’s Response to Report and Recommendation (Doc. 25)
is OVERRULED.

2.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith’s Report and Recommendation
(Doc. 24) is ADOPTED, CONFIRMED, and made part of this Order.

3.

The final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is AFFIRMED.

4.

The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter Judgment in favor of the Defendant
Commissioner of Social Security and against Plaintiff Omayra Perez Erazo.

5.

The Clerk is further DIRECTED TO CLOSE this case.

DONE AND ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, this 8th day of February, 2017.

Copies to:
Counsel of Record

-4-