Andersen v. Astrue

Filing 36

ORDER- ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Case Closed. Signed by Judge Clark Waddoups on 8/17/12. (jmr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

THELMA ANDERSON o/b/o
TERRY D. ANDERSON, deceased,

ORDER

Plaintiff,
Case No. 2:10-CV-872
v.
Judge Clark Waddoups
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Commissioner Of Social Security,
Defendant.

This case was assigned to United States District Court Judge Clark Waddoups, who then
referred it to United States Magistrate Samuel Alba pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). On
May 23, 2012, Judge Alba issued a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 33) recommending
that the court affirm the ALJ’s decision denying Terry Anderson’s applications for Disability
Insurance Benefits.
Plaintiff objects on the grounds that the Magistrate failed to explicitly state his “rationale
as to what evidence in the record supported the ALJ’s conclusion that said doctors were not
treating sources.” (Dkt. No. 34). This objection has little merit, however, because Judge Alba’s
opinion provides detailed analysis supporting the ALJ’s ruling even if the physicians are
considered “treating sources.” (Dkt. No. 33).
Furthermore, the plaintiff’s objection, which reasons that the doctors were treating
sources because they were all part of the same medical group, fails to provide any authority for
its claim. (Dkt. No. 34). As Defendant correctly points out in its response brief, a doctor is
considered a treating source when he or she has seen the claimant “a number of times and long
1

enough to have obtained a longitudinal picture of the claimant’s impairment, taking into
consideration the treatment the source has provided and the kinds and extent of examinations and
testing the source has performed or ordered from specialists and independent laboratories.”
Doyal v. Barnhart, 331 F.3d 758, 763 (10th Cir. 2003) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(d)(2)(i), (ii))
(internal citations omitted). The ALJ’s opinion does indicate the number of times each doctor
attended to the Plaintiff, the length of time between each visit, and what type of examinations
and tests were performed. (Dkt. No. 33). As it is not this court’s role to re-weigh the evidence,
when the ALJ’s interpretation of the facts is “supported by substantial evidence, [it] shall be
conclusive.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
Accordingly, after having reviewed the file de novo, and considering Plaintiff’s
objections, the court hereby APPROVES AND ADOPTS Judge Alba’s Report and
Recommendation (Dkt. No. 33) in its entirety.
DATED this 17th day of August, 2012.
BY THE COURT:

____________________________________
Clark Waddoups
United States District Judge

2