Opinion
CASE NO. 1:07-cv-00003-MP-MD.
January 3, 2008
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Doc. 21, Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, recommending that the Commissioner of Social Security's decision denying Plaintiff's applications for supplemental security income benefits filed under Title XVI of the Social Security Act, be affirmed. The Magistrate Judge filed the Report and Recommendation on Friday, November 30, 2007. The parties have been furnished a copy of the Report and have been afforded an opportunity to file objections. Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1), this Court must make a de novo review of those portions to which an objection has been made. In this instance, however, no objections were made.
After an administrative hearing, the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") found that because Plaintiff could perform her past relevant work, she not disabled under the Social Security Act. Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the Commissioner's decision must be affirmed if it is supported by substantial evidence and the correct legal standards have been applied. Graham v. Apfel, 129 F.3d 1420, 1422 (11th Cir. 1997). Plaintiff claims that the ALJ erred by not using the appropriate pain standard in assessing her credibility. Plaintiff presented to her treating physicians with disc herniation, tenderness in her neck and left arm, and complaints of severe neck pain. The ALJ found that Plaintiff's subjective complaints did not correlate with the objective test results, and concluded that Plaintiff's allegations concerning her limitations were not totally credible.
Contrary to Plaintiff's subjective complaints, Plaintiff's treating physicians, Dr. Wright and Dr. Ratchford, did not indicate that Plaintiff had difficulty walking, standing, or sitting. Although the ALJ found that Plaintiff "clearly ha[d] degenerative disc disease of the cervical spine as confirmed by an MRI, CT/myelogram and clinical examinations," the Court agrees with the Magistrate that the objective medical evidence failed to confirm the severity of the alleged pain. This provided the Administrative Law Judge with ample evidence to discredit Plaintiff's subjective complaints of pain. Based on this, the Court agrees with the Magistrate that the Administrative Law Judge's decision that Plaintiff could perform her past relevant work — and that she was therefore not disabled under the Social Security Act — is supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, having considered the Report and Recommendation, I have determined that it should be adopted. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, Doc. 21, is adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.
2. The decision of the Commissioner denying benefits is AFFIRMED, this action is DISMISSED, and the Clerk is directed to close the file.
DONE AND ORDERED.