Bartlett v. Saul

Filing 25

ORDER adopting re 23 Report and Recommendations Affirming the Commissioner's final decision. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to CLOSE this case. Signed by Judge William T. Moore, Jr on 9/19/22. (loh)

Case 4:21-cv-00067-WTM-CLR Document 25 Filed 09/19/22 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION

TAMMY BARTLETT,

Plaintiff,
CASE NO. CV421-067

V.

KILOLO KIJAKAZI,
Defendant.

ORDER

Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge's August 30, 2022,

Report and Recommendation (Doc. 23), to which Plaintiff has

objected (Doc. 24). After a careful review of the record,^
Plaintiff's objections (Doc. 24) are OVERRULED, and the Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 23) is ADOPTED as the Court's opinion in this
case.

Plaintiff initially alleged five errors in her appeal of the

Acting Commissioner of Social Security's final decision denying
her application for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) and
Supplemental Security Insurance (SSI). (Doc. 18 at 1.) The

1 The Court reviews de novo a magistrate judge's findings to which

a party objects, and the Court reviews for clear error the portions
of a report and recommendation to which a party does not object.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Merchant v. Nationwide Recovery Serv.,

Inc., 440 F. Supp. 3d 1369, 1371 (N.D. Ga. 2020) (outlining the
standard of review for report and recommendations (citing Macort
V. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App'x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006) (per
curiam))).

Case 4:21-cv-00067-WTM-CLR Document 25 Filed 09/19/22 Page 2 of 3

Magistrate

Judge rejected

all five of Petitioner's arguments.

(Doc. 23 at 6-19.)

''Plaintiff

file[d]

her

objection

specifically

as

to

the

Commissioner's rejection of Dr. [Tatianna] Barsukova's opinion
that [Plaintiff] was limited to sedentary exertional work with
less than 40 hours a week." (Doc. 24 at 2.) Although not entirely

clear,

Plaintiff appears to argue that the ALJ's failure to

properly consider Dr. William Chossier's findings impacted the
consideration of Dr. Barsukova's findings because she based her

conclusions on Dr. Chossier's findings. (Id. at 3 ("Thus, the ALJ's

failure to properly justify finding Dr. Chossier's examination
conclusions unpersuasive impacts weight determinations of other

physicians by the ALJ, including the opinion of Dr. Barsukova.").)
Plaintiff seems to argue that the Magistrate Judge did not conduct

a "proper review of the entire record" in concluding the Appeals
Council's determination about Dr. Barsukova's opinion was based on
substantial evidence because "Dr. Chossier's clinical findings

. were improperly disregarded." (Id.) Besides the fact that
Plaintiff's objection does not offer any new argument or contrary

authority to dispute the Magistrate Judge's analysis regarding the
ALJ's

determination

about

Dr.

Chossier's

report,

pointing

to

evidence in the record — disregarded or not — that supports her

position is simply not enough. As the Magistrate Judge explained,
Plaintiff was instead required to "show the absence of substantial

Case 4:21-cv-00067-WTM-CLR Document 25 Filed 09/19/22 Page 3 of 3

evidence supporting the Commissioner's decision." (Doc. 23 at 14
(citing Sims v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 706 F. App'x 595, 604 (11th
Cir. 2017)).) Petitioner failed to carry her burden and show the
absence

of

substantial

evidence

supporting

the

Commissioner's

decision about Dr. Barsukova's opinion. (See generally Doc. 24.)
Therefore, Plaintiff's objections (Doc. 24) are OVERRULED,

the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 23) is ADOPTED as the Court's
opinion in this case, and the Commissioner's final decision is
AFFIRMED. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to CLOSE this case.

SO ORDERED this

of September 2022.

^

WILLIAM T. MOORE, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA