Fuller v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 24

ORDER RULING ON R&R accepting 17 Report and Recommendation and overruling the plaintiff's objections 19 . Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 2/25/13. (jsmi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION
Patsy J.W. Fuller,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Michael J. Astrue as Commissioner
)
of the Social Security Administration,
)
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________________ )

Civil Action No.: 8:11-02854-TLW

ORDER
The plaintiff, Patsy J.W. Fuller (“plaintiff”), brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
405(g) to obtain judicial review of a final decision of the defendant, Commissioner of Social Security
(“Commissioner” or “defendant”), denying her claims for disability insurance benefits. This matter
is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“the Report”) filed by United
States Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin, to whom this case had previously been assigned
pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), DSC. In
the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Commissioner’s decision be affirmed. (Doc.
# 17). The plaintiff filed objections to the Report. (Doc. # 19). In conducting this review, the Court
applies the following standard:
The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the Court, to which any party
may file written objections . . . . The Court is not bound by the recommendation of
the magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the final determination.
The Court is required to make a de novo determination of those portions of the report
or specified findings or recommendation as to which an objection is made. However,
the Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual
or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the report and
1

recommendation to which no objections are addressed. While the level of scrutiny
entailed by the Court’s review of the Report thus depends on whether or not
objections have been filed, in either case, the Court is free, after review, to accept,
reject, or modify any of the magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations.
Wallace v. Housing Auth. of the City of Columbia, 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992)
(citations omitted).
The Court has carefully reviewed, de novo, the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation. It is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report is ACCEPTED
(Doc. # 17) and that the plaintiff’s objections (Doc. # 19) are OVERRULED.1 For the reasons
articulated by the Magistrate Judge, the Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Terry L. Wooten
United States District Judge
February 25, 2013
Columbia, South Carolina

1

In his objections, the plaintiff asserts the ALJ did not properly consider the opinion of Dr.
Worsham and gave improper significance to the state agency’s findings. Under SSR 96-2p,
“[a]djudicators must remember that a finding that a treating source medical opinion is not
well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques or is
inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record means only that the opinion is not
entitled to ‘controlling weight,’ not that the opinion should be rejected.” Even if not given
controlling weight, an opinion must be weighed using the factors outlined in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527
and 416.927. See SSR 96-2p. In discussing Dr. Worsham’s opinion, the ALJ provides a thorough
explanation consistent with 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 and 416.927 of why Dr. Worsham’s opinion is
not controlling. See Tr. 28; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). As a result, the Court does not find that the
ALJ improperly applies SSR 96-2p. In addition, the ALJ’s discussion properly explains the weight
given to the state agency’s findings. See Tr. 28; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(2)(ii).
2