Cooper v. Colvin

Filing 16

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 14 Report and Recommendations Signed by District Judge Halil S. Ozerden on 3/2/2018 (wld)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
SOUTHERN DIVISION
PHILLIP D. COOPER

PLAINTIFF

v.

CIVIL NO. 1:16cv307-HSO-RHW

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner

DEFENDANT

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION [14] AND DISMISSING
PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM WITH PREJUDICE
This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation [14]
of United States Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker, entered on February 1, 2018.
Plaintiff Phillip D. Cooper (“Cooper”) seeks review of the Commissioner of Social
Security’s final decision denying his claim for disability insurance benefits and
supplemental security income. Compl. [1]. The Magistrate Judge recommended
that the Commissioner’s decision be affirmed. R. & R. [14] at 9. After due
consideration of the Report and Recommendation [14], the record, and relevant
legal authority, the Court finds that the Report and Recommendation should be
adopted as the finding of this Court, and that the Commissioner’s decision should be
affirmed. Cooper’s claim should be dismissed.
I. BACKGROUND
On June 4, 2013, Cooper filed for Social Security benefits on grounds that he
was unable to work due to bipolar disorder, anxiety, depression, and high blood
pressure beginning on October 16, 2012. R. [10] at 167-76, 198. Cooper was 52

years old at the time of the alleged disability onset. Id. at 167. Cooper previously
worked as a construction laborer and truck driver. Id. at 25, 199. The Social
Security Administration (“SSA”) denied his initial claim and again upon
reconsideration. Id. at 100-43.
Cooper requested and was granted a hearing before an Administrative Law
Judge (“ALJ”). Id. at 40-73, 152-53. On January 9, 2015, the ALJ issued a decision
denying Cooper’s claim. Id. at 14-27. The ALJ found that though Cooper had
impairments of obesity, hypertension, bipolar disorder, and anxiety, these
impairments did not meet the requirements for presumptive disability. Id. at 17.
The ALJ concluded that Cooper retained the capacity to perform medium work,
with some limitations. Id. at 19. The ALJ relied on the testimony of a vocational
expert to find that Cooper could perform a significant number of jobs in the national
economy. Id. at 26. The ALJ thus concluded that Cooper was not disabled. Id. at
27.
Cooper sought review of the ALJ’s decision by the SSA’s Appeals Council, but
the Appeals Council denied this request. Id. at 4-9. Cooper then sought relief in
this Court, Compl. [1], asserting that the ALJ denied Cooper’s due process rights
and abused her discretion, that the ALJ erred by failing to consider relevant
evidence, that the ALJ erroneously evaluated Cooper’s credibility, and that the ALJ
did not properly evaluate Cooper’s mental limitations. Pl.’s Mem. [11].
In the Report and Recommendation [14] issued on February 1, 2018, the
Magistrate Judge first addressed Cooper’s claim that the ALJ violated his due

2

process rights to confront and cross-examine witnesses and to see the transcripts of
the evaluation of examiners. R. & R. [14] at 4. The Magistrate Judge noted that
Cooper was represented during the administrative proceedings and before the ALJ,
and Cooper’s representative cross-examined the vocational expert. Id. The SSA
also informed Cooper of the procedure for reviewing his file prior to the hearing date
and that the exhibits to be used at the hearing were available for review. Id. As to
Cooper’s claim that the SSA generated evidence unfavorable to him, the Magistrate
Judge found that the SSA ordered consultative examinations by state agency
physicians pursuant to the Commissioner’s authority to order such examinations.
Id. at 5 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1519a(b)(1) (2012)).
Cooper next contended that the ALJ erred by not considering evidence dated
prior to his disability onset or evidence dated after the ALJ’s decision. Pl.’s Mem.
[11] 14-15. The Magistrate Judge determined that subsequent deterioration of a
claimant’s condition may form the basis of a new claim, but that it did not justify
remand in the instant case, R. & R. [14] at 6, and that the evidence of Cooper’s
condition subsequent to the ALJ’s decision was not material to the period of alleged
disability under consideration, id. Cooper also disputed the ALJ’s credibility
determination with respect to his mental condition and correlating limitations, but
the Magistrate Judge found that substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s
credibility determination, and that to assess Cooper’s credibility, the ALJ
considered Cooper’s medical records, daily activities, precipitating and aggravating
factors, and medication. Id. at 8.

3

Lastly, the Magistrate Judge addressed Cooper’s argument that the ALJ did
not properly evaluate his mental condition. The Magistrate Judge noted that the
ALJ indeed concluded that Cooper suffered from the severe impairment of bipolar
disorder and anxiety, but that Cooper was still able to perform limited to simple,
routine tasks requiring only simple work-related decisions, in a work environment
free of fast-paced production requirements and with limited social interaction. Id.
The Magistrate Judge found that substantial evidence supported this assessment,
based upon the ALJ’s consideration of Cooper’s medical records, his self-reported
daily activities, the effectiveness of Cooper’s medications, and medical consultative
reviews. Id. at 8-9. The Magistrate Judge recommended that the decision of the
Commissioner be affirmed. Id. at 9.
A copy of the Report and Recommendation [14] was mailed to Cooper on
February 1, 2018, via certified mail return receipt request and was received by
Cooper on February 3, 2018. Acknowledgment of Receipt [15]. Cooper has not
objected to the Report and Recommendation, and the time for doing so has passed.
II. DISCUSSION
Where no party has objected to a magistrate judge’s proposed findings of fact
and recommendation, the Court need not conduct a de novo review of it. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1) (“A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions
of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection
is made.”). In such cases, the Court applies the “clearly erroneous, abuse of
discretion and contrary to law” standard of review. United States v. Wilson, 864

4

F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989). Having conducted the required review, the Court
concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s findings are not clearly erroneous, nor are
they an abuse of discretion or contrary to law. The Court will adopt the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation [14] as the opinion of this Court.
III. CONCLUSION
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation [14], entered in this case on February 1, 2018,
is adopted in its entirety as the finding of this Court.
IT IS, FURTHER, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, the decision of the
Commissioner is AFFIRMED, and Plaintiff Phillip D. Cooper’s claim is
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. A separate judgment will be entered in
accordance with this Order, as required by Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, this the 2nd day of March, 2018.

s/ Halil Suleyman Ozerden
HALIL SULEYMAN OZERDEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5