Coleman v. Astrue

Filing 20

Order: After conducting a de novo review of the pleadings, objections, file, record, applicable law, and the 18 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 overrules Plaintiff's objections, affirms the Commissioner's decision, and dismisses with prejudice this appeal. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 8/6/2013) (ctf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
ESTHER COLEMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner
of Social Security Administration,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. 3:12-CV-1983-L

ORDER
Plaintiff filed this appeal on June 22, 2012, from the decision of the Commissioner of the
Social Security Administration (“Commissioner”) denying her claims for Disability Insurance
benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Paul
D. Stickney, who entered Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States
Magistrate Judge (“Report”) on July 18, 2013, recommending that the final decision of the
Commissioner be affirmed and this appeal dismissed with prejudice.
Plaintiff filed objections to the Report on August 2, 2013. Plaintiff contends that contrary to
the Report, the administrate law judge’s (“ALJ”) failure to recognize her RSD/CRPS as a medically
determinable impairment and consider its effects in making credibility findings prejudiced her
disability claim. Plaintiff also contends that the ALJ’s failure to recognize and consider her
RSD/CRPS led to an improper rejection of the opinions of her treating podiatrist, Dr. Jones. Plaintiff
asserts that, contrary to the Report, Dr. Jones’s opinions are more than conclusory and unsupported
statements when considering them in conjunction with Plaintiff’s RSD/CRPS.

Order – Page 1

After conducting a de novo review of the pleadings, objections, 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
overrules Plaintiff’s objections, affirms the Commissioner’s decision, and dismisses with
prejudice this appeal.
It is so ordered this 6th day of August, 2013.

_________________________________
Sam A. Lindsay
United States District Judge

Order – Page 2