Carter v. Berryhill

Filing 27

ORDER ADOPTING 20 Report and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge as the opinion of the Court. The Court AFFIRMS the decision of the Commissioner and DIRECTS the Clerk to CLOSE this case and enter the appropriate judgment of dismsisal. Signed by Judge Lisa G. Wood on 9/28/2018. (ca)

Sn

Jfor

?Hntteti

Bts^trtct Court

^otttliem Btsitrtct of (fleorgta
Btbtsston

EDDIE CARTER,
Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 5:17-cv-60

NANCY A. BERRYHILL,Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

ORDER

The Court has conducted an independent and de novo review
of the entire record and concurs with the Magistrate Judge's

Report and Recommendation, dkt. no. 20.

The Court has

additionally considered Plaintiff's Objections to the Report and
Recommendation, dkt. no. 24.

For the reasons set forth below,

the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's Objections and ADOPTS the

Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation as the opinion of
the Court.

In his Objections, Plaintiff argues, as he did in his
original brief, that the Administrative Law Judge (^'ALJ")
improperly discounted the findings of Plaintiff s treating
physician. Dr. Susan Brickie.

Id. at pp. 2-6.

The Magistrate

Judge, however, properly concluded that the ALJ had ^'good cause"

A0 72A

(Rev. 8/82)

to discount Plaintiff's treating physician's opinions.

Specifically, the Magistrate Judge noted the ALJ afforded
''little weight to Dr. Brickie's largely unsupported opinions[]"
based on "inconsistent medical records and contrary opinions
[from other medical sources.]"

Dkt. No. 20, p. 15.

In support of his contention that the ALJ improperly
discounted Dr. Brickie's opinions. Plaintiff additionally argues
that the ALJ failed to recontact Dr. Brickie, failed to call a

medical expert during the administrative hearing, did not send
Plaintiff for a consultative evaluation, and did not request

that Drs. Roy Rubin and Arthur Schiff review his treating
physician's findings.

Id. at p. 5.

Plaintiff cites 20 C.F.R.

§ 419.920B as support for his contention that the ALJ was

required to take these actions.

Plaintiff is incorrect.

The

regulation relied on by Plaintiff merely lists a set of

optional, not mandatory, actions the ALJ may take in evaluating
a claim.

Moreover, the law is clear that ALJs are not required

to take any of these steps where the medical source evidence is
clear.

Wright v. Colvin, No. CV 115-024, 2016 WL 4500521, at *1

(S.D. Ga. Aug. 26, 2016) ("Conclusively, 20 CFR §§ 416.920b(b)
and 404.1520b(b) state, 'if any of the evidence in your case
record, including any medical opinions [are] inconsistent, we
will weigh the relevant evidence and see whether you are
disabled based on the evidence we have.'

Thus, the mere

determination a medical opinion is inconsistent does not require
an ALJ recontact the source before discounting that evidence.")

(quoting Hale v. Colvin, No. CIV.A. 14-00222-CG-N, 2015 WL
3397939, at *10 (S.D. Ala. Apr. 24, 2015), report and

recommendation adopted,

2015 WL 3397628 (S.D. Ala. May 26,

2015); Parker v. Colvin, No. 2:11-CV-02682-RDP, 2013 WL 5411710,

at *7 (N.D. Ala. Sept. 26, 2013) (^'[ALJ] was not required to

recontact [physician] merely because he found her medical source
statement was contradicted by her treatment notes.")).

In the

event a medical opinion is insufficient to determine if a
claimant is disabled, the ALJ has discretion and

recontact

[the source]," id. (quoting Hale, 2015 WL 3397939 at *10
(emphasis in original)); Alvarado v. Colvin, No. 15-62283-CIV,
2016 WL 3551482, at *13 (S.D. Fla. June 30, 2016) (''Because the

totality of the medical evidence was sufficient for the ALJ to
make her conclusion, the ALJ was not required to recontact [the
medical source].")); see also Johnson on behalf of KJJ v.

Berryhill, No. 5:16-CV-107, 2018 WL 1157554, at *6 (S.D. Ga.

Mar. 5, 2018) (noting the ALJ was under no obligation to

recontact treating physician where determination to discount
opinion supported by substantial evidence).
As set forth in the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation, good cause and substantial evidence support the
ALJ's determination to discount the opinions of Plaintiff's

treating physician.

Thus, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's

Objections and ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation as the opinion of the Court.

The Court AFFIRMS

the decision of the Commissioner and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court

to CLOSE this case and enter the appropriate judgment of
dismissal.

SO ORDERED, this

day of

HON. LISA G^DBEY WOOtTr"JUDGE
UNIlfeo STATOS DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN District of Georgia

AO 72A

(Rev. 8/82)

, 2018.