Opinion
Case No. 2:10-cv-437-FtM-29SPC.
June 23, 2011
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on consideration of Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell's Report and Recommendation (Doc. #14), filed on May 27, 2011, recommending that the Commissioner's decision to deny social security disability benefits be affirmed. Plaintiff filed Objections (Doc. #15), to which the Commissioner filed a Response (Doc. #16). Plaintiff objects to the Report and Recommendation's findings that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) did not err in finding claimant did not meet or equal the requirements of Medical Listing 1.04A; that the ALJ appropriately applied the treating physician rule; that the ALJ properly evaluated claimant's credibility; and that the ALJ properly relied upon appropriate vocational expert testimony.
The Court reviews the Commissioner's decision to determine if it is supported by substantial evidence and based upon proper legal standards. Crawford v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1158 (11th Cir. 2004). Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance, and is such relevant evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208, 1211 (11th Cir. 2005); Crawford, 363 F.3d at 1158. Even if the evidence preponderates against the Commissioner's findings, the Court must affirm if the decision reached is supported by substantial evidence. Crawford, 363 F.3d at 1158-59. The Court does not decide facts anew, make credibility judgments, reweigh the evidence, or substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner. Moore, 405 F.3d at 1211; Dyer v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206, 1210 (11th Cir. 2005). The magistrate judge, district judge, and appellate judges all apply the same legal standards to the review of the Commissioner's decision. Dyer, 395 F.3d at 1210; Shinn v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 391 F.3d 1276, 1282 (11th Cir. 2004); Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232, 1240 n. 8 (11th Cir. 2004).
The Court rejects the Commissioner's argument that claimant has waived the argument relating to vocational expert testimony by not raising it as an objection (Doc. #16, p. 2, n. 1). Claimant did raise this as an objection, albeit only in a footnote (Doc. #15, p. 5, n. 2). However, after an independent review of all the issues raised by plaintiff, the Court agrees with the findings, conclusions and recommendations in the Report and Recommendation.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
1. The Objections (Doc. #15) are OVERRULED, and the Report and Recommendation (Doc. #14) is ADOPTED by the Court.
2. The Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is AFFIRMED.
3. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close the file.
DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida.