Schoenfeld v. Colvin

Filing 19

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE for 17 Report and Recommendation. The Court hereby adopts the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge as the findings and conclusions of this court. It is therefore ORDERED that the decision of the Administrative Law Judge is AFFIRMED. Signed by Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 3/16/2016. (kls, )

United States District Court
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION

TODD MATTHEW SCHOENFELD,
Plaintiff
V.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITYADMINISTRATION,
Defendant

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CASE NO. 4:14CV271
Judge Mazzant/Judge Bush

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Came on for consideration the report of the United States Magistrate Judge in this
action, this matter having been heretofore referred to the United States Magistrate Judge
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On February 29, 2016, the report of the Magistrate Judge
(Dkt. #17) was entered containing proposed findings of fact and recommendations that the
decision of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) be AFFIRMED.
On March 1, 2016, Plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s report (see
Dkt. #18), objecting to his recommendation to affirm the ALJ decision.
The Court has made a de novo review of the objections raised by Plaintiff and is of
the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and the
objections are without merit as to the ultimate findings of the Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff first objects to the Magistrate Judge’s finding that new evidence submitted
after the ALJ decision did not require the Appeals Council to grant a review of the ALJ’s
decision. See Dkt. #18. Plaintiff contends that the Appeals Council is expressly required
to consider “new and material” evidence if it relates to the period before the ALJ’s

1

decision. Id. at 3. However, as the Magistrate Judge noted, the Appeals Council is
required to grant review only if it finds that the ALJ decision “is contrary to the weight of
the evidence currently of record.” Matthews v. Apfel, 239 F.3d 589, 592 (3d Cir. 2001).
Here, the Magistrate Judge addressed the Appeals Council decision. He noted that the
Appeals Council considered the additional material provided by Plaintiff and found that it
did not provide a basis for changing the ALJ decision and that most of the new evidence
related to a later time period and thus was not relevant. The Magistrate Judge also noted
that some of the new evidence was consistent with the ALJ decision. Although Plaintiff
suggests that here the Magistrate Judge offered “an impermissible medical opinion” (see
Dkt. #18 at 6), the Court disagrees. Rather, the statement simply reflects the Magistrate
Judge’s consideration of the new evidence submitted by Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court
finds no error in the Magistrate Judge’s findings related to the Appeals Council’s
consideration of the new evidence.
Plaintiff next objects that the Magistrate Judge failed to address the ALJ’s
credibility finding. As the Magistrate Judge noted, judgment as to the credibility of
subjective complaints is the province of the ALJ. See Carrier v. Sullivan, 944 F.2d 243,
247 (5th Cir. 1991). Judicial review of the Commissioner’s final decision is limited to two
inquiries: whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record and
whether the evidence was evaluated under the proper legal standard.

Greenspan v.

Shalala, 38 F.3d 232, 236 (5th Cir. 1994). The Magistrate Judge’s report specifically
addresses the ALJ’s credibility finding and found that it was supported by substantial
evidence. The Court thus finds no basis to Plaintiff’s argument.

2

Therefore, the Court hereby adopts the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate
. Judge as the findings and conclusions of this court.

It is therefore ORDERED that the decision of the Administrative Law Judge is
AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
SIGNED this 16th day of March, 2016.

___________________________________
AMOS L. MAZZANT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3