McNeill v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 26

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 23 Report and Recommendation. Decision of Commissioner is affirmed. Signed by Honorable Tim Leonard on 03/24/16. (jy)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
ANDREA MCNEILL,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

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

Case No. CIV-15-61-L

ORDER
On March 16, 2016, Magistrate Judge Bernard M. Jones entered a Report
and Recommendation in this action brought by plaintiff Andrea McNeill seeking
judicial review of the defendant Acting Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration’s (Commissioner’s) final decision denying plaintiff’s application for
disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits under the
Social Security Act. The Magistrate Judge recommended that the
Commissioner’s decision be affirmed.
The court file reflects that plaintiff timely filed her Objection to Magistrate’s
Report and Recommendation, which the court has carefully considered. The
Commissioner filed a Response to Plaintiff’s Objections, which have also been
considered by the court. Upon review, the court finds that plaintiff's objections
are insufficient to justify overturning the conclusions of the Magistrate Judge in
this matter.

Tracking plaintiff’s objections, the court first concludes that the Magistrate
Judge correctly found that no error occurred with regard to the ALJ’s
considerations of the opinions of nurse practitioner Sue Rollins. To the extent the
ALJ did err in failing to address the GAF scores, the error was properly found to
be harmless because, as stated by the Magistrate Judge, “[t]he ALJ properly
relied on the entire medical record in determining Plaintiff is not disabled.” Report
and Recommendation, Doc. No. 23, p. 9.
Second, the court rejects plaintiff’s argument that the Magistrate engaged
in improper post-hoc justification or rationalization of the ALJ’s findings at step
three. The Magistrate Judge correctly found that the ALJ did not err at step three
of the sequential evaluation, specifically finding that “the ALJ considered
Plaintiff’s physical and mental impairments, both singly and in combination, to
determine whether the severity of Plaintiff’s impairments met or medically
equaled a listed impairment.” Id., p. 10.
Third, the Magistrate Judge correctly determined that the Appeals Council did
not err in failing to consider evidence (opinions from Dr. Horn) which post-dated the
ALJ’s decision. The Magistrate Judge appropriately found that no error occurred
with respect to the Appeals Council’s consideration of additional evidence because
the new evidence plaintiff submitted would not have changed the ALJ’s decision.
As noted in the Commissioner’s response brief, the Magistrate Judge found: “(1) the
reasons provided by the ALJ for rejecting Nurse Rollins’ opinion would apply with

2

equal weight to Dr. Horn’s opinions; (2) other medical source opinions contradicted
Dr. Horn’s opinion, including the opinion from examining physician Dr. Poyner; and
(3) no statute or regulation requires the Appeals Council to provide an extensive
analysis where new evidence is submitted and the Appeals Council denies review;
instead, it is sufficient for the Appeals Council to state that it had considered the
evidence as the Appeals Council did here.” Doc. No. 25, p. 4, citing Report and
Recommendation, Doc. No. 23 at pp. 4-7.
Upon review of plaintiff’s objections and the Commissioner’s response brief,
the court finds that plaintiff’s arguments are ultimately insufficient to justify
overturning the conclusions of the Magistrate Judge in this matter. 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 applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental
security income benefits is AFFIRMED.
It is so ordered this 24th day of March, 2016.

3