Martin v. Commissioner Social Security Administration
Filing
21
Memorandum of Opinion and Order: This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge George J. Limbert (Doc. 18 ), recommending that the decision of the Commissioner be AFFIRMED. Plaintiff has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. The Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED and the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED. Judge Patricia A. Gaughan on 11/30/16. (LC,S)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
James Martin, Sr.,
Plaintiff,
Vs.
Carolyn W. Colvin,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 5:16 CV 674
JUDGE PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN
Memorandum of Opinion and Order
INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate
Judge George J. Limbert (Doc. 18), recommending that the decision of the Commissioner be
AFFIRMED. Plaintiff has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. For the reasons
that follow, the Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED and the decision of the
Commissioner is AFFIRMED.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
When objections are made to a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the
district court reviews the case de novo. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) provides in
1
pertinent part:
The district judge to whom the case is assigned shall make a de
novo determination upon the record, or after additional evidence,
of any portion of the magistrate judge’s disposition to which
specific written objection has been made in accordance with this
rule. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the
recommended decision, receive further evidence, or recommit the
matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.
As stated in the Advisory Committee Notes, “The term ‘de novo’ signifies the
magistrate’s findings are not protected by the clearly erroneous doctrine, but does not indicate
that a second evidentiary hearing is required.” citing United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667
(1980).
ANALYSIS
The relevant medical evidence is thoroughly set forth by the Magistrate Judge in the
Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) and need not be restated herein. Plaintiff objects to the
Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that the ALJ did not err in applying the treating physician rule.
For the following reasons, the objection is not well-taken.
According to plaintiff, the ALJ failed to properly weigh the opinion of Dr. Dorman.
Plaintiff claims that the evidence the ALJ relied on is insufficient to discount the opinion of this
treating physician. As the government points out, however, the ALJ specifically cited evidence
disclosing normal findings regarding plaintiff’s back. Although plaintiff complained of back
pain, the medical findings were normal and showed full lumbar and cervical range of motion and
full extremity of strength. In addition, the ALJ relied on treatment notes from Dr. Ali, which
2
were consistent with Dr. Dorman’s examination findings.1 In all, the Court finds that the ALJ
properly applied the treating physician rule and plaintiff’s objection to the contrary is not welltaken.
CONCLUSION
Having considered the Objections and upon review, this Court agrees with the
determinations of the Magistrate Judge and, therefore, his findings are hereby incorporated by
reference. The Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED. The final decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Patricia A. Gaughan
PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN
United States District Judge
Dated: 11/30/16
1
The Court further rejects plaintiff’s argument that the ALJ erred by
noting that Dr. Dorman’s opinion was inconsistent with a later
opinion she authored. The Court simply finds no error in this
regard in that the opinions were in fact inconsistent.
3
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?