Nelson v. Astrue

Filing 25

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER accepting 23 Findings and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge; granting 22 Defendant's Amended Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 20 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 2/20/2013) (axm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
STEPHEN NELSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Commissioner of Social Security
Administration,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. 3:12-818-L

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Stephen Nelson (“Plaintiff”) filed this appeal on March 19, 2012, from the adverse
decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“Commissioner”) denying his
claim for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) Under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act.
Plaintiff requests that the Commissioner’s denial of his claim be reversed and remanded for an award
of benefits, or, in the alternative, for further administrative proceedings. The case was referred to
Magistrate Judge David L. Horan, who entered Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the
United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”) on January 30, 2013, recommending that the decision of
the Commissioner be affirmed. On February 12, 2013, Plaintiff filed objections to the Report.
I.

Applicable Standard of Review
Judicial review of the Commissioner’s denial of disability and SSI benefits is limited to

whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence and whether the Commissioner followed
the correct relevant legal standards in reaching his findings. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Carrier v.
Sullivan, 944 F.2d 243, 245 (5th Cir. 1991). In determining whether the Commissioner’s decision
is supported by substantial evidence, the court scrutinizes the record to determine if such evidence
Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 1

is present. Johnson v. Bowen, 864 F.2d 340, 343 (5th Cir.1988). The court may not, however,
reweigh the evidence in the record or substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner. Id.;
Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 390 (1971) (“The findings of the [Commissioner] as to any
fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive.”). “Substantial evidence is more than
a scintilla, less than a preponderance, and is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Kane v. Heckler, 731 F.2d 1216, 1219 (5th Cir. 1984);
Carrier, 944 F.2d at 245. A finding of no substantial evidence is appropriate only when no credible
evidentiary choices exist to support the decision. See Johnson v. Bowen, 864 F.2d 340, 343-44 (5th
Cir. 1988). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), applicable to dispositive motions, the
district court reviews de novo “any part of the magistrate’s disposition that has been properly
objected to” and “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended decision; receive further evidence;
or return the matter to the magistrate with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
II.

Plaintiff’s Objections to the Magistrate’s Report
Plaintiff asserts one objection to the Report, which is substantially similar to the argument

made in his summary judgment motion. Plaintiff contends that the magistrate judge erred in finding
that the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) residual functional capacity (“RFC”) is supported by
substantial evidence. Plaintiff additionally argues the magistrate judge’s reliance on Adams v.
Bowen, 833 F.2d 509, 512 (5th Cir. 1987), in concluding that the evidence of record supports the
ALJ’s RFC finding is a misapplication of the Adams court’s rationale. The court notes, however,
that although the issue in Adams is not exactly identical to the issue in this case, the language
borrowed from Adams by the magistrate judge applies equally to the present case. The magistrate
judge quoted Adams for the proposition that the absence of objective factors in the record indicating

Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 2

the existence of severe pain can justify the conclusions of an ALJ. Moreover, the magistrate judge
did not rely solely or even substantially on Adams in concluding that the ALJ’s RFC finding is
supported by substantial evidence. After carefully considering Plaintiff’s objection and conducting
a de novo review of the magistrate judge’s thorough and well-reasoned Report, the court agrees with
the magistrate judge’s determination that the ALJ applied the correct legal standards and that
substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision.

Therefore, the court overrules Plaintiff’s

objection.
III.

Conclusion
After an independent review of the pleadings, file, record, applicable law, and the magistrate

judge’s findings and conclusions, the court determines that the magistrate judge’s findings and
conclusions are correct, and accepts them as those of the court. Accordingly, the court grants
Defendant’s Amended Motion for Summary Judgment, denies Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment, affirms the decision of the Commissioner, and dismisses this case with prejudice.
It is so ordered this 20th day of February, 2013.

_________________________________
Sam A. Lindsay
United States District Judge

Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 3