Opinion
Case No. 00-75544
February 28, 2002
OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION .
On September 28, 2001, Magistrate Judge Steven D. Pepe issued a Report and Recommendation ("R R") recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff Janis L. Batzloffs Motion for Summary Judgment and grant the Defendant Commissioner of Social Security's Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff filed objections to the R R on October 12, 2001. The Court has now reviewed the parties' motions, the R R, Plaintiffs objections, and the other materials in the record. For the reasons discussed briefly below, the Court agrees with the analysis of the Magistrate Judge, and adopts the R R in its entirety.
Plaintiff essentially has raised two objections to the R R. First, she challenges the Magistrate Judge's reliance on certain daily activity logs as a legitimate basis for the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") to have discounted the opinion of Plaintiffs treating physician, Dr. Khan. Yet, the Court's review of the R R, as well as the underlying decision of the ALJ, does not reveal any undue reliance on these activity reports. Rather, these materials were cited as among several items of evidence in the record — including the conflicting reports of other physicians, the objective medical evidence, and Plaintiffs own testimony — that would permit the ALJ to accord less than conclusive weight to Dr. Khan's opinion. (See R R at 17-18.) Moreover, while Plaintiff argues that certain other aspects of the activity logs, not mentioned in the R R, would tend to corroborate Plaintiffs claim of disability, rather than undermining it, this is nothing more than a contention that the record could support a conclusion different from the one reached by the ALJ. Be that as it may, it is enough if the record also includes substantial evidence in support of the determination actually made by the ALJ. The Court, like the Magistrate Judge, finds that it does.
Next, Plaintiff faults the R R for not addressing certain judicial decisions and other materials in which fibromyalgia has been recognized as a potentially disabling condition. As Defendant points out in response, however, other cases have confirmed that fibromyalgia is not per se disabling. See Potts v. Secretary of HHS, 1 F.3d 1241, 1993 WL 303363, at 6 (6th Cir. Aug. 9, 1993); see also Estok v. Apfel, 152 F.3d 636, 640 (7th Cir. 1998) ("It is not enough to show that [the claimant] had received a diagnosis of fibromyalgia with a date of onset prior to the expiration of the insured period, since fibromyalgia is not always (indeed, not usually) disabling."). Thus, notwithstanding the specific condition at issue in this case, the inquiry is the usual one: namely, whether Plaintiff, despite her impairments, retains the ability to perform a significant number of jobs. This Court, like the Magistrate Judge, finds substantial evidence in the record to support the ALJ's affirmative answer to this query.
For these reasons,
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's September 28, 2001 Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED by the Court in its entirety. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, for the reasons stated in the R R, Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED, and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.