Brown v. Colvin

Filing 19

ORDER denying 11 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 13 Motion to Affirm; adopting 16 Report and Recommendations. Signed by District Judge Carlton W. Reeves on 09/24/2015 (EJ)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION
RICKIE BROWN

PLAINTIFF

V.

CAUSE NO. 3:14-CV-201-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. 16. 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). The Court finds that remand is not warranted. Plaintiff contends
that the ALJ erred in finding he did not meet the requirements of Listing 12.05(C). Although the
ALJ’s finding that the plaintiff’s IQ scores were invalid was improper based on the evidence, this
error alone is not sufficient for remand because Listing 12.05(C) also requires a “physical or
other mental impairment imposing an additional and significant work-related limitation of
function.” The ALJ properly applied the severity standard outlined in Stone v. Heckler regarding
plaintiff’s depression and spondylosis. 752 F.2d 1099, 1101 (5th Cir. 1985). There is substantial
evidence in the record to support the ALJ’s conclusion that neither impairment is severe and
therefore plaintiff did not satisfy the second requirement of Listing 12.05(C).
Further, pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 416.945, the ALJ can consider plaintiff’s testimony
regarding his back pain and medication side effects to assist in the determination of plaintiff’s
residual functional capacity (RFC). The conclusion that these statements as well as other

evidence in the record supported a reduced capacity for work-related activity does not contradict
the ALJ’s finding that plaintiff’s spondylosis is non-severe.
Accordingly, this Court adopts the R&R’s findings and conclusions as its own, grants the
Commissioner’s motion to affirm, and denies the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. A
separate Final Judgment will issue this day.
SO ORDERED, this the 24th day of September, 2015.

s/ Carlton W. Reeves
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2