Hazelwood v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration

Filing 21

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Plaintiff's objections are OVERRULED. The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED and the complaint is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Any motion not previously ruled on is DENIED. Signed by Judge Michael H. Schneider on 09/18/14. (mll, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
BELINDA HAZELWOOD

§

v.

§

COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:12-CV-874

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, which contains his findings,
conclusions, and recommendation for the disposition of this action, has been presented for
consideration. The Report and Recommendation recommends that the decision of the Commissioner
be affirmed and the complaint be dismissed. Plaintiff has filed written objections.
Having made a de novo review of the objections filed by Plaintiff, the Court finds that the
findings, conclusions and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are correct. Plaintiff contends
in her objections that the ALJ and the Report of the Magistrate Judge incorrectly determined there
was no error in the assessment of Plaintiff’s credibility. The Magistrate Judge’s Report fully
addresses this issue. As the Magistrate Judge pointed out, the ALJ did not entirely reject Plaintiff’s
allegations. SSR 96-7p, 1996 WL 374186, at *4 (the adjudicator need not totally accept or totally
reject the claimant’s statements).
The ALJ incorporated Plaintiff’s testimony into its assessment by finding that Plaintiff could
perform only light exertional activity that included only occasional climbing of ladders, ropes, or
scaffolds. See Tr. at 16. Therefore, despite Plaintiff’s contention otherwise, the ALJ considered her
testimony and used it to establish Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity. Considering Plaintiff’s
subjective reports together with the medical findings from the adjudicated period, the Magistrate

Judge properly found that the ALJ correctly determined that Plaintiff’s statements concerning the
intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of her symptoms were not entirely credible. See Tr. at 1617.
Plaintiff also objects to the Report of the Magistrate Judge on the grounds that treating
physician, James Michaels, M.D., diagnosed her with myofascial pain syndrome and that the
Magistrate’s Report does not adequately address the argument that this condition should have been
reflected in the ALJ’s determination of disability. The Report of the Magistrate Judge fully
addresses this issue. As noted, Plaintiff cites to a particular record at page 511 in the transcript.
This record is a progress note from December 13, 2004, over four years prior to the adjudicated
period in this case. See Tr. at 509. At the administrative hearing, Plaintiff amended her alleged
disability onset date to February 27, 2009. See Tr. at 25. Plaintiff’s reference to a 2004 record is
misplaced.
Therefore, Plaintiff’s objections are without merit and will be overruled. There is substantial
evidence in the record supporting the Commissioner’s decision. The findings and conclusions of
.
the Magistrate Judge are therefore adopted as those of the Court. In light of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objections are hereby OVERRULED. It is further
ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED and the complaint is
hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. It is further
ORDERED that any motion not previously ruled on is DENIED.
It is SO ORDERED.
SIGNED this 18th day of September, 2014.

____________________________________
MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE