Ochoa v. Colvin

Filing 19

Memorandum Opinion and Order... The court accepts the recommendation of the magistrate judge and ORDERS that the decision of the Commissioner that, based on the application for disability insurance benefits protectively filed August 29, 2012, plai ntiff is not disabled under sections 216(i) and 223(d) of the Social Security Act, and based on the supplemental security income application protectively filed on August 29, 2012, plaintiff is not disabled under section 1614(a) (3) (A) of the Social Security Act, be, and is hereby, affirmed. (Ordered by Judge John McBryde on 1/30/2017) (wxc)

U.S.•
NORTHEi:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR']}-··--·~·
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEX S
JAN
FORT WORTH DIVISION

BONNIE LEE OCHOA,

By _ _ __

§

f}.::_rh1ry

§

Plaintiff,

§
§

vs.

§
§

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, ACTING
COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION, 1

3 0 20l7

""""•

§

NO. 4:15-CV-781-A

§
§
§

Defendant.

§

MEMORANDUM OPINION
and
ORDER
Carne on for consideration the above-captioned action wherein
Bonnie Lee Ochoa is plaintiff and the Acting Commissioner of
Social Security, currently Nancy A. Berryhill,
is defendant.

("Commissioner")

This is an action for judicial review of a final

decision of the Commissioner denying plaintiff's claims for
disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income
benefits under the Social Security Act. On December 30, 2016, the
United States Magistrate Judge issued his proposed findings and
conclusions and his recommendation ("FC&R"), and granted the
parties until January 13 2017, in which to file and serve any

1

Nancy A. Berryhill replaced Carolyn W. Colvin as acting
commissioner of the Social Security Administration.
Therefore,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), Berryhill is
automatically substituted as the party of record.

written objections thereto.

On January 13, 2017, plaintiff filed

her objections. The court ordered the Commissioner to respond,
which she did on January 26, 2017. After a thorough study of the
record, the magistrate judge's proposed findings and conclusions,
and applicable legal authorities, the court has concluded that
plaintiff's objections lack merit and that the recommendation of
the magistrate judge should be accepted.
Plaintiff first complains that the Administrative Law Judge
("ALJ") failed to properly weigh the medical opinion evidence,
arguing (in essence) that the ALJ was bound by a treating
physician's conclusion that plaintiff was disabled. As the
Commissioner notes in her response, the record contains evidence
of examinations by other treating physicians showing normal
functions that are substantial evidence supporting a
nondisability finding. Plaintiff misleadingly ignores this
evidence in making her argument.
Plaintiff next complains that the ALJ failed to properly
evaluate plaintiff's credibility. The ALJ gave a thorough
discussion of the reasons for finding plaintiff to be less than
credible in certain regards, which need not be repeated here. TR
148-51. The ALJ did not base his decision solely on a lack of
objective medical evidence to support plaintiff's allegations, as
plaintiff contends.
2

Finally, plaintiff complains that the appeals council failed
to properly consider new medical evidence. However, as the
appeals council noted, the new evidence submitted relates to a
period after the ALJ's decision. TR 15. The records were not
material to the time period considered by the ALJ.
The court accepts the recommendation of the magistrate judge
and ORDERS that the decision of the Commissioner that, based on
the application for disability insurance benefits protectively
filed August 29, 2012, plaintiff is not disabled under sections
216(i) and 223(d) of the Social Security Act, and based on the
supplemental security income application protectively filed on
August 29, 2012, plaintiff is not disabled under section
1614(a) (3) (A) of the Social Security Act, be, and is hereby,
affirmed.

/

SIGNED January 30, 2017.

,?/'

/.

3