Opinion
6:20-cv-00276
12-03-2021
William Earl Stoker, Plaintif, v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant.
ORDER
J. CAMPBELL BARKER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintif William Earl Stoker fled this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for judicial review of the commissioner's decision to deny social security benefts. Doc. 1. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Doc. 3.
On November 16, 2021, the magistrate judge issued a report recommending that the commissioner's decision be afrmed and the case be dismissed with prejudice. Doc. 23. Plaintif submitted objections on November 29, 2021. Doc. 24. The court reviews objected-to portions of the magistrate judge's report and recommendation de novo. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
First, plaintif argues that the ALJ's residual functional capacity determination is not supported by substantial evidence. Doc. 24 at 2. Specifcally, plaintif claims that the ALJ erred by not including postural limitations for each severe impairment. The analysis for severe impairments, however, is altogether diferent from the RFC analysis. Gutierrez v. Barnhart, 2005 WL 1994289, at *9 (5th Cir. 2005); see also Boyd v. Apfel, 239 F.3d 698, 706 (5th Cir. 2001). A severe impairment fnding does not necessarily result in limitations in the RFC. Walker v. Colvin, 2015 WL 5836263, at *15 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 2015).
Next, plaintif claims there is no medical opinion evidence to support the RFC fnding. Plaintif contends that the ALJ rejected the opinion of Dr. Leong, a medical consultant. Doc. 24 at 4. The record reveals, however, that the ALJ properly considered Dr. Leong's opinion pursuant to the revised rules for the consideration and articulation of medical opinions for claims fled after March 27, 2017 and found his opinion partially persuasive. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c. After reviewing Dr. Leong's opinion that there is no medical evidence for the relevant time period prior to the date last insured to support limitations for medically determinable impairments, the ALJ considered the record as a whole, including the examining medical physicians' fndings and determined that plaintif could only perform light work activity. Doc. 16-2 at 18.
A fnding of no substantial evidence is appropriate only where there is a conspicuous absence of credible choices or no contrary medical evidence. Johnson v. Bowen, 864 F.2d 340, 343-44 (5th Cir. 1988). The court “may not reweigh the evidence in the record, nor try the issues de novo, nor substitute [the court's] judgment for the [commissioner's], even if the evidence preponderates against the [commissioner's] decision.” Bowling v. Shalala, 36 F.3d 431, 435 (5th Cir. 1994) (quoting Villa v. Sullivan, 895 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1990)). Here, the ALJ thoroughly summarized the record and explained his basis for his RFC fnding. The ALJ's RFC determination is supported by substantial evidence.
Having reviewed the magistrate judge's report de novo, and being satisfed that it contains no error, the court overrules plaintif's objections and accepts the report's fndings and recommendation. The court afrms the commissioner's fnal administrative decision and dismisses this action with prejudice. Any motion not ruled on is denied as moot.
So ordered by the court.