From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Echols v. Astrue

United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
Jun 8, 2009
Case No. CIV-08-270-M (W.D. Okla. Jun. 8, 2009)

Summary

holding that the claimant's moderate mental limitations were accurately reflected in the ALJ's RFC, which stated that claimant had restrictions on her ability "to understand, remember, and carry out detailed instructions; maintain attention and concentration; and interact appropriately with the general public and set goals independently."

Summary of this case from Turney v. Colvin

Opinion

Case No. CIV-08-270-M.

June 8, 2009


ORDER


On May 8, 2009, United States Magistrate Judge Doyle W. Argo issued a Report and Recommendation in this action in which plaintiff seeks judicial review of the final decision of defendant Commissioner of Social Security Administration ("Commissioner"), denying plaintiff's application for disability insurance and supplemental security income benefits. The Magistrate Judge recommended the Commissioner's decision in this matter be affirmed. The parties were advised of their right to object to the Report and Recommendation by May 28, 2009, and on that date, plaintiff filed her objections.

Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge's conclusions regarding the Administrative Law Judge's ("ALJ") determinations of plaintiff's mental RFC and credibility. Having carefully reviewed this matter de novo, the Court finds that in relation to the determination of plaintiff's mental RFC, the ALJ did not err in defining "moderate" as "more than a slight limitation in this area but the individual is still able to function satisfactorily." Administrative Record at 19. The Court further finds that the ALJ's mental RFC assessment is not inconsistent with the conclusion that she suffered from a "severe" mental impairment. Additionally, the Court finds that the ALJ did not err in his determination of plaintiff's credibility. Specifically, the Court finds that in analyzing plaintiff's credibility, the ALJ applied correct legal standards, considered the relevant factors, and linked his findings to specific substantial evidence in the record.

Accordingly, the Court:

(1) ADOPTS the thorough and well-reasoned Report and Recommendation issued by the Magistrate Judge on May 8, 2009, and
(2) AFFIRMS the decision of the Commissioner.
IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Echols v. Astrue

United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
Jun 8, 2009
Case No. CIV-08-270-M (W.D. Okla. Jun. 8, 2009)

holding that the claimant's moderate mental limitations were accurately reflected in the ALJ's RFC, which stated that claimant had restrictions on her ability "to understand, remember, and carry out detailed instructions; maintain attention and concentration; and interact appropriately with the general public and set goals independently."

Summary of this case from Turney v. Colvin

declining to consider argument raised solely in a footnote

Summary of this case from Eisenach v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am.
Case details for

Echols v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:ELIZABETH J. ECHOLS, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of…

Court:United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma

Date published: Jun 8, 2009

Citations

Case No. CIV-08-270-M (W.D. Okla. Jun. 8, 2009)

Citing Cases

Turney v. Colvin

The ALJ (completely comprehensibly) found that Claimant's moderate limitations, caused by her psychological…

Eisenach v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am.

Arguments such as this, raised solely in a footnote, are generally waived. Hill v. Kemp, 478 F.3d 1236, 1255…