Cortez v. Social Security Administration

Filing 14

ORDER AND REASONS - IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is DENIED and that defendant's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 3/25/2014.(bwn)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
STEPHANIE CORTEZ,

CIVIL ACTION

Plaintiff
VERSUS

NO. 13-74

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

SECTION "E"

Defendant
ORDER AND REASONS
On January 3, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued a thorough and well-reasoned
report and recommendation in this Social Security Disability case, recommending that
Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment be denied and Defendant's motion for summary
judgment be granted.1 Plaintiff timely filed objections to that report and recommendation.2
The Court has reviewed those objections and finds no error in the Magistrate Judge's
report and recommendation. The ALJ's finding that the Plaintiff's headaches are not a
severe impairment is substantially supported by the record, and particularly by the ALJ's
factual finding that the Plaintiff's "statements concerning the intensity, persistence and
limiting effects of these symptoms are not credible" and by the limited course of treatment
she pursued for headaches during the relevant time period.3 The Magistrate Judge did not
rely on post-hoc arguments to support the ALJ's decision, as Plaintiff apparently contends;
both the ALJ and the Magistrate Judge correctly considered the severity of Plaintiff's

1

R. Doc. 12.

2

R. Doc. 13.

3

R. Doc. 8-2 at 14, 17.

impairments for the same relevant time period during which she was eligible for benefits.4
Because the ALJ's finding regarding the severity of Plaintiff's headaches is supported by
substantial evidence, the ALJ's reliance on those findings in its residual functional capacity
analysis was proper, as the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded. Finally, Plaintiff
criticizes the ALJ's citation to a particular article regarding lumbar discography. The ALJ
cited that article as only one of several reasons to discount the unpersuasive testimony of
one of Plaintiff's treating physicians; even if the article has since been questioned,
substantial record evidence still supports the ALJ's decision.
In sum, Plaintiff identifies no error either in the ALJ's decision or in the Magistrate
Judge's Report and Recommendation. Therefore, the Court hereby approves the Magistrate
Judge's Report and Recommendation and adopts it as the Court's opinion herein.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is DENIED and
that defendant's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 25th day of March, 2014.

____________________________
SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4

R. Doc. 8-2 at 14.