Cooper v. Astrue

Filing 20

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 16 Report and Recommendations; the decision of the Commissioner is affirmed. Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter the appropriate judgment of dismissal. Signed by Judge Lisa G. Wood on 9/29/2009. (ca)

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

KENNETH WARREN COOPER, Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO.: CV508-059 MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

ORDER After an independent and de novo review, the undersigned concurs with the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, to which Objections have been filed. In his Objections, Plaintiff contends that the Magistrate Judge found that the Administrative Law Judge ("AU") acted properly by giving weight to the opinions of examining physicians, but rejecting portions of their opinions without attempting to clarify these perceived inconsistencies. Plaintiff asserts that there is no question that the ALJ relied upon the report of a non-examining psychologist rather than that of the examining physician, even though these reports are explicitly contradictory. Plaintiff alleges that there is only one source of record who suspected Plaintiff of malingering, and that source was not provided with any of Plaintiffs medical records. Plaintiff also alleges that it is unclear whether this source considered the malingering when opining about Plaintiffs limitations. Plaintiff asserts there is no question the ALJ ignored the Veterans' Administration's ("VA") disability rating. Finally, Plaintiff alleges that engaging
AO 72A (Rev. 8/82)

in minimal activities of daily living is "hardly consistent with an ability to perform a dayto-day competitive job[,]" and "says nothing about his mental limitations." (Doc. No. 19, pp. 4-5). It is clear the ALJ considered all of the evidence before him, including Plaintiffs VA medical records, in determining Plaintiffs residual functional capacity, and that determination is supported by substantial evidence. As noted by the Magistrate Judge, a district court should affirm a Commissioner's decision when it is supported by substantial evidence. Dyer v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206, 1212 (11th Cir. 2005). Contrary to Plaintiffs contention, the record reflects that Plaintiff engaged in more than minimal activities of daily living. The ALJ properly found that Plaintiffs allegations of limitation were not supported by the objective evidence of record. Plaintiffs Objections are without merit. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is adopted as the opinion of the Court. The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED. Plaintiffs Complaint is DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter the appropriate judgment of dismissal. SO ORDERED, this 29th day of September, 2009.

HONORABLE LISA ODBEY WOOD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

AO 72A (Rev. 8/82)

2