Opinion
No. 03:11-CV-6108-PK
04-16-2012
NICHOLE L. WAGGENER, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant.
Alan Stuart Graf Alan Stuart Graf P.C. Summertown, TN 38483 Attorney for Plaintiff Adrian L. Brown U.S. Attorney's Office Portland, OR 97204 Mathew W. Pile Social Security Administration Office of the General Counsel Seattle, WA 98104 Attorneys for Defendant
ORDER
Alan Stuart Graf
Alan Stuart Graf P.C.
Summertown, TN 38483
Attorney for Plaintiff
Adrian L. Brown
U.S. Attorney's Office
Portland, OR 97204
Mathew W. Pile
Social Security Administration
Office of the General Counsel
Seattle, WA 98104
Attorneys for Defendant HERNANDEZ, District Judge:
Magistrate Judge Papak issued a Findings and Recommendation (#17) on January 20, 2012, in which he recommends that this Court affirm the Commissioner's decision to deny Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB") and Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") to Plaintiff. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
Plaintiff timely filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).
Plaintiff raises the following objections that were previously raised before Magistrate Judge Papak: (1) the ALJ erred in rejecting the lay testimony of Ms. Fisher, Ms. Donahue, and Plaintiff's mother, Kim Waggener; and (2) the ALJ did not give sufficient reasons for rejecting Plaintiff's subjective complaints to her treating physician Dr. Miller or the opinion of Dr. Miller.
I have carefully considered Plaintiff's objections and conclude that they do not provide a basis to modify the recommendation that the Commissioner's decision be affirmed. I have also reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and find no error in the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation.
Magistrate Judge Papak correctly concluded that the ALJ did not err in rejecting the lay testimony of Ms. Fisher, Ms. Donahue, or Ms. Waggener because the testimony relied on Plaintiff's subjective reports—which the ALJ found not credible, offered little information about Plaintiff's symptoms, and were not consistent with the medical evidence. Magistrate Judge Papak also did not err in his assessment of Dr. Miller's opinion because it was based on Plaintiff's subjective reports and included conclusory statements of Plaintiff's inability to work.
CONCLUSION
The Court adopts Magistrate Judge Papak's Findings and Recommendation (#17). Accordingly, the Commissioner's final decision is affirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________
MARCO A. HERNANDEZ
United States District Judge