Lewis v. Colvin

Filing 15

ORDER Granting 10 Motion to Affirm; adopting 13 Report and Recommendations. Signed by District Judge Carlton W. Reeves on 09/08/2015 (an)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPI
NORTHERN DIVISION
ROGER LEWIS

PLAINTIFF

V.

CAUSE NO. 3:14-cv-137-CWR-LRA

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner
United States Social Security Administration

DEFENDANT

ORDER

Before the Court is the plaintiff’s objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation (R&R). Docket No. 14. The R&R recommends affirming the
Commissioner’s denial of Supplemental Security Income. Docket No. 13.
The Court has reviewed de novo the portions of the R&R to which the plaintiff has
objected. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). It finds that remand is not warranted. Substantial evidence
supports the Commissioner’s decision. Audler v. Astrue, 501 F.3d 445, 447 (5th Cir. 2007).
First, the claimant bears the burden to show that the impairment complained of is severe. Hames
v. Heckler, 707 F.2d 162, 165 (5th Cir. 1983). The presence of an impairment alone is not
disabling. Id. While Lewis’ medical records indicated that he was “glaucoma suspect,” Lewis
was never diagnosed with glaucoma, Lewis’ uncorrected vision was 20/20, and the record did
not contain any evidence showing that Lewis’ blurred vision was severe. Docket No. 13, at 5.
The record was sufficient to determine that Lewis did not suffer from a visual impairment, thus
the ALJ fulfilled her duty in developing a full and fair record.
Second, although the ALJ would have ideally identified any listing she considered in
reaching her determination, the Fifth Circuit has found that not doing so is harmless error as long
as the claimant’s substantial rights are not affected. Audler, 501 F.3d at 448. Here, the ALJ

considered the cumulative effect of Lewis’ obesity, thus her failure to reject all listings in this
case was harmless error. Docket No. 13, at 7.
Third, while an ALJ should typically request a medical source treatment to determine a
claimant’s residual functional capacity, the Fifth Circuit has found that the record is not
incomplete in the absence of such request. Ripley v. Chater, 67 F.3d 552, 557 (5th Cir. 1995).
The ALJ’s reliance on the vocational expert’s testimony satisfied the most critical issue of
whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination. See Fields v. Bowen, 805 F.2d
1168, 1170-71 (5th Cir. 1986).
Fourth, the Appeals Council did not err in not considering Lewis’ treating physician’s
opinion. Lewis’ treating physician’s opinion was not material because it did not relate to the time
period for which Lewis’ benefits were denied. See Haywood v. Sullivan, 888 F.2d 1463, 1471-2
(5th Cir. 1989) (citation omitted).
Accordingly, this Court adopts the R&R findings and conclusions as its own, and grants
the Commissioner’s motion to affirm.
A Final Judgment will issue this day.
SO ORDERED, this the 8th day of September, 2015.

s/ Carlton W. Reeves
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE