Eaton v. Berryhill

Filing 26

ORDER ADOPTING 24 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS as the Court's opinion in this case. The Commissioner's final decision is AFFIRMED. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this case. Signed by Judge William T. Moore, Jr on 10/10/2019. (evk) Modified on 10/11/2019 (evk).

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ' .013 Hrj ifl FiM9; Q SAVANNAH DIVISION ^ MARK DANIEL EATON, Plaintiff, CASE NO. CV418-069 V. ANDREW SAUL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. ORDER Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation filed (Doc. (Doc. 25). 24), After a to which careful objections de novo have review been of the record, the Court concludes that Plaintiff's objections are without is merit. Accordingly, the ADOPTED as the Court's report opinion and in this recommendation case and the Commissioner's final decision is AFFIRMED. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this case. In his objections. Plaintiff contends that the Administrative Law Judge's ("ALJ") partial rejection of the opinion of Dr. Agarwal, a physician who saw Plaintiff for a physical consultative substantial evidence. examination, (Doc. Plaintiff argues that the 25 was at not 1-2.) supported by Specifically, ALJ improperly substituted his own opinion when faced with the alleged inconsistency in Dr. Agarwal's opinion. (Id.) The Court disagrees. In addition to the reasons set forth by the Magistrate Judge, the Court notes that can be opinion discounted was not even where a treating the bolstered by "(1) the physician's opinion treating evidence; physician's (2) evidence supported a contrary finding; or (3) treating physician's opinion was conclusory or inconsistent with the doctor's own medical records." Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232, 1241 (11th Cir. 2004); see also Crow v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 571 F. App'x 802, 806 (11th Cir. 2014). Here, Dr. Agarwal was not a treating physician and his opinion was not entitled to great weight. Even so, the ALJ properly noted the inconsistency between Dr. Agarwal's opinion and his examination records and found that, in review of the other evidence. Dr. Agarwal's opinion regarding sitting and walking was not supported by the evidence. (Doc. 14, Attach. 2 at 18.) See Sampson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 694 F. App'x 727, 737 (11th Cir. 2017) (finding that the ALJ articulated good cause for giving little weight to two of the treating physicians' opinions because the opinions were inconsistent treatment with notes and or the substantial evidence). not supported ALJ's decision by was the doctors' supported by Plaintiff also objects to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation that substantial evidence supports the ALJ's determination and that the ALJ was entitled to give little weight to Dr. Hartzell's opinion. The Court has Plaintiff's objection on this ground reviewed and finds it to be without merit. SO ORDERED this day of October 2019. WILLIAM T. MOORE, iTR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

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?