Jones v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 17

ORDER overruling objections and adopting 15 Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. Signed by District Judge Michael J. Truncale on 3/31/2021. (bjc, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BEAUMONT DIVISION
JUANITA COLLECT JONES,

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

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

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:19-CV-440

ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, and the Local Rules
for the Eastern District of Texas, the Court referred this Social Security appeal to United States
Magistrate Judge Keith F. Giblin for consideration and recommended disposition. On March 10,
2021, Judge Giblin submitted a report recommending that the Commissioner’s decision be
affirmed and Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed. [Dkt. 15].
On March 24, 2021, Plaintiff filed objections to the magistrate judge’s report.
[See Dkt. 16]. The Court conducted a de novo review of the magistrate’s findings, the record, the
relevant evidence, the specific objections, and the applicable law. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see
also FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). The Court has considered the Report and Recommendation, [Dkt. 15],
and Plaintiff’s objections, [Dkt. 16].

After careful consideration, the Court concludes that

1

Plaintiff’s objections are without merit. Therefore, the Court ACCEPTS the magistrate judge’s
recommendation, OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objections, and AFFIRMS the Commissioner’s denial
of benefits.
First, Plaintiff objects to the magistrate judge’s determinations that the ALJ properly
considered Plaintiff’s three hospitalizations and medical records documenting her hallucinations
and delusions. [Dkt. 16 at 8, 11]. Here, the magistrate judge correctly determined that substantial
evidence supports the ALJ’s consideration of Plaintiff’s hospitalizations and reports of
hallucinations and delusions.
Next, Plaintiff objects to the magistrate judge’s determination that the ALJ appropriately
weighed Dr. Larned’s opinion. [Id. at 14]. Plaintiff argues that the ALJ failed to properly evaluate
Dr. Larned’s opinion because the ALJ failed to discuss evidence favorable to Plaintiff. [Id.]. “The
ALJ is free to reject the opinion of any physician when the evidence supports a contrary
conclusion.” See Garcia v. Berryhill, 880 F.3d 700, 705 n.7 (5th Cir. 2018) (quoting Newton v.
Apfel, 209 F.3d 448, 455 (5th Cir. 2000)). The Court may not reweigh the evidence or substitute
its judgment for the Commissioner’s. Harrell v. Bowen, 862 F.2d 471, 475 (5th Cir. 1988). The
issue is not whether other conclusions are possible, but whether the conclusion reached is
supported by substantial evidence. Selders v. Sullivan, 914 F.2d 614, 617 (5th Cir. 1990).
Therefore, the magistrate judge correctly determined that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s
consideration of Plaintiff’s medical record and the weight accorded to Dr. Larned’s opinion.
The Court concludes that the magistrate judge accurately identified and discussed the
points of error argued by Plaintiff and analyzed the points correctly. The magistrate judge properly
examined the entire record to determine that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s assessments
and determinations and the Commissioner’s denial of benefits.

2

Accordingly, all of Plaintiff's objections are OVERRULED. [Dkt. 16]. The Court
ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation, [Dkt. 15], and AFFIRMS the Commissioner’s denial
of benefits. The Court will enter final judgment separately in accordance with the magistrate
judge’s recommendation.
SIGNED this 31st day of March, 2021.

____________________________
Michael J. Truncale
United States District Judge

3