Dinkins v. Commissioner, SSA

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE, for 16 Report and Recommendation. ORDERED that the decision of the Administrative Law Judge is AFFIRMED. Signed by Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 8/25/2016. (kls, )

United States District Court
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION

AUNDREA NICOLE LEE DINKINS
V.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

§
§
§
§
§
§

CASE NO. 4:15-CV-6
(Judge Mazzant/Judge Bush)

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF THE 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 July 15, 2016, the report of the Magistrate Judge was entered containing proposed
findings of fact and recommendations that the decision of the Administrative Law Judge be
AFFIRMED.
On July 28, 2016, Plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s report (see Dkt. #18),
and Defendant filed its response to those objections on August 10, 2016 (see Dkt. #20).
The Court has made a de novo review of the objections raised by Plaintiff and Defendant’s
response 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.
First, Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s finding that the ALJ properly considered all
of Plaintiff’s impairments in determining her residual functional capacity, or RFC. Plaintiff argues

1

that the ALJ made no accommodation for limitation in the use of her hands in determining her RFC.
Plaintiff also argues that there is no evidence to support the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that her
headaches were controlled by medication.
As correctly noted by the Magistrate Judge, in making his RFC determination, the ALJ gave
some credit to Plaintiff’s reported symptoms and considered medical records, including those of Dr.
Zahabi which discussed her reported inflamation in her hands and other symptoms. Tr. 48, 202. The
ALJ retains the sole responsibility for determining an individual’s RFC based on all of the relevant
evidence, including the medical records, treating physician observations, and the claimant’s
descriptions of her limitations. See Ripley v. Chater, 67 F.3d 552, 557 (5th Cir. 1995); 20 C.F.R.
§§ 404.1546(c), 416.946(c); SSR 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184, at *5. The record indicates that the ALJ
properly considered Plaintiff’s complaints about her hands.
As to Plaintiff’s objection that there is no evidence to support a conclusion that Plaintiff’s
headaches were controlled by medication, the Court is not convinced. The Magistrate Judge relied
on the opinion of Dr. Woodfin. His report lists her medications and states that her migraines are
“fully controlled.” Tr. 184. The Court agrees with Defendant that the Magistrate Judge properly
considered Plaintiff’s migraine symptoms and correctly found that they were controlled with
medication. Plaintiff’s objections regarding the ALJ’s consideration of her reported symptoms are
thus overruled.
Plaintiff also argues that the Magistrate Judge incorrectly found that the ALJ properly
considered the opinions of her treating primary care physician, Dr. Rogers, and her treating

2

rheumatologist, Dr. Zahabi. According to Plaintiff, had the ALJ given due consideration to the
opinion of Dr. Rogers, he could not have found that she has the ability to perform light work.
Plaintiff argues that the ALJ failed to consider all of the limitations which impact her ability to
perform work-related activities. As with Plaintiff’s other arguments, the Court finds that these
arguments are without merit.
Plaintiff specifically takes issue with the Magistrate Judge’s claim that Dr. Rogers opined
that Plaintiff can lift weights up to 40 pounds. Plaintiff argues that although Dr. Rogers offered such
an opinion in October 2010, by April 2011, Dr. Rogers opined that Plaintiff should stay “out of
work” because of intermittent pain due to rheumatoid arthritis and fatigue. Tr. 182, 179. Plaintiff
further argues that Dr. Zahabi found that she would have difficulty lifting 10 pounds frequently (see
Tr. 201) and claims that such calls “into question the ALJ’s conclusion that she is able to perform
light work.” Dkt. #18 at 3.
Despite Plaintiff’s argument, Dr. Rogers’ April 2011 report does not limit Plaintiff to a
maximum of 10 pounds. Further, although it notes that she has difficulty lifting more than 10
pounds, Dr. Zahabi’s report also does not limit her to 10 pounds. Tr. 179, 201. The Court agrees
with the Magistrate Judge that the ALJ not only addressed the medical records from Dr. Rogers and
Dr. Zahabi, he also noted that their opinions regarding Plaintiff’s RFC actually supported a light
RFC. Tr. 44, 46, 48, 182. There is substantial evidence in the record, as cited by Defendant and the
Magistrate Judge, supporting the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff can perform light work. That objection
is overruled.

3

Finding that Plaintiff’s objections are without merit, 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 25th day of August, 2016.

___________________________________
AMOS L. MAZZANT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4