Daniels v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 28

ORDER denying 20 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 22 Motion for Summary Judgment; Adopting 26 Report and Recommendations. Certificate of Appealability: No Ruling. Closing Case. Motions Terminated: 20 MOTION for Summary Judgme nt filed by Sharon Daniels, 22 Defendant's MOTION for Summary Judgment With Supporting Memorandum of Law filed by Commissioner of Social Security, 26 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 22 Defendant's MOTION for Sum mary Judgment With Supporting Memorandum of Law filed by Commissioner of Social Security, 20 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Sharon Daniels. Signed by Judge Darrin P. Gayles on 9/30/2014. (hs01) NOTICE: If there are sealed documents in this case, they may be unsealed after 1 year or as directed by Court Order, unless they have been designated to be permanently sealed. See Local Rule 5.4 and Administrative Order 2014-69.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 13-23412-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF

SHARON DANIELS
o/b/o A.J., a minor,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CAROLYN COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
_________________________________/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (AReport@)
[ECF No. 26] of Magistrate Judge Patrick Hunt, filed on August 7, 2014. On September 20,
2013, Plaintiff, Sharon Daniels on behalf of her minor child A.J. (APlaintiff@), filed a complaint
seeking review of a decision denying his application for Supplemental Security Income under the
Social Security Act. (See Compl. [ECF No. 1]). The Court referred the Complaint to Magistrate
Judge Hunt. Plaintiff subsequently filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, seeking remand of his
case to the Commissioner.

(See Pl.=s Mot. [ECF No. 20]).

Defendant, Carolyn Colvin

(ADefendant@), also moved for summary judgment, asking the Court to affirm the decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security. (See Def.=s Mot. [ECF No. 22]).
In his Report, Judge Hunt recommends that Plaintiff=s Motion be denied and summary
judgment be granted to Defendant. Plaintiff timely filed objections to the Report. The Court has
carefully reviewed the Report, Plaintiff’s objections, the parties= written submissions and
applicable law, and has conducted a de novo review of the record.

Judge Hunt carefully considered each of the issues raised by Plaintiff to contest the
decision of the Administrative Law Judge (AALJ@). Correctly identifying and applying the
appropriate standard of law to evaluate the factual findings of the ALJ, Judge Hunt concluded that
the record contains substantial evidence to support the ALJ=s decision.
Plaintiff contends the ALJ erred in discounting Dr. Bradford’s opinion. 1 The Court
disagrees. Despite Dr. Bradford’s findings, there was substantial evidence to establish that
Plaintiff had improved since he began treatment and did not have marked limitations in the six
functional equivalence domains. For these reasons, the undersigned fully agrees with the analysis
and recommendations stated in Judge Hunt=s report. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that
1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 26] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED.
2. Plaintiff=s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 22] is DENIED.
3. Defendant=s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 23] is GRANTED.
4. The ruling of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED.
5. The CLERK is directed to CLOSE this case.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 30th day of September,
2014.

________________________________
DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1 The Court notes that many of Plaintiff’s objections to the ALJ’s findings and
conclusions constitute inappropriate personal attacks on the ALJ. Plaintiff’s counsel is hereby
reminded that zealous advocacy must always be tempered with appropriate decorum. Subsequent
violations may result in sanctions.