Knight v. Astrue

Filing 24

ORDER adopting re 21 Report and Recommendations. Therefore, the Commissioner's final decision is Affirmed, this civil action is Closed and final judgment shall be Entered in favor of the Commissioner. Signed by Judge Dudley H. Bowen on 1/16/13. (cmr)

ORIGINAL

| ;L[;:J
t 1 . 5D l S T Ril C { r L i , i
.
C
CI'i
IN THE UNITED STATESDISTRICTCOURT AUGUSTA

J&ry
DISTRICT CEORGIAJ3
OF
FORTHE SOUTHERN
DUBLIN DIVISION

CLERil

ROWENAL\'}INE KNICHT,
Plaintiff,

cv 311-096

V.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,Commissioner
Administration,
of Social
Security
Defendant.

ORDER

of
After a carefirl,de novo reviev,r the file, the Court concurswith the Magistrate
("R&R"), to whichobjections
havebeenfiled. (Doc.
ReportandRecommendation
Judge's
presented her
in
of
are,
no.23.) Plaintiffs objections in the main,reiterations arguments
one
brief. However, pointmeritsfurtherdiscussion.
six
Judge
concluded remand
that
undersentence wasnot
In theR&R, theMagistrate
and
of
requiredfor consideration new evidence, that the ALJ's decisionwas otherwise
(Doc.no.22.) OneofPlaintiffs arguments herbrief
in
evidence.
supported substantial
by
for
S
favorable
decision anapplication Supplemental ecurityIncome
on
wasthata subsequent
werenew
submitted support that application,
in
of
asof April 12,2011,andthe evidence
six. Of note, the time period under
to
evidencemeriting rernandpursuant sentence
wasOctober
20,2003
at
in
case
consideration the ALJ in thedecision issue the instant
by
in
correctly
concluded theR&R thatthis new
Judge
through
June14,2010. TheMagistrate

duringthe
that
not
the
evidence nowayundermined ALJ's decision Plaintiffwas disabled
in
periodunderconsideration.
favorable
decisionwarrants
remand
because
Plaintiffnow argues thesubsequent
that
wereslightlyhigherduringtheperiod
reflects Plaintifls GAF scoresr
that
thenewevidence
for which shewasapproved benefitsthan theywereduringthe periodin which the ALI
for
June14,
to
the
foundshewasnot disabled.According Plaintifl this renders unfavorable
decision the April 12,2011application"inconsistent
on
2010decision the favorable
and
resultswhich canonly be resolved
througha remand."(Doc.no. 23, p. 1.) A claimant's
valuein determining individual'smental
an
GAF scores,
however, of "questionable
are
and
of
she
Wilsonv.
functional
capacity," arethusnot dispositive whether is disabled.See
(M.D. Fla.2009).Indeed, Magistrate
properly
2d
Judge
Astrue, F. Supp. 1282,1293
653
the
that,
ofwhat Plaintiff s GAF scores havebeen, newevidence,
may
the
concluded regardless
particularly treatment
psychiatrist,
the
notes
ofher treating
showed Plaintiff s condition
that
deteriorated theAIJ's June14.2010decision. failedto call into doubttheALJ's
after
and
reasoning
that Plaintiff was not disabledbeforethat time. Therefore,
Plaintiffs bare
assertion the Commissioner's
that
decisions somehow
are
inconsistent
solelybecause
her
wereslightlyhigher
whentheCommissioner
concluded wasin factdisabled
she
GAF scores
is baseless.

rTheGAF scorerefersto the "Global Assessment Functioning,"
of
which "is a
numeric scalethat mentalhealthphysicians
and doctorsuse to rate the occupational,
psychological, socialfunctioning adults."McCloudv. Bamhart,166F. App'x 410,
and
of
413(11thCir.2006)Qter
curiam).TheGAF score
increases theseverity symptoms
as
of
or
(M.D.
impairments
decreases. e.e.,Wilsonv. Astrue,653F. Supp. 1282,1294-95
See.
2d
Fla. 2009)(explaining meaning theranges GAF scores).
the
of
of

are
Plaintiff s objections thuswithoutmeritandareOVERRULED. Accordingly,
is
of
Judge ADOPTED asthe opinionof
the ReportandRecommendation the Magistrate
final
is
the
the Court. Therefore, Commissioner's decision AFFIRMED, this civil action
is CLOSED, anda finaljudgrnent
shallbe ENTERED in favorof the Commissioner.

SOORDERED ffi
t nis

ot Wruary, atAugusta,
2013,
Georgia.