Opinion
Case No. 2:08-cv-1026.
January 25, 2010
ORDER
This matter is before the Court to consider de novo the plaintiff's objections to a Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge recommending that judgment be entered in favor of the Commissioner. The Commissioner has not filed a response to the objections. Nevertheless, and for the following reasons, those objections will be overruled and judgment will be entered for the defendant.
The issues before the Magistrate Judge were whether the Commissioner had valid reasons for discounting the opinions of plaintiff's treating physicians, whether substantial evidence supported the Commissioner's finding that she could perform sedentary work, and whether the Commissioner properly determined that her testimony was not fully credible. The Report and Recommendation resolved each of these issues in favor of the Commissioner. In her objections, plaintiff again asserts that the opinion of her recent treating source, Dr. Kaza, should have been given controlling weight, and that his opinion provided enough corroboration for plaintiff's testimony that the Commissioner should not have discounted that testimony.
Plaintiff appears to argue that it was improper for the Commissioner to have credited the opinion of a one-time evaluator but discounted the opinion of the treating source because, among other reasons, he had seen plaintiff only a few times. However, the Commissioner is entitled to credit the opinion of any treating or examining source if that opinion is most consistent with the record as a whole, even if the source examined the claimant only once (or, in some cases, only reviewed records and conducted no examination). Here, the fact that Dr. Kaza had only recently become the plaintiff's treating source was not the sole reason why the Commissioner discounted his opinion to some extent. Further, the Commissioner made a reasonable judgment that Dr. Brown's report was more consistent with the totality of the record. The Court finds no error in the Commissioner's evaluation of the conflicting medical evidence or in the decision to give less than controlling weight to Dr. Kaza's opinion, nor any basis for disturbing the Commissioner's credibility determination. Consequently, neither of plaintiff's objections to the Report and Recommendation, which reached a similar conclusion on these issues, warrants reversal.
For these reasons, the plaintiff's objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are OVERRULED, and the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED. The plaintiff's statement of errors is OVERRULED, the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED, and The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of the defendant Commissioner.