Chapman v. Colvin

Filing 27

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS by Judge Benjamin H. Settle re 25 Objections to Report and Recommendation filed by Kathleen A Chapman. (TG)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

7
8

KATHLEEN A. CHAPMAN,

9

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. C14-5078 BHS
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION

10 v.
11 CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
12
Defendant.
13
14

This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)
15
of the Honorable Karen L. Strombom, United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. 24), and
16
Plaintiff Kathleen Chapman’s (“Chapman”) objections to the R&R (Dkt. 25).
17
On September 24, 2014, Judge Strombom issued the R&R recommending that the
18
Court affirm the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) decision that Chapman was not
19
disabled. Dkt. 24. On October 8, 2014, Chapman filed objections. Dkt. 25. On October
20
22, 2014, the Government responded. Dkt. 26.
21
22

ORDER - 1

1

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) governs objections to a magistrate judge’s

2 recommended disposition. Rule 72(b) provides as follows:
3
4

The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate
judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge
may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further
evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.

5
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
6
Chapman objects to Judge Strombom’s recommended disposition on three
7
grounds. Dkt. 25. First, Chapman argues that the ALJ failed to address a work activity
8
questionnaire completed by her former supervisor, Kathleen Forman (“Forman”). Id. at
9
1. Second, Chapman contends that the ALJ erroneously relied on the vocational expert’s
10
testimony. Id. at 4. Finally, Chapman argues that the ALJ erred in assessing her residual
11
functional capacity (“RFC”). Id. at 5.
12
Chapman repeats the arguments that she raised in her opening and reply briefs.
13
See Dkts. 18, 23. Judge Strombom thoroughly and properly addressed all of these
14
arguments in the R&R. See Dkt. 24. First, Forman’s questionnaire did not address
15
Chapman’s symptoms or how her impairments affected her ability to work. Id. at 12–13.
16
Additionally, the vocational expert identified a job that Chapman was capable of
17
performing. Id. at 8–12. Finally, the ALJ’s assessment at step three is separate and
18
distinct from the ALJ’s assessment of RFC. Id. at 4–6. The Court agrees with Judge
19
Strombom’s analysis and conclusion in this case.
20
Therefore, the Court having considered the R&R, Chapman’s objections, and the
21
remaining record, does hereby find and order as follows:
22

ORDER - 2

1

(1)

The R&R is ADOPTED;

2

(2)

The ALJ’s decision is AFFIRMED; and

3

(2)

This action is DISMISSED.

4

Dated this 8th day of December, 2014.

5
6

A

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 3