Rapp v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration

Filing 23

ORDER adopting 21 Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. Ordered that the decision of the Commissioner is affirmed and the complaint is hereby dismissed with prejudice. Ordered that any motion not previously ruled on is denied. Signed by District Judge Ron Clark on 1/4/2018. (bjc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
PENNY L RAPP,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION,

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:16-CV-01110-RC

Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Penny Rapp 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 (Dkt. No. 21).
The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 21), 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
(Dkt. No. 22). Specifically, Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s finding that “the ALJ’s
RFC finding [] is supported by substantial evidence [] and resulted from correct application of
the applicable legal standards.” Id. at 1. Plaintiff argues that the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion
that the ALJ specifically considered the statements of Dr. Taylor in his RFC finding was in error.
Id. at 1–2.

1

As the Magistrate Judge explained in his Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff’s
argument in her briefing was that the ALJ failed to consider Dr. Taylor’s finding that she has
mild limitations on stooping, crouching and will be able to perform these occasionally due to
back pain and decreased range of motion. (Dkt. No. 21, at 9.) As to this argument, the Magistrate
Judge explained that Plaintiff’s argument was not meritorious because the record showed that the
ALJ specifically considered Dr. Taylor’s findings that Plaintiff had “mild limitations with lifting
and carrying weight,” and “could occasionally bend, stoop, crouch, and squat,” and that the ALJ
afforded great weight to those opinions. Id. at 10, citing Transcript (“Tr.”) at 140–42. Plaintiff
now presents a new argument, conceding that the ALJ gave Dr. Taylor’s opinions great weight,
but arguing that the he actually rejected Dr. Taylor’s conclusions regarding Plaintiff’s ability to
“reach, handle, feel, grasp, and finger.” (Dkt. No. 22, at 2–3.)
Although this argument is newly presented in Plaintiff’s objections, the record again
reflects that Plaintiff’s argument regarding the consideration of Dr. Taylor’s opinions in not
meritorious. The ALJ specifically considered Dr. Taylor’s opinions that Plaintiff had “no
manipulative limitations with reaching, handling, fingering, feeling and grasping.” Tr. at 140,
citing Ex. 8F. Indeed, Dr. Taylor concluded that Plaintiff will be able to perform these functions
frequently. Tr. at 533. Thus, Dr. Taylor’s opinions support the ALJ’s RFC finding. As the
Magistrate Judge noted, Dr. Taylor’s opinions were carefully considered by the ALJ, afforded
great weight, and are consistent with the remainder of the medical record. (Dkt. No. 21, at 10–
11.)

As such, Plaintiff’s objection regarding the failure to carefully consider Dr. Taylor’s

opinions is without merit. The Magistrate Judge did not err in concluding that the ALJ’s RFC
finding was supported by substantial evidence.

2

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.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 4 day of January, 2018.

___________________________________
Ron Clark, United States District Judge

3