Reyes v. Colvin

Filing 28

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. 1. Plaintiff Jesus Reyes' objections (Doc. No. 26 ) to Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer's January 5, 2015 Report and Recommendation are OVERRULED. 2. Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer's January 5, 2015 Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 23 ) is ADOPTED. 3. Plaintiff Jesus Reyes' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 11 ) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. 4. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 18 ) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. 5. This case is REMANDED to the Commissioner to determine (a) the date on which medical improvement occurred, and with respect to which impairments, and (b) whether, and if so, to what extent Plaintiff became disabled again after medical improvement occurred. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 2/11/2015. (BJS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Jesus Reyes,

Civil No. 14-83 (DWF/HB)
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION

Carolyn Colvin, Acting Commissioner
of Social Security,
Defendant.

This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Jesus Reyes’ (“Plaintiff”) objections
(Doc. No. 26) to Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer’s January 5, 2015 Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. No. 23) insofar as it recommends that: (1) Plaintiff’s
Motion for Summary Judgment be granted in part and denied in part; and (2) Defendant’s
Motion for Summary Judgment be granted in part and denied in part.
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.
Plaintiff states that he does not object to the entire R&R, and that he only objects
to the R&R with respect to the following: (1) the Magistrate Judge’s finding that the
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) accorded proper weight to the opinion of

Dr. Edward R. Shaman; (2) the Magistrate Judge’s finding that the ALJ accorded proper
weight to the opinion of Dr. Karen M. Gosen; (3) the Magistrate Judge’s finding that the
ALJ accorded proper weight to the opinion of Dr. Mark Kossmann; (4) the Magistrate
Judge’s finding that the ALJ accorded proper weight to the opinion of psychologist
Michael Lace; and (5) the Magistrate Judge’s finding that the ALJ did not err in finding
that the claimant’s depression and anxiety did not meet or equal a Listed Impairment.
(See generally Doc. No. 26.)
The undersigned agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions that the ALJ did
not err with respect to any of the above-listed determinations. The undersigned also
agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions that the ALJ’s decisions are supported by
“substantial evidence on the record as a whole,” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and are consistent
with the relevant regulations and legal standards. The Court thus concludes, as did
Magistrate Judge Bowbeer, that Plaintiff’s arguments offer no basis for finding that the
ALJ erred. Consequently, the Court will adopt the Magistrate Judge’s R&R in this
matter.
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:

2

ORDER
1.

Plaintiff Jesus Reyes’ objections (Doc. No. [26]) to Magistrate Judge Hildy

Bowbeer’s January 5, 2015 Report and Recommendation are OVERRULED.
2.

Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer’s January 5, 2015 Report and

Recommendation (Doc. No. [23]) is ADOPTED.
3.

Plaintiff Jesus Reyes’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. [11]) is

GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
4.

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. [18]) is GRANTED

IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
5.

This case is REMANDED to the Commissioner to determine (a) the date

on which medical improvement occurred, and with respect to which impairments, and
(b) whether, and if so, to what extent Plaintiff became disabled again after medical
improvement occurred.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: February 11, 2015

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

3