Cates v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of

Filing 17

ORDER denying 10 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; granting 12 Motion for Summary Judgment; adopting 15 Report and Recommendations. The Clerk shall close the case.. Signed by District Judge Harry S Mattice, Jr on September 15, 2011. (CNH, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
at WINCHESTER
IVY L. CATES,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:10-cv-00049
Judge Mattice
Magistrate Judge Lee

ORDER
United States Magistrate Judge Susan K. Lee filed her Report and
Recommendation [Court Doc. 15] pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 72(b). Plaintiff has timely raised two objections. [Court Doc. 16]. The Court
has reviewed de novo those portions of Magistrate Judge Lee’s Report and
Recommendation to which Plaintiff has objected. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
Plaintiff’s first argument – that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) improperly
credited the opinion of a physician who failed to consider Plaintiff’s pain when analyzing
her residual functional capacity – is simply a restatement of an issue she previously raised
in support of her Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record. (See Court Doc. 11
at 9; Court Doc. 16 at 5). Magistrate Judge Lee fully addressed Plaintiff’s argument in her
Report and Recommendation. (Court Doc. 15 at 17-18). Further analysis would be
cumulative and is unwarranted in light of Magistrate Judge Lee’s well-supported Report
and Recommendation. Consequently, the Court will OVERRULE Plaintiff’s first objection.
Plaintiff next argues that the ALJ erred by failing to re-contact Dr. Parker (i.e.,
Plaintiff’s treating physician) in light of the conflict between his opinion that Plaintiff was

disabled and his most recent treatment notes recording Plaintiff’s significant physical
improvement. (Court Doc. 16 at 8). Plaintiff’s objection is largely duplicative of her earlier
arguments, but in part, it seeks to distinguish the instant case from Poe v. Comm’r of Soc.
Sec., 342 F. App’x 149 (6th Cir. 2009), to which Magistrate Judge Lee cited when finding
that the ALJ properly afforded little weight to Dr. Parker’s opinion. (See Court Doc. 15 at
16; Court Doc. 16 at 9). The distinction Plaintiff attempts to draw – based on the nature
of Dr. Parker’s practice and the unavailability of other treating physicians – does not
address the substance of Magistrate Judge Lee’s conclusions that: (1) the regulations
require an ALJ to re-contact a treating physician to resolve conflicts or ambiguities “only
where the evidence received from the [treating physician] does not provide an adequate
basis for determining whether to credit the opinion,” and (2) the disparity between Dr.
Parker’s opinion and his own most recent treatment notes is not the sort of “conflict or
ambiguity” the regulations contemplate. (Court Doc. 15 at 16 (citing Poe, 342 F. App’x at
156 n.3)). The remainder of Plaintiff’s objection merely reiterates arguments she made
in support of her Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record. The Court will
therefore OVERRULE Plaintiff’s second objection.
Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Lee’s findings of
fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations pursuant to § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b).
Plaintiff’s objections [Court Doc. 16] are OVERRULED. Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on
the Administrative Record [Court Doc. 10] is DENIED. Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment [Court Doc. 12] is GRANTED. The Commissioner’s denial of benefits is
AFFIRMED and the instant action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk shall

-2-

close the case.
SO ORDERED this 15th day of September, 2011.

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

-3-