Keefer v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
19
OPINION AND ORDER - IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: (1) The Report and Recommendation (d/e 18 ) is ADOPTED in its entirety. (2) Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (d/e 13 ) is DENIED. (3) Defendant's Motion for Summary Affirmance (d/e 16 ) is GRANTED. (4) The decision of the Defendant Commissioner of Social Security is AFFIRMED. (5) THIS CASE IS CLOSED. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 9/29/2017. (ME, ilcd)
E-FILED
Friday, 29 September, 2017 12:14:42 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
MICHAEL BRANDON KEEFER,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 16-cv-03088
OPINION AND ORDER
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge:
This matter comes before the Court on the Report and
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Tom SchanzleHaskins (d/e 18). Judge Schanzle-Haskins recommends that this
Court affirm the decision of Defendant Commissioner of Social
Security denying Plaintiff Michael Brandon Keefer’s application for
Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits (Disability Benefits),
deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (d/e 13), and grant
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Affirmance (d/e 16).
Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due on
September 7, 2017. Neither party filed objections.
Page 1 of 5
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3), the Court
“may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive
further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with
instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The Court reviews any part
of the Report and Recommendation to which a proper objection has
been made. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). “If no objection or only partial
objection is made, the district court judge reviews those unobjected
portions for clear error.” Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d
734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999) (also noting that a party who fails to object
to the report and recommendation waives appellate review of the
factual and legal questions).
Judge Schanzle-Haskins found that the Administrative Law
Judge’s (ALJ) decision to deny Plaintiff’s application for Disability
Benefits was supported by substantial evidence. Judge SchanzleHaskins concluded that the ALJ’s decision that Plaintiff’s
impairments or combination of impairments did not meet or equal
an impairment Listing specified in 20 C.F.R. Part 404 Subpart P,
Appendix 1 was supported by substantial evidence. Judge
Schanzle-Haskins also found that the ALJ’s decisions as to
Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity (RFC) and that jobs that exist
Page 2 of 5
in significant numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff can
perform and Plaintiff is not disabled were supported by substantial
evidence.
The Report and Recommendation also addresses the issue
Plaintiff raised in his Motion for Summary Judgment that he did
not know that his wife could testify at the administrative hearing.
The record indicates that Defendant was aware that Plaintiff’s wife
could testify because the ALJ explicitly asked Defendant’s attorney
if he would like to call Plaintiff’s wife to testify and Defendant
followed his attorney’s advice not to do so.
Judge Schanzle-Haskins also addresses Plaintiff’s argument
that the ALJ largely ignored the examinations by Drs. Trello and
Chapa by pointing out that the ALJ considered both examinations.
The ALJ found that Dr. Chapa’s findings and Dr. Trello’s mental
status examination both were consistent with the RFC
determination. Further, the ALJ discounted Dr. Trello’s Global
Assessment of Functioning (GAF) score of 50 and her conclusions
because they were inconsistent with her mental status examination.
Judge Schanzle-Haskins also rejected Plaintiff’s argument that
the ALJ erroneously dismissed Dr. Albers’ January 8, 2013
Page 3 of 5
opinions. Dr. Albers’ opinions were inconsistent with other
evidence in the record, including Dr. Albers’ own treatment notes
that repeatedly stated that Plaintiff’s pain and anxiety were stable,
controlled with medicine, or both.
The Report and Recommendation also explains that the ALJ’s
decision was not inconsistent with vocational expert Hammond’s
opinions that a person with Plaintiff’s RFC, age, education, and
work experience could not work if he had to stop every ten minutes
or if he was frequently absent. Those additional limitations were
not supported by the evidence and were not included in the RFC
determination and, therefore, the ALJ need not consider them.
Finally, Judge Schanzle-Haskins found that the additional
medical treatment notes from March 2016 that Plaintiff added to
the record on appeal were not material and did not support a
remand. Because they are from an examination that occurred more
than a year and a half after the ALJ’s decision, they do not speak to
Plaintiff’s condition at the time of the administrative hearing and
accordingly are not material.
Page 4 of 5
After reviewing the record, the Report and Recommendation,
the parties’ motions and memoranda, and the applicable law, this
Court finds no clear error.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
(1)
The Report and Recommendation (d/e 18) is
ADOPTED in its entirety.
(2)
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (d/e 13) is
DENIED.
(3)
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Affirmance (d/e 16)
is GRANTED.
(4)
The decision of the Defendant Commissioner of
Social Security is AFFIRMED.
(5)
THIS CASE IS CLOSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ENTER: September 29, 2017
FOR THE COURT:
s/ Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 5 of 5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?