Kudla v. Astrue

Filing 51

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. 1. Plaintiff Robert J. Kudla's objections (Doc. No. 43 ) to Magistrate Judge Jeffrey J. Keyes's October 31, 2014 Report and Recommendation are OVERRULED. 2. Magistrate Judge Jeffrey J. Keyes' ;s October 31, 2014 Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 41 ) is ADOPTED. 3. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 32 ) is DENIED. 4. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 38 ) is GRANTED. 5. This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 12/23/2014. (BJS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Robert J. Kudla,

Civil No. 12-1000 (DWF/JJK)
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION

Carolyn Colvin, Acting Commissioner
of Social Security,
Defendant.

This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Robert J. Kudla’s (“Plaintiff”)
objections (Doc. No. 43) to Magistrate Judge Jeffrey J. Keyes’s October 31, 2014 Report
and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. No. 41) insofar as it recommends that:
(1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment be denied; (2) Defendant Carolyn Colvin,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security’s (“Defendant”) Motion for Summary Judgment
be granted; and (3) this case be dismissed with prejudice. Defendant filed a response to
Plaintiff’s objections on December 5, 2014. 1 (Doc. No. 50.)
The Court has conducted a de novo review of the record, including a review of the
arguments and submissions of counsel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local
Rule 72.2(b). The factual background for the above-entitled matter is clearly and
precisely set forth in the Report and Recommendation and is incorporated by reference
for purposes of Plaintiff’s objections.

1

The Court entered an order granting Defendant’s Motion for Extension of Time,
which resulted in a December 5, 2014 deadline. (Doc. No. 49.)

In the R&R, the Magistrate Judge concluded that the Administrative Law Judge’s
(“ALJ”) findings that Plaintiff’s pain disorder did not meet or equal Listing 21.02 or
12.04 was supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole, though there was
evidence to support a different outcome. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge cited to the
ALJ’s findings that the evidence showed that Plaintiff was regularly alert, aware and able
to concentrate, and that the MAPS team disputed a claim of complete disability and
called into question Plaintiff’s perceptions of pain. (Doc. No. 41 at 18-20.) The
Magistrate Judge also concluded that the evidence supported the ALJ’s assignment of
less weight to the GAF score. The Magistrate Judge similarly concluded that the ALJ’s
determinations regarding the following were supported by substantial evidence on the
record as a whole: the proper weight to assign to the opinions of certain physicians; the
credibility of Plaintiff’s subjective complaints in light of the Polaski factors; and the
adequacy of the ALJ’s hypothetical. (Id. at 21-27.)
Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s R&R on the following grounds: (1) the
Magistrate Judge erred in his determination that the ALJ did not err in finding that
Plaintiff did not meet or equal Listing 12.02 or 12.04; (2) the Magistrate Judge erred in
his analysis of Plaintiff’s treating physicians’ opinions; and (3) the Magistrate Judge
erred by failing to recognize that the ALJ failed to make an express credibility
determination on Plaintiff. (See generally Doc. No. 43.) The Court concludes that the
Magistrate Judge did not err on any of these grounds.

2

With respect to whether Plaintiff can meet or equal Listing 12.02 or 12.04, the
Magistrate Judge acknowledged that there was evidence that contradicted the ALJ’s
findings, but still found that there was substantial evidence on the record as a whole that
supported the ALJ’s findings. Similarly, the Magistrate Judge reasonably found that
substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s decision to rely on certain physicians’ opinions
and to discredit other physicians’ opinions. Finally, the Magistrate Judge also found that
the ALJ made an express credibility determination, addressed the relevant credibility
factors, and did so based on specific evidence in the record. Thus, the Court finds that
the record as a whole contains substantial evidence to support the Commissioner’s
determination; therefore, the Magistrate Judge’s affirmation of the ALJ’s decision was
proper. See Baker v. Barnhart, 457 F.3d 882, 892 (8th Cir. 2006) (outlining the standard
of review for an ALJ’s decision).
In sum, Plaintiff’s objections do not warrant departure from the Magistrate Judge’s
R&R, and the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s and the ALJ’s conclusions
regarding Plaintiff’s disability. Based upon the de novo review of the record and all of
the arguments and submissions of the parties, and the Court being otherwise duly advised
in the premises, the Court hereby enters the following:
ORDER
1.

Plaintiff Robert J. Kudla’s objections (Doc. No. [43]) to Magistrate Judge

Jeffrey J. Keyes’s October 31, 2014 Report and Recommendation are OVERRULED.

3

2.

Magistrate Judge Jeffrey J. Keyes’s October 31, 2014 Report and

Recommendation (Doc. No. [41]) is ADOPTED.
3.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. [32]) is DENIED.

4.

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. [38]) is

GRANTED.
5.

This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

Dated: December 23, 2014

s/Donovan W. Frank
DONOVAN W. FRANK
United States District Judge

4