Reed v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 16

OPINION: The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge 15 upholding the ALJ's finding. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment 10 is DENIED, the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 13 is GRANTED, and the Plaintiff's case is hereby DISMISSED. (SEE WRITTEN OPINION) Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 7/21/2015. (GL, ilcd)

E-FILED

Wednesday, 22 July, 2015 10:39:31 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
VALARIE REED,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL NO. 13-3426

OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge:
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge (d/e 15) denying summary judgment in favor of
the Plaintiff, Valarie Reed, and granting summary judgment in favor
of the Defendant, the Commissioner of Social Security. The Plaintiff
did not file objections to the Report and Recommendation.
Because no objections were filed, the Court will review the
Report and Recommendation for clear error. See Johnson v. Zema
Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999). The Magistrate
Judge’s role was simply to determine whether the decision of the
Page 1 of 4

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) was supported by substantial
evidence. Substantial evidence refers to “such relevant evidence as
a reasonable mind might accept as adequate” to support the ALJ’s
decision. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971). If the
ALJ’s decision had such support, the Court must accept the ALJ’s
findings and cannot substitute its judgment for that of the ALJ.
Delgado v. Bowen, 782 F.2d 79, 82 (7th Cir. 1986). Furthermore,
the Court cannot review the ALJ’s credibility determinations unless
they lack any explanation or support in the record. Elder v. Astrue,
529 F.3d 408, 413-14 (7th Cir. 2008).
The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge did not commit
clear error when he found that the ALJ’s opinion was supported by
substantial evidence. The Court does acknowledge that the
Plaintiff’s testimony supported the Plaintiff’s claim for disability
benefits. See R. 28-45. However, the ALJ correctly found that the
Plaintiff’s testimony was not credible as it was inconsistent with the
objective medical evidence in the record—particularly Dr. Dynda’s
physical examinations of the Plaintiff, in which Dr. Dynda noted
that the Plaintiff was not in acute distress, had full range of motion,
Page 2 of 4

and had full muscle strength. See R. 17-18, 326, 356. Because the
ALJ’s finding regarding the Plaintiff’s credibility was supported by
the record, that finding cannot be disturbed by this Court. See
Delgado, 782 F.2d at 82; Elder, 529 F.3d at 413-14. Therefore, the
Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge (d/e 15) upholding the ALJ’s finding. Accordingly, the
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (d/e 10) is DENIED, the
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (d/e 13) is GRANTED,
and the Plaintiff’s case is hereby DISMISSED.
The Court notes that while the Plaintiff’s evidence showing a
degeneration in the condition of her back was not relevant for her
claim in this case, that evidence could be relevant to a new claim
for social security benefits. The Plaintiff can submit a new
application for social security disability benefits and include her
new evidence with that application. The Court encourages the
Plaintiff to submit the new application promptly.
The Clerk is directed to close this case.
ENTER: July 21, 2015.
Page 3 of 4

s/ Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 4 of 4