Wortman v. Astrue

Filing 20

ORDER ADOPTING 18 Report and Recommendation. The decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration denying benefits is AFFIRMED. Signed by Honorable Stephen P. Friot on 8/8/11. (llg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
MARY J. WORTMAN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-10-1031-F

ORDER
Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial
review of Defendant Commissioner’s final decision denying plaintiff’s application for
disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act.

The Report and

Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Bana Roberts (doc. no. 18) affirms the decision
of the Commissioner denying benefits. Plaintiff objects to the Report (doc. no. 19)
and her objections are reviewed de novo. See, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (court makes
a de novo determination of those portions of the report to which objection is made).
Plaintiff’s objections state that she disagrees with “everything” in the Report
but she makes only one specific argument. Plaintiff directs the court’s attention to
what she contends are the Magistrate Judge’s flawed conclusions regarding the
Administrative Law Judge’s rejection of the opinion of Dr. Gary Rouse, Ph.D., who
plaintiff characterizes as plaintiff’s treating physician. Plaintiff argues that the
Magistrate Judge and the ALJ violated the “treating physician rule” based on the
manner in which they evaluated, and ultimately rejected, Dr. Rouse’s opinions.
As set out in the Report, the treating physician rule provides that the
Commissioner will generally give more weight to medical opinions from treating

sources than to those from non-treating sources; in some circumstances, which
plaintiff argues apply here, such opinions are entitled to controlling weight.
For appropriate reasons set out in the Report, the Magistrate Judge did not
conclude that Dr. Rouse was plaintiff’s treating physician. Rather, the Magistrate
Judge simply analyzed the question of whether Dr. Rouse’s opinions were entitled to
treatment under the treating physician rule “assuming arguendo,” that Dr. Rouse is
considered to be a treating physician. In any event, the court agrees with the
Magistrate Judge’s analysis and conclusions, and finds no error with respect to the
ALJ’s handling of Dr. Rouse’s opinions or the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions on this
subject.
The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Roberts is ACCEPTED,
ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. The decision of the Commissioner of the Social
Security Administration denying benefits is AFFIRMED.
Dated this 8th day of August, 2011.

10-1031p002.wpd

-2-