Morris v. Astrue

Filing 16

ORDER ADOPTING 14 Findings and Recommendations, re: 14 Findings and Recommendations on Case re: 1 Complaint,,, filed by Cynthia Morris. Thus the court affirms the commissioner's decision. (Ordered by Judge Terry R Means on 9/27/2012) (wrb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
CYNTHIA MORRIS
V.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER
OF SOCIAL SECURITY

§
§
§
§
§
§

ACTION NO.4:11-CV-631-Y

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
On September 4, 2012, the United States magistrate judge issued his findings, conclusions, and
recommendation in this case (“the findings”). In the findings, the magistrate judge recommended that
the decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration of the United States (“the
commissioner”) denying Plaintiff’s claims for disability insurance benefits be affirmed. The magistrate
judge’s order gave all parties until September 18 to serve and file with the Court written objections to
his proposed findings.
Plaintiff objected, asking this Court to reject the findings of the magistrate judge, reverse the
commissioner’s decision, and remand the case to the commissioner for further proceedings. The
commissioner did not respond to Plaintiff’s objections.
The Court notes that portions of the findings include statements of the Stone1 standard in the
negative, which adds confusion to this byzantine area of the law: “The Stone severity standard does not
allow for any interference with work ability, not even minimal interference.” (Findings 5, 9.) For
clarity, the Court contends that casting the Stone standard in positive language would aid in its
application: An impairment causing any interference with work ability, even minimal interference, is
a severe impairment under Stone.
With that clarification, the Court agrees with the magistrate judge that the administrative law
judge implicitly applied the correct severity standard under Stone regarding Plaintiff’s disc protrusions
with spondylosis because these impairments were considered after the severity step of the administrative
law judge’s disability determination. (Findings 10-14.) The Court also agrees that the administrative
Stone v. Heckler, 752 F.2d 1099, 1104-05 (5th Cir. 1985).

1

law judge correctly applied Stone in concluding that Plaintiff’s chronic lumbar myofascial pain and
bilateral cervical radiculitis were not severe impairments. (Findings 14-17 & 14 n.12.) Because the
record supports the administrative law judge’s severity findings, the Court can presume that he applied
the correct Stone standard. See Henderson v. Astrue, No. 3:10-CV-589-D, 2011 WL 540286, at *8-9
(N.D. Tex. Feb. 15, 2011) (Fitzwater, C.J.). Like the magistrate judge, the Court notes that this is not
a prohibited harmless-error analysis because this actually is a conclusion that no error occurred at the
severity step of the disability determination. (Findings 11 n.3, 17 n.13.) The remainder of Plaintiff’s
objections are overruled; thus, the record as a whole supports the administrative law judge’s residualfunctional assessment.
After reviewing the findings, record, case law, and Plaintiff’s objections, the Court ADOPTS
the magistrate judge’s findings and conclusions as the findings and conclusions of this Court for the
reasons stated therein and in this order. Thus, the Court AFFIRMS the commissioner’s decision.
SIGNED September 27, 2012.

____________________________
TERRY R. MEANS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

TRM/ah

2