Stevenson v. Astrue

Filing 28

ORDER denying 16 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 19 Motion to Affirm; adopting 22 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Honorable David C. Bramlette, III on 3/31/2014 (ECW)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
WESTERN DIVISION
LARRY STEVENSON

PLAINTIFF

VS.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:12-cv-117(DCB)(MTP)

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE 1
Commissioner of Social Security Administration

DEFENDANT

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This cause is before the Court pursuant to the plaintiff’s
motion for summary judgment (docket entry 16); the defendant’s
motion to affirm the Commissioner’s decision (docket entry 19); and
the Report and Recommendation (docket entry 22) of United States
Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker, which recommends that the
Commissioner’s decision be affirmed.

Having carefully considered

the pleadings and the applicable law, and being fully advised in
the premises, the Court finds that the Report and Recommendation of
the Magistrate Judge should be adopted for the reasons herein set
forth.
On

May

5,

2009,

the

plaintiff

applied

for

supplemental

security income (“SSI”) payments under Title XVI of the Social
Security Act.

The claim was initially denied on October 13, 2009.

The plaintiff requested reconsideration, and the claim was again
denied on December 30, 2009.

The plaintiff then requested a

hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). ALJ Wallace E.
1

Effective February 14, 2013, Carolyn W. Colvin became the
acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration.

Weakley held a hearing on December 2, 2010, and heard testimony
from the plaintiff and Joe Hargett, a vocational expert.

On

December 21, 2010, the ALJ rendered his decision that the plaintiff
was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act.
The plaintiff requested review by the Appeals Council which denied
the request on June 21, 2012, finding no basis for changing the
decision of the ALJ.
Court

on

August

The plaintiff filed his complaint in this

20,

2012,

seeking

an

order

reversing

the

Commissioner’s final decision.
In his Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Parker sets
forth the ALJ’s analysis of the plaintiff’s case (Report and
Recommendation, pp. 7-10).

He then finds that the Commissioner’s

decision that the plaintiff is not entitled to SSI is supported by
substantial evidence, and recommends that the Commissioner’s motion
to affirm be granted, and that the plaintiff’s motion for summary
judgment be denied.
When a magistrate judge issues recommendations regarding a
dispositive

matter,

objections

thereto

are

reviewed

de

novo.

However, on an appeal from a decision of an administrative law
judge, a reviewing court limits itself to two questions: “(1)
whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support the
decision” and “(2) whether the decision comports with relevant
legal standards.”
1996).

Brock v. Chater, 84 F.3d 726, 728 (5th Cir.

“Conflicts in the evidence are to be resolved by the

2

Commissioner, not the courts.” Oddo v. Astrue, 2010 WL 3937627, at
*1 (S.D. Miss. Oct. 4, 2010).

Therefore, although the magistrate

judge’s conclusions should be reviewed with no deference, the
district court is obligated to afford the administrative law
judge’s decision with the same deference as did the magistrate
judge.
The plaintiff complains that the ALJ committed error in
finding that the plaintiff’s testimony supported the ALJ’s decision
to

reject

the

findings

of

the

treating

physician.

He

also

complains that the ALJ’s decision rejected the treating physician’s
findings without providing contrary medical evidence or a contrary
medical opinion. However, the Court finds that the ALJ applied the
correct legal standard, and that substantial evidence exists to
support his findings.

The ALJ found that the plaintiff retained

the capacity to perform light work, and that his statements
concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of his
symptoms were not credible to the extent they were inconsistent
with his Residual Functional Capacity (“RFC”) assessment.

The ALJ

also stated specific reasons for discounting the opinion of the
plaintiff’s treating physician, Dr. Nimo. The issue of whether the
plaintiff is disabled or unable to work is reserved solely for the
Commissioner. A statement by a treating doctor that a plaintiff is
disabled or cannot work is not a controlling medical opinion, but
is instead an opinion on ultimate issues, such as disability

3

status, that are reserved to the ALJ.

Claiborne v. Astrue, 225

F.Appx. 854, 857 (5th Cir. 2007); Magee v. Astrue, 2010 WL 6369942,
at *6 (S.D. Miss. Oct. 14, 2010).

Furthermore, an ALJ is free to

reject the opinion of a physician when the evidence supports a
contrary conclusion.

Oldham v. Schweiker, 660 F.2d 1078, 1084 (5th

Cir. 1981).
The plaintiff complains that no contrary opinion by a treating
or examining physician was provided to refute Dr. Nimo’s findings.
However, case law does not require specific contrary medical
evidence, but rather provides that an ALJ may not impermissibly
rely on his or her own unsupported medical opinions.

Ripley v.

Chater, 67 F.3d 552, 557 (5th Cir. 1996). Here, the ALJ stated that
he gave little weight to Dr. Nimo’s opinion, not relying on his own
unsupported medical opinion, but relying on the opinions of two
other physicians, Dr. Brent and Dr. James.

An ALJ may find good

cause for rejecting a treating physician’s opinions when those
opinions

are

brief,

conclusory,

or

accepted diagnostic testing results.

unsupported

by

medically

As found by Magistrate Judge

Parker, here the ALJ showed good cause for rejecting Dr. Nimo’s
opinion, and relied on the opinions of the two non-treating
physicians in conformity with the regulations as set forth in 20
C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).
The ALJ also found that a significant number of occupations
remained available to the plaintiff, in line with the testimony of

4

the vocational expert and the medical record as a whole.

The

plaintiff also objects that the ALJ erred by improperly refusing to
give controlling weight to the treating physician’s opinion without
recontacting

the

physician

for

clarification

of

his

opinion.

However, it is not necessary to recall the treating physician under
20 C.F.R. § 404.1512(e)(1) unless the evidence received from the
treating physician is inadequate for the ALJ to determine if the
applicant is disabled (not the case here).
The Court finds that the plaintiff is not entitled to SSI
under the Social Security Act, and further finds that the ALJ’s
decision is supported by substantial evidence and utilizes correct
legal standards.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation
(docket entry 22) of Magistrate Judge Parker is adopted as the
Order of this Court;
FURTHER ORDERED that the findings of fact and conclusions of
law contained therein are adopted as the findings of fact and
conclusions of law of this Court;
FURTHER ORDERED that the Commissioner’s motion to affirm
(docket entry 19) is GRANTED, and the denial of the plaintiff’s SSI
is affirmed;
FURTHER

ORDERED

that

the

plaintiff’s

judgment (docket entry 16) is DENIED.
5

motion

for

summary

FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED.
A Final Judgment dismissing this case with prejudice shall be
entered this day.
SO ORDERED, this the 31st day of March, 2014.

/s/ David Bramlette
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6