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).

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