Postier v. Astrue et al
Filing
20
ORDER - Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, the Court ADOPTS the R&R 16 , with a minor correction: The reference to Dr. Bartels's May 2008 opinion in the first full paragraph of page 24 of the R&R should be a reference to Dr. Bartels's May 2009 opinion. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment 9 is DENIED. Defendant's motion for summary judgment 11 is GRANTED. Plaintiff's complaint 1 is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE AND ON THE MERITS. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. Signed by Judge Patrick J. Schiltz on 03/07/12. (bjs)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
STEVE WAYNE POSTIER,
Case No. 10-CV-4963 (PJS/TNL)
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
Gerald S. Weinrich, WEINRICH LAW OFFICE, for plaintiff.
David W. Fuller, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, for defendant.
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff Steve Postier’s objection to the January 30,
2012 Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung. Judge Leung
recommends granting the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment and denying Postier’s
motion for summary judgment. The Court has conducted a de novo review. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Based on that review, the Court adopts the R&R.
There is no dispute that Postier is presently disabled; the issue in the case is the date of
the onset of that disability. The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) found that Postier was
disabled as of October 10, 2008. Postier contends that he has been disabled since December 1,
2006. Postier objects that, in making his determination, the ALJ improperly discounted the
-1-
opinions of his treating physician, Dr. Duane Bartels, and in particular Dr. Bartels’s May 8, 2009
assessment of Postier’s residual functional capacity.1
Having reviewed the record, however, the Court agrees with Judge Leung that the ALJ’s
well-reasoned opinion is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole and that the
ALJ properly discounted Dr. Bartels’s opinions. See Perkins v. Astrue, 648 F.3d 892, 897-98 (8th
Cir. 2011) (“An ALJ may discount or even disregard the opinion of a treating physician where
other medical assessments are supported by better or more thorough medical evidence, or where
a treating physician renders inconsistent opinions that undermine the credibility of such
opinions.” (citation and quotations omitted)); Medhaug v. Astrue, 578 F.3d 805, 813 (8th Cir.
2009) (ALJ’s findings must be affirmed if they are supported by substantial evidence on the
record as a whole).
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, the Court
ADOPTS the R&R [Docket No. 16], with a minor correction: The reference to Dr. Bartels’s
May 2008 opinion in the first full paragraph of page 24 of the R&R should be a reference to
Dr. Bartels’s May 2009 opinion.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1
The Court notes that, because the ALJ found that Postier was disabled as of
October 2008, it may at first appear that the ALJ’s discounting of Dr. Bartels’s May 2009 RFC
assessment is not particularly relevant. The ALJ found Postier disabled as of October 10, 2008,
however, because that was Postier’s 55th birthday. Thus, there appears to be no dispute that it
was not Postier’s condition that had changed, but rather the standards under which his condition
was assessed. See 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 2; Phillips v. Astrue, No. 11-1969, 2012 WL
638056, at *2 (8th Cir. Feb. 29, 2012) (describing the age categories used to determine
disability).
-2-
1.
Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment [Docket No. 9] is DENIED.
2.
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment [Docket No. 11] is GRANTED.
3.
Plaintiff’s complaint [Docket No. 1] is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE AND
ON THE MERITS.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: March 7 , 2012
s/Patrick J. Schiltz
Patrick J. Schiltz
United States District Judge
-3-
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?