Schold v. Astrue

Filing 18

ORDER AFFIRMING DEFENDANT'S DECISION TO DENY BENEFITS, adopting Report and Recommendation re 15 Objection to Report and Recommendation for 14 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 1 Complaint filed by Katrina Rae Schold. Signed by Judge Robert J. Bryan. (JL)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

6
7

KATRINA RAE SCHOLD,
8

Plaintiff,

9
10

v.

CASE NO. C12-5429 RJB
ORDER AFFIRMING
DEFENDANT’S DECISION TO
DENY BENEFITS

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,

11

Defendant.

12
This matter comes before the court on the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

judge. Dkt. 14. The court has considered the relevant documents and the remainder of the file
herein.
On February 11, 2013, U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen L. Strombom issued a Report and
Recommendation, recommending that the court find that the ALJ properly concluded plaintiff
was not disabled; and that the court affirm defendant’s decision to deny benefits. Dkt. 14.
On February 25, 2013, plaintiff filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. Dkt.
15. On March 7, 2013, defendant filed a response to the objections. Dkt. 17.
The court concludes that the objections are without merit, for the following reasons:
First, the language of the regulations cited by plaintiff may require a finding on credibility only
when medical evidence is inconclusive. That does not, however, mean that when the medical
evidence is conclusive (which it is not, in this case), the ALJ is prohibited from assessing a

ORDER AFFIRMING DEFENDANT’S DECISION
TO DENY BENEFITS- 1

1 claimant’s credibility. Second, regarding the medical evidence, even if plaintiff is correct that
2 her diabetes was not controlled and there are, therefore, remarkable findings (contrary to the
3 conclusion of the magistrate judge), a claimant must still show that impairment resulted in
4 significant work related limitations, in order to be able to be found disabled. Plaintiff has not
5 made such a showing. Third, regarding the adverse credibility findings, if a claimant is engaging
6 in nondisabling activities for the period during which the claimant was claiming that she was
7 disabled, that is a valid basis for making an adverse credibility determination. Even if the
8 magistrate judge erred in finding that plaintiff was a college student, when she was in fact still
9 completing high school, this is a minor error that does not change the analysis. Fourth, the ALJ
10 gave several reasons for discounting plaintiff’s credibility regarding her subjective complaints.
11

The court has considered the Report and Recommendation and the remaining record, and

12 concurs with the analysis and conclusion of the magistrate judge.
13

Accordingly, the court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 14). The

14 decision of the Social Security Administration is AFFIRMED.
15

The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record, to

16 any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address, and to U.S. Magistrate Judge
17 Karen L. Strombom.
18
19
20
21

Dated this 15th day of March, 2013.

A
ROBERT J. BRYAN
United States District Judge

22
23
24
ORDER AFFIRMING DEFENDANT’S DECISION
TO DENY BENEFITS- 2