Prunty v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner

Filing 54

ORDER granting 46 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying plaintiff's 48 Motion for Summary Judgment; adopting Report and Recommendations re 51 Report and Recommendations.The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED;This case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by District Judge Harry S Mattice, Jr on 12/11/2014. (SAC, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
at CHATTANOOGA
BRIAN PRUNTY,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, )
)
Defendant.
)
)

Case No. 1:09-cv-286
Judge Mattice
Magistrate Judge Carter

ORDER
On August 14, 2014, United States Magistrate Judge William B. Carter filed his
Report and Recommendation (Doc. 51) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). Magistrate Judge Carter recommended that (1) Plaintiff’s
Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 48) be denied; (2) Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment (Doc. 46) be granted; (3) the Decision of the Commissioner be
affirmed; and (4) this action be dismissed.
Plaintiff has filed lengthy objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation, and the Commissioner has filed a Response in opposition to those
objections. The majority of Plaintiff’s objections reiterate the arguments raised in his
Motion for Summary Judgment, specifically, that the ALJ failed to fully develop the
record before denying his claim for benefits on May 31, 2007, that the Appeals Council
erred in failing to remand the claim to the ALJ after Plaintiff submitted new evidence,
and that the ALJ’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence when the new
evidence submitted to the Appeals Council is also considered. (Compare Doc. 48 with
Doc. 52). Plaintiff also argues extensively regarding the applicability of the good cause

standard for submitting new evidence to his case.

(Doc. 52).

The remainder of

Plaintiff’s objections overlaps substantively with the above-described objections. (Id.).
After reviewing the Report and Recommendation as well as the record, the Court
finds that Magistrate Judge Carter’s Report and Recommendation sufficiently addresses
each of Plaintiff’s arguments.

The Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Carter’s

conclusion that the ALJ adequately developed the record in Plaintiff’s case. The Court
also agrees that Dr. Wilson’s August 2007 report on Plaintiff’s heart condition was not
material to the ALJ’s consideration of Plaintiff’s claim for benefits on May 31, 2007,
especially in light of evidence that Plaintiffs heart condition was worsening. Since the
evidence that Plaintiff submitted to the Appeals Council was not material to the ultimate
determination of his claim, the Council did not err in failing to remand Plaintiff’s claim
for benefits, and the ALJ’s decision to deny benefits was based on substantial evidence
in the record. Additionally, because this evidence was not material to the denied claim,
whether Plaintiff had good cause for failing to present this evidence to the ALJ – and
whether the good cause standard from the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit applies to Plaintiff’s case – is irrelevant to the instant matter. Thus,
after its own review, the Court agrees with the well-reasoned conclusions reached in the
Report and Recommendation and will accept and adopt them as its own.

2

Accordingly:


The Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Carter’s findings of
fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations pursuant to § 636(b)(1)
and Rule 72(b);



Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 48) is DENIED;



Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 46) is GRANTED;



The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED;



This case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

SO ORDERED this 11th day of December, 2014.

/s/ Harry S. Mattice, Jr._______
HARRY S. MATTICE, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3