Opinion
8:22-cv-795-WFJ-TGW
03-27-2023
LISA AMBROSE MCGRANAHAN, Plaintiff, v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
ORDER
WILLIAM F. JUNG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court is Plaintiff's complaint seeking judicial review of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration's (“Commissioner”) decision finding Plaintiff not disabled and denying social security disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income payments (Dkt. 1). The magistrate judge issued a report recommending that the decision of the Commissioner be affirmed (Dkt. 15). Plaintiff, through counsel, filed timely objections. Dkt. 16. Defendant filed a response to the objections. Dkt. 17.
When a party makes timely and specific objections to the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge, the district judge shall conduct a de novo review of the portions of the record to which objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3); Jeffrey S. State Bd. of Educ. of State of Ga., 896 F.2d 507, 512 (11th Cir. 1990). After such independent review, the Court may accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3); Macort v. Prem., Inc., 208 Fed.Appx. 781, 783-84 (11th Cir. 2006) (citing published opinion).
Plaintiff objects to the report and recommendation on the grounds that the magistrate judge erred in finding that the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) (1) properly evaluated the medical opinion evidence and properly determined Plaintiff's mental residual functional capacity, (2) properly evaluated Plaintiff's testimony, and (3) properly relied on a flawed hypothetical question to the vocational expert. As to first objection-the lack of proper evaluation of the medical opinion evidence-the ALJ properly determined that the medical source statements of four health care providers were not persuasive. Dkt. 15 at 9-13. The ALJ found that source statements were not supported by or consistent with the evidence showing that Plaintiff lived and functioned independently and that her symptoms were managed well by medications and therapy. Id. at 9-10. The magistrate judge's report discusses in detail the ALJ's appropriate consideration of the evidence. Id. 9-16.
Next, Plaintiff complains that the ALJ inadequately evaluated her subjective complaints. As noted by the magistrate judge, the ALJ reached a decision by considering Plaintiff's credibility in relation to the substantial medical and other evidence. Id. at 18-20.
With respect to the last ground, the Court agrees with the magistrate judge that the ALJ's hypothetical properly included the moderate restrictions in concentration, persistence, or pace, which were consistent with the residual functional capacity established by the ALJ . Id. at 22-24. Moreover, Plaintiff's reliance on Winschel v. Commissioner of Social Security, 631 F.3d 1176 (11th Cir. 2011), was addressed in the report and factually distinguished. Id. at 23-24.
Having conducted a de novo review of the record, including the transcript of the proceedings before the ALJ, regarding each specific objection lodged by Plaintiff, the Court agrees with the thorough and well-reasoned report of the magistrate judge. The ALJ applied the correct legal standard in reaching a decision supported by substantial evidence.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1) Plaintiff's objections (Dkt. 16) are overruled.
2) The report and recommendation (Dkt. 15) is approved, confirmed, and adopted in all respects and is made a part of this order.
3) The Commissioner's decision denying Social Security disability benefits and supplemental security income payments to Plaintiff is affirmed.
4) The Clerk is directed to enter final judgment in favor of the Commissioner and close the case.
DONE AND ORDERED.