Brown v. Astrue

Filing 18

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 16 of Magistrate Judge Gary Purcell and the court agrees with the analysis and conclusions and affirms the Commissioner's decision. Signed by Honorable Joe Heaton on 03/07/2014. (lam)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
CHANDLER E. BROWN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of the Social,
Security Administration,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. CIV-12-1272-HE

ORDER
Plaintiff Chandler E. Brown filed this action seeking judicial review of the final
decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration denying his application
for supplemental security income benefits. Consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), the
case was referred to Magistrate Judge Gary M. Purcell, who recommends that the
Commissioner’s decision be affirmed.
Plaintiff filed his application for benefits in April 2009. When it was denied initially
and on reconsideration, he requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”).
After a hearing, the ALJ found that plaintiff was not disabled before he became eighteen and
since was capable of performing a full range of work with certain nonexertional limitations.
The Appeals Council denied plaintiff’s request for review, so the ALJ’s decision became the
final decision of the Commissioner.
Plaintiff has multiple objections to the Report and Recommendation. His principal
argument is that the magistrate judge made post hoc arguments to support the ALJ’s decision
and improperly applied a harmless error analysis to deficiencies in the ALJ’s statement of

his reasoning supporting certain determinations.
The magistrate judge recognized that the ALR’s analysis was flawed in certain
respects, but concluded that it sufficed, “‘based on a reading of the ALJ’s decision as a
whole.’” Doc. #16, p. 6 (quoting Fischer-Ross v. Barnhart, 431 F.3d 729, 730 (10th Cir.
2005)). Having conducted a de novo review of plaintiff’s objections, including a review of
the record and medical evidence, the court agrees with the magistrate judge’s analysis and
conclusions.
Accordingly, the court adopts Magistrate Judge Purcell’s Report and
Recommendation. The Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 7th day of March, 2014.

2