Endriss v. Astrue
Filing
27
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 24 Report and Recommendation. Signed by Honorable Tim Leonard on 03/19/12. (jy)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
MISTY M. ENDRISS,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CIV-10-1401-L
ORDER
On January 19, 2012, Magistrate Judge Gary M. Purcell entered a Report
and Recommendation in this action brought by plaintiff pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§405(g) for judicial review of the defendant Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration’s (Commissioner’s) final decision denying plaintiff’s application
for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42
U.S.C. §§ 416(i), 423. The Magistrate Judge recommended that the
Commissioner’s decision be affirmed.
The court file reflects that plaintiff timely filed her Objections to the
Magistrate's Report and Recommendation, which the court has carefully
considered. Upon review, the court finds that plaintiff's objections are
insufficient to justify overturning the conclusions of the Magistrate Judge in this
instance. Plaintiff attaches much significance to the Magistrate Judge's
statement on page 6 of the Report and Recommendation that the ALJ “must
determine what weight, if any, should be given to the opinion by considering
such factors as: [quoting factors set forth by the Tenth Circuit in Watkins v.
Barnhart, 350 F.3d 1297, 1301 (10th Cir. 2003)].” Plaintiff argues that the
Magistrate Judge's choice of wording improperly implies that the factors listed
are “merely examples” of the factors that might be considered, whereas
Watkins makes clear that “all of the factors must be considered.” Plaintiff's
Objections, Doc. No. 26, pp. 5-6. In rejecting plaintiff's argument in this regard,
the court finds that Watkins' admonition that treating source medical opinions
“must be weighed using all of the factors” indicates a level of flexibility
depending upon the factors in a given case and that the Magistrate's use of the
phrase “such as” when listing the factors cannot reasonably be taken as
evidence that the Magistrate misunderstood Watkins or meant to suggest that
“all of the factors” should not be weighed. The Magistrate Judge was correct in
concluding that the ALJ provided adequate reasons for his evaluation of the
opinions of treating physicians.
The court has reviewed plaintiff’s remaining objections as they relate to
alleged errors in the Report and Recommendation. The court finds that
plaintiff’s arguments were correctly analyzed under proper legal standards and
the findings in the Report and Recommendation are supported by the record.
2
Thus, upon de novo review, the court finds that the the Report and
Recommendation should be and is hereby adopted in its entirety. Accordingly,
the decision of the Commissioner to deny plaintiff’s application for disability
insurance benefits is AFFIRMED.
It is so ordered this 19th day of March, 2012.
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?