From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Carman v. Astrue

United States District Court, N.D. Florida, Gainesville Division
Dec 17, 2008
CASE NO. 1:07-cv-00210-MP-WCS (N.D. Fla. Dec. 17, 2008)

Opinion

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-00210-MP-WCS.

December 17, 2008


ORDER


This matter is before the Court on Doc. 17, Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, recommending that the decision of the Commissioner, denying benefits be affirmed. The plaintiff filed objections, doc. 18, which the Court has reviewed. For the reasons which follow, the Report and Recommendation is adopted.

In the objections, the plaintiff argues that because treating physician diagnosed chronic pain syndrome, and because the Administrative Law Judge acknowledged Plaintiff's chronic pain syndrome was a severe impairment, the substantial evidence in this case overwhelming supports the Plaintiff's pain testimony. The Court disagrees, however. All treating physicians have found that Plaintiff's work limitations do not preclude the ability to do light work, though without the use of his right hand and arm. On June 1, 1993. Dr. DePaz determined that Plaintiff could still perform light work, even though he found Plaintiff to have a 27% permanent impairment. R. 190-191. More relevant to the claim for disability insurance benefits, on June 9, 1999, Dr. Jain released Plaintiff to "light duty, no lifting over 10 lbs with a splint." R. 261. On September 21, 1999, Dr. Jain again released Plaintiff to light work. R. 231. Plaintiff saw Dr. Dell on October 9, 2000, thought Plaintiff to be fit for light work, but with no use of the right hand. R. 266. Id. On October 23, 2000, Dr. Dell thought that Plaintiff had "no use of the right hand, five pound weight lift limit." Id. That same work restriction was noted on December 11, 2000, no lifting greater than five pounds, no use of his right arm, and wear a splint at work. R. 264. On April 18, 2001, Dr. Greenberg's only work restriction was that Plaintiff would be "unable to perform work related activities that require heavy lifting or bending." R. 307.

Accordingly, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that substantial evidence exists to support the decision of the ALJ, and it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted and incorporated herein.
2. The decision of the Commissioner, denying benefits, is affirmed.
DONE AND ORDERED


Summaries of

Carman v. Astrue

United States District Court, N.D. Florida, Gainesville Division
Dec 17, 2008
CASE NO. 1:07-cv-00210-MP-WCS (N.D. Fla. Dec. 17, 2008)
Case details for

Carman v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:JOHN CARMAN, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J ASTRUE, Defendant

Court:United States District Court, N.D. Florida, Gainesville Division

Date published: Dec 17, 2008

Citations

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-00210-MP-WCS (N.D. Fla. Dec. 17, 2008)