Bentley v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
ORDER overruling objections and adopting 14 Report and Recommendation. Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 9/29/16. (tkd, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FRANCES E. BENTLEY,
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL
ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The Plaintiff requests judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social
Security Administration with respect to her application for disability-based benefits. This matter
has been referred to the Honorable Keith Giblin, United States Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont,
Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this court. The magistrate
judge submitted a report recommending that the decision of the Commissioner be affirmed. The
court has considered the report and recommendation filed on September 13, 2016 (Doc. No. 14)
and the Plaintiff=s objections (Doc. No. 15). The court has conducted a de novo review of the
objections in relation to the pleadings and the applicable law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). After
careful consideration, the court concludes that the Plaintiff=s objections are without merit.
Plaintiff objects to the magistrate judge’s determination that the ALJ properly found that
Bentley did not have a mental impairment which affected her ability to work and he properly did
not include functional limitations from a mental impairment in the RFC. Plaintiff claims the
hypothetical to the vocational expert was flawed as it did not include the mental impairments.
Plaintiff objects that Bentley could not perform her past relevant work and alleges that the state
agency medical consultants opined that she could not return to her past relevant work.
The magistrate judge correctly determined that the ALJ properly considered the four
broad function areas set out in the disability regulations for evaluating mental disorders and in
section 12.00C of the Listing of Impairments in 20 CFR, Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. The
magistrate judge found that the ALJ correctly addressed the four function areas and the ALJ
demonstrated that Bentley’s mental impairments caused “a slight abnormality having such
minimal effect on the individual that it would not be expected to interfere with the individual’s
ability to work, irrespective of age, education, or work experience” in accordance with Stone.
The magistrate judge correctly found that the ALJ’s RFC assessment is consistent with the
medical evidence contained in Dr. Loving’s opinions. The magistrate judge correctly found that
neither Dr. Turner nor Dr. Geary, the state agency medical consultants, made any finding or any
determination about Bentley’s ability to perform her past relevant work. The magistrate judge
also correctly found that the hypothetical question posed to the vocational expert properly
encompassed all of Bentley’s limitations, as supported by the evidence of record. The magistrate
judge correctly determined that there was no evidence from the state agency medical consultants
to support Bentley’s claim that she cannot perform her past relevant work identified by the
vocational expert. The magistrate judge properly determined that ALJ Gutierrez’s reliance upon
the vocational expert’s testimony was proper and his decision is supported by substantial
The court concludes that the magistrate judge correctly identified and discussed the point
of error argued by plaintiff and analyzed the point correctly. The magistrate judge properly
examined the entire record to determine that substantial evidence supports the administrative law
judge’s assessments and determinations and the Commissioner’s denial of benefits.
Accordingly, all of the Plaintiffs objections are OVERRULED. The findings of fact and
conclusions of law of the magistrate judge are correct and the report of the magistrate judge is
ADOPTED. A final judgment will be entered in this case in accordance with the magistrate
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 29 day of September, 2016.
Ron Clark, United States District Judge
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?