Opinion
Case No. 3:18 CV 2400
11-12-2019
Pamela J. Crowe, Plaintiff, v. Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff files two Objections (Doc. 18) to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 17). The Government responds (Doc. 19).
The Government's Response effectively dismantles the Objections by Plaintiff. This Court finds nothing more to add, other than to confirm that the Objections are not well taken. The Objections center on whether the record supported the finding that Plaintiff failed to prove a "gross anatomical deformity and decrease in range of motion" and that Plaintiff "cannot ambulate effectively" (Doc. 18 at 2). Both points relate to an analysis of Listing 1.02A which requires a claimant to meet six elements of disability. The claimant does not satisfy all six -- meaning she does not meet the standard for a disability finding.
This Court adopts the reasoning set forth in the Government's Response and concludes Plaintiff did not sustain her burden of showing that the Commissioner's decision was unsupported by substantial evidence. This Court will go one step further and suggest to Plaintiff's counsel that, in the future, if he chooses to file objections, he should do so with objections that are meaningful. The Objections filed in this case are akin to a "drive by" without sufficient thought, support in the record, or analysis.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Jack Zouhary
JACK ZOUHARY
U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE
November 12, 2019