Keesler v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 19

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 17 affirming Commissioner's decision; case closed; signed by Judge Gordon J. Quist (Judge Gordon J. Quist, jmt)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
__________________________

ROBIN KEESLER,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 1:13-CV-744
HON. GORDON J. QUIST

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
____________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff has filed Objections to Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody’s Report and
Recommendation (R & R), issued on June 10, 2014, which recommends that the Court affirm the
Commissioner’s decision denying Plaintiff disability insurance benefits. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1), this Court is required to review de novo those portions of the R&R to which specific
objections have been made. The Court may accept, reject, or modify any or all of the magistrate
judge’s findings or recommendations. Id. After reviewing the R&R, Plaintiff’s Objections, and the
pertinent portions of the administrative record, the Court will overrule Plaintiff’s Objections and
adopt the R&R as the opinion of the Court.
Plaintiff objects to the R & R’s conclusion that the ALJ properly articulated evidentiary
support for the residual functional capacity (RFC) determination. The ALJ discussed the results of
the March 2010 EMG and the May 2010 MRI, as well as the information obtained from Plaintiff’s
visits with Drs. Jacobs, Yount, and Beatty. He further discussed Plaintiff’s use of methadone, and
its effectiveness in managing Plaintiff’s pain. The ALJ explained that Plaintiff’s daily activities and

conservative course of treatment were inconsistent with her allegations of disabling impairments.
Finally, the ALJ explained that he examined a previous decision issued by a different ALJ, and that
he determined that the RFC was the same as assessed in that previous decision because Plaintiff’s
condition had not worsened. Under the circumstances, the Court agrees with the magistrate judge’s
conclusion that the ALJ’s determination was supported by substantial evidence.
Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation
issued June 10, 2014 (docket no. 17), is ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court, and the decision
of the Commissioner denying benefits to Plaintiff is AFFIRMED.
A separate judgment will issue.
This case is concluded.

Dated: July 17, 2014

/s/ Gordon J. Quist
GORDON J. QUIST
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2