Opinion
NO. 1:08-CV-00525.
March 2, 2010
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (doc. 14), to which there were no objections. For the reasons indicated herein, the Court ADOPTS and AFFIRMS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation.
Plaintiff filed her application for disability income benefits in May, 2004, stating that a combination of several surgeries on her knee and surgeries on her back limited her ability to work (doc. 14). Her application was denied initially and upon reconsideration (Id.). Plaintiff then requested a hearing, which she received in February 2007, before the administrative law judge ("ALJ"), who subsequently also denied benefits (Id.).
The ALJ's residual functional capacity assessment was that Plaintiff suffers several disabilities, including lumbar degenerative disc disease, left knee degenerative joint disease, and cervical disc disease, but could still perform work at the light exertional level, based on the opinions of paper reviewers, Myung Cho, M.D., whose opinion was affirmed by Michael Stock, M.D., Robert Norris, M.D. and by Dr. Bernstein, Plaintiff's back surgeon (doc. 14).
Plaintiff timely brought her appeal, arguing the ALJ erred in denying her benefits, under the theories that: (1) The ALJ's residual functional capacity assessment was too liberal; and (2) The ALJ's ultimate decision, adopting the Vocational Expert's ("VE") opinion, was not based on substantial evidence (doc. 14).
To support her argument, Plaintiff cites to the opinions of various doctors who oppose the opinions proffered by the ALJ: 1) Robert Hutson, M.D., a medical expert employed by the Social Security Administration, who said that Plaintiff could perform sedentary work; 2) Loraine Glaser, M.D., who said that Plaintiff could perform sedentary work; 3) Frank Noyes, M.D., Anil Agrawal, M.D. and Jamal Taha, M.D., who are all treating physicians, all opined that Plaintiff could not perform sedentary work (doc. 14).
In his February 3, 2009 Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the applicable standard governing establishment of disability under 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A), 423(d)(2), and concluded that: 1) The opinion of the ALJ was erroneous with regards to Plaintiff's ability to perform the requirements of light work; but 2) The ALJ's determination that Plaintiff can work at the sedentary level should be affirmed since substantial evidence supports the conclusion that Plaintiff had the residual functional capacity to perform sedentary work (doc. 14). In further support of his conclusion, the Magistrate Judge noted that the VE located three jobs at the sedentary level which Plaintiff could perform with a sit/stand option and with the use of a footstool to elevate her leg as needed (Id.). Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge rejected Plaintiff's arguments, and found that the ALJ did not err in his opinion that Plaintiff could perform sedentary work (Id.).
Having reviewed this matter, the Court finds the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation thorough, well-reasoned, and correct. For the reasons stated above, the ALJ's decision is supported by substantial evidence and should be affirmed, consistent with the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation.
The Parties were served with the Report and Recommendation and were therefore afforded proper notice of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), including that failure to file timely objections to the Report and Recommendation would result in a waiver of further appeal.United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981). Neither Party filed any objections thereto within the fourteen days provided for by Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
Having reviewed this matter de novo, pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court finds the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation well taken in all respects (doc. 14). Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (doc. 14), AFFIRMS the Magistrate Judge's recommended decision (Id.), and DISMISSES this case from the docket.
SO ORDERED.