Norman v. Astrue
Filing
22
OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING the 20 Final Report and Recommendation. The Commissioner's final decision denying Plaintiff's Benefits Application is AFFIRMED. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 9/11/2013. (anc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
CATHY NORMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
1:12-cv-587-WSD
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Justin S. Anand’s (the
“Magistrate Judge”) Final Report and Recommendation [20] (“R&R”) reviewing
the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (the “Commissioner”)
denying a claim for disability benefits.
I.
BACKGROUND
A.
Procedural History
On July 29, 2008, Plaintiff Cathy Norman (“Plaintiff” or “Norman”) filed an
application with the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) for Social Security
Disability Benefits under the Social Security Act (the “Benefits Application”). On
May 25, 2010, a hearing on the Benefits Application was conducted before an SSA
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). On September 13, 2010, the ALJ issued a
decision denying Plaintiff’s Benefits Application. On December 23, 2011, the
SSA Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request to review the ALJ’s decision, and
the ALJ’s decision became the final decision of the Commissioner.
On February 23, 2012, Plaintiff filed this action seeking review of the
Commissioner’s decision under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ
erred (i) in not according credibility to Plaintiff’s testimony and (ii) in finding that
Plaintiff is “capable of sustaining work activities in an ordinary work setting on a
regular and continuing basis.”
On July 15, 2013, Magistrate Judge Anand issued his R&R recommending
that the Commissioner’s decision be affirmed. With respect to the ALJ’s
determination of Plaintiff’s credibility, Judge Anand found that the ALJ properly
considered Plaintiff’s history of complaints and “fully articulated [the] reasons for
his finding that the Plaintiff’s testimony was not fully credible,” and that the
reasons were supported by “substantial evidence.” With respect to the ALJ’s
determination of Plaintiff’s ability to sustain work, Judge Anand found that the
record contains “substantial evidence” to support the ALJ’s assessment of
Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity.
Neither party objected to the R&R.
2
B.
Facts
Plaintiff, a forty-five-year-old woman, suffers from lumbago, degenerative
joint disease of the left foot, mild S1 radiculopathy, migraine headaches,
hypertension, obesity, depression, and anxiety. At various times since 2002,
Plaintiff has been treated for numerous conditions, including depression and
anxiety; neck, lower-back, and left-hip pain; asthmatic bronchitis; hypertension;
obesity; ankle contusion; left foot, lower back, and upper back pain; back and joint
pain; major depressive disorder; post-traumatic stress disorder; panic disorder; and
agoraphobia.
The ALJ found that, notwithstanding her medical conditions, Plaintiff does
not suffer a “disability” under the Social Security Act because Plaintiff’s residual
functional capacity is sufficient to enable to her to perform significant numbers of
jobs in the national economy. In reaching his decision, the ALJ discredited
Plaintiff’s testimony regarding her pain and other symptoms because, in light of
Plaintiff’s entire medical history, Plaintiff’s testimony was not supported by
objective evidence.
3
II.
DISCUSSION
A.
Legal Standard
After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and
recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (2006); Williams v.
Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732, 732 (11th Cir. 1982) (per curiam). A district judge
“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). In the absence of objections, the Court reviews the Magistrate Judge’s
findings and recommendations for plain error. United States v. Slay, 714 F.2d
1093, 1095 (11th Cir. 1983) (per curiam).
B.
Analysis
1.
The ALJ determination of Plaintiff’s credibility
Plaintiff does not object to the Magistrate Judge’s finding that the ALJ
properly discredited Plaintiff’s testimony regarding her pain and subjective
symptoms. The Magistrate Judge found that the ALJ properly considered
Plaintiff’s history and “fully articulated” why Plaintiff’s testimony was “not fully
credible.” The Magistrate Judge also found that the ALJ’s determinations were
supported by “substantial evidence” in the record. The Court does not find plain
4
error in these findings. See Holt v. Sullivan, 921 F.2d 1221, 1223 (11th Cir. 1991)
(holding that a claimant’s own testimony of pain must be supported, among other
things, by “objective medical evidence that confirms the severity of the alleged
pain arising from that condition”); see also SSA, Policy Interpretation Ruling
Titles II and XVI: Evaluation of Symptoms in Disability Claims: Assessing the
Credibility of an Individual’s Statements, SSR 96-7p (July 2, 1996), available at
1996 WL 374186 (explaining that a claimant’s statements “may be less credible if
the level of frequency of treatment is inconsistent with the level of complaints, or if
the medical records show that the individual is not following treatment as
prescribed and there are no good reasons for this failure”). Accordingly, the Court
adopts the R&R’s recommendation that the ALJ’s credibility determination be
affirmed.
2.
The ALJ’s finding of Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity
Plaintiff does not object to the Magistrate Judge’s finding that substantial
evidence in the record “supports the ALJ’s assessment” of Plaintiff’s residual
functional capacity. The Magistrate Judge found that the ALJ gave proper
consideration to the medical evidence and that his conclusion is supported by the
evidence. The Court finds no plain error in the Magistrate Judge’s findings. See
SSA, Policy Interpretation Ruling Titles II and XVI: Assessing Residual
5
Functional Capacity in Initial Claims, SSR 96-8p (July 2, 1996), available at 1996
WL 374184 (explaining that residual functional capacity is “the individual’s
maximum remaining ability to do sustained work activities in an ordinary work
setting on a regular and continuing basis,” not “the least an individual can do
despite his or her limitations or restrictions”); see also Dyer v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d
1206, 1211 (11th Cir. 2005) (holding that an ALJ need not specifically refer to
every piece of evidence in his decision so long as the decision enables the
reviewing court to conclude that the ALJ considered the claimant’s medical
condition as a whole). Accordingly, the Court adopts the R&R’s recommendation
that the ALJ’s finding regarding residual functional capacity be affirmed.
III.
CONCLUSION
Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s R&R, the Court finds no plain error
in any of the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Justin S. Anand’s Final
Report and Recommendation [20] is ADOPTED. The Commissioner’s final
decision denying Plaintiff’s Benefits Application is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED this 11th day of September, 2013.
6
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?