Heath v. Commissioner of Social Security
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 21 of Magistrate Judge Charles Goodwin for substantially the reasons stated in the report and recommendation and the judgment of the Commissioner is affirmed. Signed by Honorable Joe Heaton on 04/10/2018. (lam)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
TAMMIE ARLENE HEATH,
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
Acting Commissioner of Social
Plaintiff Tammie Arlene Heath brings this action for judicial review of the Social
Security Administration’s denial of her application for disability insurance benefits. The
matter was referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge Charles Goodwin for initial proceedings
consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (b)(3), and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). Judge Goodwin
has submitted a Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) recommending that the
Commissioner’s decision be affirmed.
The parties were advised of their right to file an objection to the Report. Plaintiff
has filed an objection to two matters in the Report, triggering de novo review by the court
as to those issues.
Plaintiff applied for disability benefits and supplemental security income in 2014
based on several reported impairments, the most significant impairment being chronic pain
from degenerative disc disease. Her application for benefits was denied and she requested
a hearing before an ALJ. A hearing was held and the ALJ later issued a decision
unfavorable to plaintiff. The ALJ conducted the standard five-step analysis and concluded,
at step four, that plaintiff was capable of performing her past relevant work and was
therefore was not disabled. That determination was affirmed by the appeals council and
plaintiff then commenced this proceeding for judicial review.
Plaintiff’s objections to the Report are perfunctory and offer little beyond
disagreement with the Report’s conclusions. She continues to assert that the ALJ did not
give proper weight to the opinions of her treating or other physicians, but totally ignores
the Report’s conclusion that the medical information she relies on does not arise to the
status of a “medical opinion” within the meaning of the applicable rule. She asserts that
the ALJ “failed to consider the complexity and the lengths of her medical treatments ….”
To the contrary, the ALJ’s opinion reflects substantial discussion and analysis of the nature
of her medical treatments.
Plaintiff also objects to the Report’s conclusion that the ALJ made a sufficient
credibility assessment and explanation. Specifically, she asserts the conclusion was wrong
because the ALJ did not discredit her assessment that she was never pain-free. But the ALJ
did not purport to conclude that plaintiff was actually pain-free and there was no need for
him to do so. Rather, the ALJ simply concluded the plaintiff’s subjective assessments of
her pain were inconsistent with the medical evidence and explained the basis for that
Plaintiff also objects to the ALJ’s reference to the inconsistency between plaintiff’s
admitted ability to drive for 90 minutes with her claimed inability to sit for 30 minutes
without having to switch positions, noting that the actual number she testified to was 75
not 90. But as plaintiff’s objection acknowledges, that difference is “minor in nature” and
does not undercut what is otherwise a sufficient credibility assessment. “Credibility
determinations are peculiarly the province of the finder of fact, and [courts] will not upset
such determinations when they are supported by substantial evidence.” Wilson v. Astrue,
602 F.3d 1136, 1144 (10th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kepler v. Chater, 68 F.3d 387, 391 (10th
Cir. 1995)). Substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s determination is present here.
For substantially the reasons stated in the Report, the Report [Doc. #21] is
ADOPTED and the judgment of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 10th day of April, 2018.
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?