Rinehart v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

Filing 19

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. 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 09/14/15. (mll, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
SABRINA DIANA RINEHART,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION No. 6:14-cv-500

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Sabrina D. Rinehart initiated this civil action pursuant to Social Security Act,
Section 205(g) for judicial review of the Commissioner’s denial of Plaintiff’s application for
Social Security benefits. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love,
who issued a Report and Recommendation concluding that the decision of the Commissioner
should be affirmed and the action dismissed with prejudice.
The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. No. 17), which contains
his findings, conclusions, and recommendation for the disposition of this action, has been
presented for consideration. Plaintiff has filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation
(Doc. No. 18.) Specifically, Plaintiff objects to Judge Love’s finding that Dr. Mount’s opinions
were adequately considered by the Appeals Council. Id. at 1. Plaintiff’s argument, however, is
that the record was not fully developed by the ALJ because the ALJ did not consider these
opinions prior to the issuance of his decision. Id. at 2-3. As explained in the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation, while the records from Mr. Mount’s examination did not reach the ALJ prior to
his decision, the Appeals Council made this additional evidence part of the record and it
therefore became part of the record on which the Commissioner’s final decision was based.

(Doc. No. 17, at 7, citing Tr. at 1-4; Higginbotham v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 332, 337 (5th Cir.
2005).)

Indeed, in her objections, Plaintiff does not contest that the records from Dr. Mount

were ultimately made part of the record and considered by the Appeals Council. Moreover, the
Magistrate Judge further went on to explain that even considering Dr. Mount’s additional
evidence, the ALJ’s RFC determination was supported by substantial evidence. (Doc. No. 7, at
8.) Nothing in Plaintiff’s objections suggests the ALJ’s RFC finding was not supported by
substantial evidence as explained by the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the Court agrees with
the Magistrate Judge’s finding that the records provided by Dr. Mount were included in the
record for the Appeals Council and Commissioner’s final decision, and that ALJ did not err in
.
his RFC finding.
Therefore the Court hereby adopts the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge
as the findings and conclusions of the Court. It is accordingly 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.
SIGNED this 14th day of September, 2015.

____________________________________
MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE