Potts v. Colvin
Filing
26
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - denying 15 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 19 Motion for Summary Judgment. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Signed by Judge Donald W. Molloy on 7/30/2014. (APP, )
FILED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
MISSOULA DIVISION
JUl 3 a2014
CIer!<.l!.S District Court
Oistrict.o'Montana
MiSSOula
CV 13-114-M-DWM-JCL
ERIC S. POTTS,
Plaintiff,
ORDER
vs.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
I.
Status
This matter began with the filing of a Complaint by Plaintiff Eric S. Potts
seeking judicial review of a decision of the Commissioner of Social Security.
(Doc. 3.) This Court has jurisdiction to hear the Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g). Because of the nature of this action, it was referred upon filing to
United States Magistrate Judge Jeremiah C. Lynch. See L.R. 72.2(a)(I). A
briefing schedule was set. (Doc. 9.) Plaintiff Potts filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment. (Doc. 15.) The United States filed a Motion for Summary Judgment.
(Doc. 19.) After briefing was completed on the motions, Judge Lynch entered the
proposed Findings and Recommendations now before the Court. (Doc. 22.)
-1
II.
Standard of Review
The portions of Judge Lynch's proposed Findings and Recommendations to
which any party objects are reviewed de novo, otherwise the report is reviewed for
clear error. When proposed findings and recommendations are met with objection,
the Court reviews the relevant portions of the United States Magistrate Judge's
report de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). When no party objects, the Court reviews the
report for clear error. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc.,
656 F .2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). Clear error is present only if the Court is left
with a "definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." United
States v. Syrax, 235 F.3d 422,427 (9th Cir. 2000).
III.
Analysis
After reviewing the parties' submissions on the pending Motions for
Summary Judgment, Judge Lynch concluded that the Commissioner's Motion
should be granted and the Plaintiff s Motion denied. The Plaintiff timely filed
objections to Judge Lynch's findings and recommendations. Potts claims that
Judge Lynch erred because the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in the
administrative proceedings before the Social Security Administration now under
review (a) failed to address all of his alleged severe impairments, (b) improperly
rej ected lay witness testimony, (c) improperly rej ected the opinions of treating and
-2
examining physicians, and (d) improperly rejected the Plaintiffs testimony in
reaching the conclusion that the Plaintiff is not disabled under the Social Security
Act, 42 U.S.C. § 301 et seq. Potts insists that the improperly considered testimony
should be treated as true, the ALJ decision should be vacated, and benefits should
be awarded.
A.
Plaintiff's Allegations of Severe Impairment
After de novo review of Judge Lynch's report, the parties' submissions, and
the transcript of record, the Court adopts Judge Lynch's findings regarding the
ALl's discussion of Potts' allegations of severe impairment. In his Objections, the
Plaintiff claims the ALJ impermissibly failed to consider his obesity as a severe
condition. (Doc. 23 at 4-5.) The Plaintiffs objection does not specifically rejoin
Judge Lynch's findings on this issue. Specifically, the Plaintiff does not rebut the
finding that there was no medical evidence or physician opinion addressing
obesity or any attendant functional limitation. The ALl's limited consideration of
this alleged impairment was1justified based on this fact alone. Furthennore, Potts
does not address Judge Lynch's finding that any error in treatment of alleged
obesity was harmless. Contrary to his assertion, functional limitations directly
attributable to Potts' obesity are not "borne out by the record." The ALJ did not
err in his analysis. Judge Lynch's findings and recommendation on this issue will
-3
be adopted.
B.
Lay Witness Testimony
After de novo review of Judge Lynch's report, the parties' submissions, and
the transcript of record, the Court adopts Judge Lynch's findings regarding the
treatment of lay witness testimony by the ALJ in the administrative proceedings
below. In his Objections, the Plaintiff claims the ALJ improperly considered the
testimony ofa lay witness, his wife, Ms. Romanelli. (Doc. 23 at 5-10.) The ALJ
discussed Romanelli's testimony and provided reasons for rejecting it or affording
it little weight. (See Tr. at 19,22-23.) The ALJ was only required to provide
germane reasons for rejecting these lay witness statements. Dodrill v. Shalala, 12
F.3d 915, 918-19 (9th Cir. 1993). The ALJ sufficiently addressed Romanelli's
testimony and provided germane reasons for the conclusions drawn from her
statements. Judge Lynch's findings and recommendation on this issue will be
adopted.
C.
Dr. Bechard's Opinions
After de novo review of Judge Lynch's report, the parties' submissions, and
the transcript of record, the Court adopts Judge Lynch's findings regarding the
consideration of the opinions of the treating physician, Dr. Bechard, by the ALJ in
the administrative proceedings below. In his Objections, the Plaintiff claims the
-4
ALJ improperly rejected Dr. Bechard's opinions because he claims those opinions
are entitled to controlling or at least great weight. (Doc. 23 at 10-12.) The
Plaintiff s statement of the law regarding the weight afforded a treating
physician's opinion is incorrect. "The ALJ may disregard the treating physician's
opinion whether or not the opinion is contradicted." Batson v. Comm. a/Soc.
Security Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Magallanes v.
Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 751 (9th Cir. 1989)). The ALJ provided specific and
legitimate reasons for discrediting Dr. Bechard's opinions. (See Tr. at 22.) Judge
Lynch's findings and recommendations on this issue will be adopted.
D.
Plaintiff's Testimony
After de novo review of Judge Lynch's report, the parties' submissions, and
the transcript of record, the Court adopts Judge Lynch's findings regarding the
consideration of the Plaintiff s testimony by the ALJ in the administrative
proceedings below. In his Objections, the Plaintiff claims the rationale set forth
by the ALJ for finding his testimony lacked credibility was not sufficient. (Doc.
23 at 12-14.) The Plaintiffs argument does not specifically rejoin the findings set
forth in Judge Lynch's report. The ALJ provided sufficiently clear and convincing
reasons for finding the Plaintiff s testimony only partly credible, and those reasons
were sufficiently tied to the specific testimony presented by the Plaintiff. (See Tr.
-5
at 19-21.) Judge Lynch properly concluded that the Court should not disturb the
credibility detetminations entered by the ALJ. Judge Lynch's report will be
adopted in-full on this point.
E.
Remaining Issues
No objection was lodged to any remaining portion of Judge Lynch's
proposed Findings and Recommendations. The portions of Judge Lynch's report
to which no party objects are free of clear error and will be adopted.
N.
Conclusion
Judge Lynch properly decided the pending Motions for Summary Judgment.
The ALJ decision below is supported by substantial evidence and is free of legal
error.
IT IS ORDERED that the proposed Findings and Recommendations for
disposition of this matter entered by United States Magistrate Judge Jeremiah C.
Lynch, (Doc. 25), are ADOPTED IN-FULL.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Eric S. Potts' Motion for
Summary Judgment, (Doc. 14), is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commissioner's Motion for Summary
Judgment, (Doc. 19), is GRANTED
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED
-6
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in favor
of the Commissioner and close this case.
DATED this ~day of July, 2014.
-7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?