Campbell v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 13

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 11 Report and Recommendation. Court concludes Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial evidence. Commissioner's decision is affirmed. Judgment will issue accordingly. Signed by Honorable Tim Leonard on 03/07/14. (jy)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

AGNES CAMPBELL,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
)
Commissioner, Social Security
)
Administration,
)
)
Defendant. )

No. CIV-13-358-L

ORDER
On April 12, 2013, plaintiff filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for
judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration denying her claim for disability insurance benefits under the Social
Security Act. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), this matter was referred to the
Honorable Gary M. Purcell for initial decision. On February 11, 2014, Judge Purcell
issued his Report and Recommendation, recommending that the Commissioner’s
decision be affirmed.
This matter is before the court on plaintiff’s timely filed objection to the Report
and Recommendation. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the court must “make a de
novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made.” In her objection, plaintiff contends

1

the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) failed to apply the correct weight to the
opinions of her treating physician, Dr. John Ellis.
The court’s review of the Commissioner’s decision is limited to determining
“whether it is supported by substantial evidence and whether the [Commissioner]
applied the correct legal standard.” Washington v. Shalala, 37 F.3d 1437, 1439
(10th Cir. 1994). In making this determination, the court must closely examine the
record as whole. See Andrade v. Secretary of Health and Human Servs., 985 F.2d
1045, 1047 (10th Cir. 1993). “Substantial evidence is ‘such relevant evidence as
a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’ In addition
to a lack of substantial evidence, the [Commissioner’s] failure to apply the correct
legal standards, or to show us that she has done so, are also grounds for reversal.”
Winfrey v. Chater, 92 F.3d 1017, 1019 (10th Cir. 1996) (citations omitted).
In accordance with the governing standards, the court has reviewed the
Report and Recommendation, plaintiff’s objection thereto, and the case file. The
court finds the ALJ adequately supported her decision to apply no weight to the
opinions offered by Dr. Ellis. Although plaintiff is correct that “[a] claim for disability
benefits is not stagnant in time”,1it is plaintiff’s burden to establish that she “was
totally disabled”2 on or before the date last insured. Plaintiff, however, did not meet

1

Objection to Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge at 1 (Doc. No. 12).

2

Wilson v. Astrue, 602 F.3d 1136, 1139 (10th Cir. 2010).

2

her burden as of the date of the ALJ’s decision.3 Moreover, this is not a case where
the Commissioner’s decision “is overwhelmed by other evidence in the record or
where there is a mere scintilla of evidence supporting it.” Bernal v. Bowen, 851 F.2d
297, 299 (10th Cir. 1988).
In sum, the court concludes the Commissioner’s decision is supported by
substantial evidence.

The Commissioner’s decision is therefore AFFIRMED.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
It is so ordered this 7th day of March, 2014.

3

Plaintiff’s insured status expires on December 31, 2014. Administrative Record at 10. The
court, of course, expresses no opinion on whether plaintiff may be able to demonstrate she is
disabled before the expiration of her insured status.

3