WALKER v. COLVIN

Filing 18

ORDER ADOPTING 14 Report and Recommendations. The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 9/4/2015. (tlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
SOFFETTE WALKER,
o/b/o/ D.C.M., a minor,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:14-CV-310 (MTT)

ORDER
United States Magistrate Judge Charles H. Weigle recommends affirming the
Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of the Plaintiff’s application for benefits filed on
behalf of D.C.M., a minor. (Doc. 14). The Plaintiff has objected to the
Recommendation (Doc. 15), and the Commissioner has responded to the objection
(Doc. 17). At the outset, the Plaintiff “requests a de novo review of the entire
Recommendation.” (Doc. 15 at 1). Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), “any party may serve
and file written objections to [the Magistrate Judge’s] proposed findings and
recommendations.” However, “[p]arties filing objections to a magistrate's report and
recommendation must specifically identify those findings objected to. Frivolous,
conclusive, or general objections need not be considered by the district court.” Marsden
v. Moore, 847 F.2d 1536, 1548 (11th Cir. 1988) (citation omitted). Therefore, the Court
“shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1).

The Plaintiff first objects to the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that the ALJ’s
“functional equivalence” assessment is not legally deficient. (Doc. 15 at 1, 3). The
Plaintiff argues “the Commissioner erred in failing to properly apply the functional
equivalency factors of 20 C.F.R. § 416.926a by essentially giving each factor a onesentence review.” (Doc. 15 at 1). In the Plaintiff’s view, “there was not enough analysis
of any domain to permit adequate assessment by any court,” and “[o]ne-sentence
domain reviews … leave too much to the imagination.” (Doc. 15 at 3). However, as the
Magistrate Judge correctly noted, the Court need not consider the ALJ’s findings in
isolation, but may review the ALJ’s opinion in its entirety to determine whether her
findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record. See, e.g., Turberville ex
rel. Rowell v. Astrue, 316 F. App’x 891, 893 (11th Cir. 2009); Johnson v. Barnhart, 148
F. App’x 838, 842 (11th Cir. 2005). The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the
ALJ adequately summarized and assessed the medical evidence at length in her
opinion, thereby allowing for meaningful judicial review of her functional equivalence
findings. (Doc. 11-2 at 17-21).
The Plaintiff also objects to the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that substantial
evidence supports the ALJ’s decision to assign “little weight” to Dr. Prigatano’s opinion.
(Docs. 11-2 at 20; 15 at 1). The Plaintiff argues that the ALJ failed to properly weigh the
opinion of Dr. Prigatano because one of the two reasons for discounting the opinion was
incorrect. (Doc. 15 at 1-3). The Magistrate Judge acknowledged that the ALJ appears
to have erred with regard to her first reason for discounting the opinion, but concluded
that the ALJ’s second reason is supported by substantial evidence. (Doc. 14 at 6).
Specifically, the ALJ discounted Dr. Prigatano’s opinion because it was undermined by

-2 

the records and findings of Dr. Samuel. (Docs. 11-2 at 20; 13 at 7-8; 14 at 6-7). The
Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the ALJ adequately articulated this
inconsistency as a reason to discount Dr. Prigatano’s opinion and that substantial
evidence supports the ALJ’s decision. See Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232, 1240-41
(11th Cir. 2004).
The Court has thoroughly considered the Plaintiff’s objection and has made a de
novo determination of the portions of the Recommendation to which the Plaintiff objects.
Accordingly, the Court accepts and adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. The Recommendation is ADOPTED and
made the order of this Court. Accordingly, the decision of the Commissioner is
AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED, this 4th day of September, 2015.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

-3