Opinion
Case No. 3:10-cv-621-J-12MCR.
September 29, 2011
ORDER
This cause is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 21) of the United States Magistrate Judge, filed August 2, 2011, recommending that the Commissioner's decision to terminate Plaintiff's Social Security benefits be affirmed. Plaintiff filed objections to the Report and Recommendation and a request for oral argument (Doc. 22), on August 16, 2011. Defendant filed a response (Doc. 23) to Plaintiff's objections on August 29, 2011.
The Court has conducted a de novo review of the entire record, including Plaintiff's "Complaint for Review . . ." (Doc. 1), Defendant's Answer (Doc. 13), the record of the Social Security proceedings relating to this case (Doc. 14), Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the Commissioner's Decision Denying Plaintiff Disability Insurance Benefits (Doc. 16), Defendant's Memorandum in Support of the Commissioner's Decision (Doc. 19), the United States Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 21), Plaintiff's objections thereto (Doc. 22), and Defendant's response to Plaintiff's objections (Doc. 23). For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that oral argument would not be of assistance to the Court and that the Commissioner's decision is due to be affirmed.
Both parties agree that the standard of review in this case is whether the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) applied the correct legal standards and whether the factual findings are supported by substantial evidence. Plaintiff had been receiving disability benefits as a child since 1992 and was reevaluated for eligibility at age 18. The ALJ found that Plaintiff's disability ended on June 1, 2007.
In determining that Plaintiff was no longer disabled, the ALJ considered Plaintiff's own testimony and other submissions, evidence from Plaintiff's high school teacher, Ms. Long, as well as medical evidence and opinions from Drs. Legum, Vergara, and Zelenka.
Plaintiff claims that the ALJ erred in finding that Plaintiff was not disabled because he did not have a physical or mental impairment in addition to his mental retardation, and in finding, without benefit of a vocational expert, that Plaintiff's non-exertional limitations did not prevent him from performing a wide range of unskilled work. Plaintiff maintains that the ALJ's findings were erroneous and not based on substantial evidence because the ALJ did not sufficiently credit the evidence from Plaintiff's teacher, Ms. Long, as to the extent and nature of his disability beyond mental retardation.
The Court will not repeat the thorough review and analysis of the record set forth in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 21), but after a de novo review of the record, will adopt it as the opinion of this Court. For the reasons set forth therein, the Court finds no legal error and that competent evidence supports the findings of the ALJ. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1. That Plaintiff's Objections to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 22) are overruled;
2. That the Court hereby adopts the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. 21); and
3. That the decision of the Commissioner is hereby AFFIRMED.
DONE AND ORDERED.