Joyce v. Colvin

Filing 24

Judge Richard G. Stearns: ENDORSED ORDER entered. ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Action on motion: ; denying 14 Motion to Remand; granting 18 Motion for Order Affirming Decision of Commissioner; adopting Report and Recommendations re 21 Report and Recommendations. (Attachments: # 1 Report and Recommendations)(Caruso, Stephanie)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-11891-RGS JEROME P. JOYCE, Plaintiff v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE September 18, 2017 STEARNS, D.J. I agree with Magistrate Judge Cabell=s thorough analysis of the record and his conclusion that the Commissioner correctly found that plaintiff was not disabled as of the date of last insured, as the Social Security Act requires. Like the Magistrate Judge, I find no reason to fault the assessment by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) of the evidence regarding plaintiff’s psychological limitations or her determination as to the onset of any disability (as well as her decision to forego the “empty exercise” of consulting a medical expert on the issue, see R & R, at 33). Consequently, the Recommendation is ADOPTED, plaintiff’s motion to reverse or remand the decision of the Commissioner is DENIED, and the Commissioner’s motion to affirm is ALLOWED.1 The Clerk will enter judgment for the Commission and close the case. SO ORDERED. /s/ Richard G. Stearns ________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE I have carefully reviewed the Objections filed by plaintiff to the Report and Recommendation. The objections raise no new facts or arguments of significance that were not presented to Magistrate Judge Cabell and considered in his Report (and by the ALJ before him). As he noted, it is simply not the case that the ALJ did not consider Dr. Golub’s opinion as to plaintiff’s psychological state. See R & R, at 25-27. She simply did not find his opinion sufficiently credible to overcome other objective medical evidence in the record. Nor did she attempt to substitute her untrained medical judgment for those of the medical reviewers (Dr. Kasdan and Dr. Fieman), on whose opinions, apart from the record evidence, she appropriately relied. Id. at 27-28. 1 2

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?