Opinion
No. SA-04-CA-0256-RF.
April 26, 2005
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
BEFORE THE COURT is the Memorandum and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 14), filed in the above-styled and numbered cause on October 22, 2004. The Magistrate Judge recommended that the decision of the Commissioner denying Plaintiff's application for disability benefits be affirmed. The Court entered an unopposed Order Extending Time to File Plaintiff's Objections, and Plaintiff filed her objections to the Memorandum and Recommendation on November 18, 2004. After due consideration, the Court is of the opinion that the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation should be ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking review of Commissioner Barnhart's determination that Plaintiff is not entitled to receive disability benefits. Plaintiff filed an application for benefits on March 17, 1998 alleging disability beginning January 10, 1998. The Social Security Administration denied the application both initially and upon reconsideration. After a hearing on May 30, 2003, an administrative law judge ("ALJ") determined that Plaintiff is not disabled. The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review, thus making the determination of the ALJ the final decision of the Commissioner. United States Magistrate Judge John Primomo reviewed the Commissioner's decision denying Plaintiff's disability benefits and recommended that it be affirmed.
The Court hereby adopts by reference the summary of the ALJ's Findings and Plaintiff's Contentions provided in the Memorandum and Recommendation at pages 4 and 5. The record reflects that the ALJ considered Plaintiff's back injury but determined that she retained the residual functional capacity to perform limited light range work.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court reviews de novo a Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation if a party files specific objections within ten days of service. The Court need not consider objections that are frivolous, conclusive, or general in nature. If there are no specific objections to a Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation, the District Court is to review it for findings and conclusions that are either clearly erroneous or contrary to law. In the instant case, Plaintiff received an extension from the Court to file her Objections by November 19, 2004, and Plaintiff timely filed specific objections to the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation. The Court thus reviews the Memorandum and Recommendation de novo. The Court hereby adopts by reference the Standard of Review for assessing the Commissioner's decision denying disability benefits that is set forth in the Memorandum and Recommendation on pages 3 and 4.
Battle v. United States Parole Comm'n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987).
See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989).
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff's main objection challenges the Magistrate Judge's statement that the ALJ's compliance with the remand order of the Appeals Counsel "is not a viable issue on this appeal." Plaintiff also objects to the ALJ's evaluation process. With regard to the Appeals Council's remand order, the Magistrate Judge found:
In reviewing the Commissioner's decision denying disability benefits, the Court is limited to a determination of whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence and whether the Commissioner applied the proper legal standards in evaluating the evidence. Masterson, 309 F.3d at 272. A complaint that the ALJ failed to obtain additional evidence or conduct further evaluation of an issue as directed by the Appeals Council is only relevant to the extent those matters impact the issues this Court must determine. In any event, the Court presumes that, had the ALJ failed to comply with the remand order, the Appeals Council would have told him so when they reviewed the ALJ's May 30, 2003 decision. Instead, it affirmed the determination that Plaintiff is not disabled.
This Court upholds the Magistrate Judge's determination that the court's role is to review evidence that is relevant to the issues this Court must determine in an appeal from a final decision of the Commissioner. The Magistrate Judge conducted an appropriate review of entire record, and he found that the Commissioner's findings were supported by substantial evidence. Although Dr. Dennis made a conclusory statement that Plaintiff was disabled, the ALJ was justified in affording less weight to his medical opinion because there was good cause shown to the contrary. For instance, the ALJ noted that the March 1998 MRI showed solid fusion in the surgical area and Dr. Dennis expressly diagnosed that Plaintiff's back condition was not bad enough for surgery. The Magistrate Judge reviewed the record and recommend ed that the ALJ's de termination was sup ported by substantial evidence. After de novo review of the Memorandum and Recommendation as well as the pleadings and evidence in the record, this Court hereby adopts the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation.
Johnson v. Bowen, 864 F.2d 340, 343-44 (5th Cir. 1993).
Masterson v. Barnhart, 309 F.3d 267, 272 (5th Cir. 2002).
See Newton v. Apfel, 209 F.3d 448, 455-56 (5th Cir. 2000).
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that the Memorandum and Recommendation be ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY.
FINAL JUDGMENT
On this day the Court entered an order adopting the Memorandum and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint. The Court now enters its Final Judgment in accordance with Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.It is ORDERED that the Memorandum and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge be ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY (Docket No. 14).
It is ORDERED that all of Plaintiff's claims be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
It is ORDERED that each party bear its own costs.