Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Clark v. Astrue

United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Southern Division

June 12, 2015

DANIEL RAY CLARK, Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTION, ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, AND AFFIRMING DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER

HALIL SULEYMAN OZERDEN, District Judge.

BEFORE THE COURT is Plaintiff Daniel Ray Clark's Objection [23] to the Report and Recommendation [21] of United States Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker. After consideration of the Report and Recommendation, the Objection, the record, and relevant legal authority, the Court finds that Plaintiff's Objection [23] should be overruled, the Report and Recommendation [21] should be adopted as the findings of this Court, and the decision of Defendant Michael Astrue, as Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, should be affirmed.

I. BACKGROUND

On January 26, 2010, Plaintiff filed an application for supplemental security income (SSI) and disability insurance benefits, claiming that his disability began on December 11, 2009. Report and Recommendation [21], at 1. The Social Security Administration initially denied Plaintiff's application on May 28, 2010, and thereafter upheld the decision upon a request for reconsideration on August 16, 2010. Id. at 1-2. Plaintiff requested a hearing before an administrative law judge to review the decision. Id. at 2. On November 28, 2011, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Charles C. Pearce conducted a hearing where Plaintiff was represented by counsel. Id.

At the hearing, the ALJ received testimony from Plaintiff and a vocational expert, and considered other evidence. Id. On December 9, 2011, the ALJ issued his decision, concluding from the entire record that Plaintiff has the residual functional capacity to perform light work with certain restrictions, and is not disabled. Id. at 8. The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review on February 8, 2013, and Plaintiff filed this civil action seeking judicial review of the Commissioner's decision on April 11, 2013. Id. at 1, 8.

Following briefing by the parties, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation [21], recommending that the decision of the Commissioner should be affirmed. Id. at 12-13. The Magistrate Judge agreed with the reasoning of the ALJ that Plaintiff's claimed limitations associated with an inability to see out of his left eye and a torn right shoulder rotator cuff did not render him disabled under the relevant legal standards. Id. The Magistrate Judge determined that Plaintiff's primary complaints about the ALJ's finding that Plaintiff was not wholly credible was within the ALJ's prerogative to make. Id.

Plaintiff submitted an Objection [23] to the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation, asserting that his eye and rotator cuff ailments satisfied the duration requirement for disability, disputing the ALJ's credibility determinations, and maintaining that he is in need of eye and arm surgery, rendering him disabled. The Commissioner filed a Response [24] to the Objection urging that the Court adopt the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

Where an objection is made to a magistrate's report and recommendation, the Court is required to "make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specific proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When reviewing a final decision of the Commissioner, a court may only consider whether the Commissioner applied the proper legal standards and whether substantial evidence in the record supports the decision. Jones v. Astrue, 691 F.3d 730, 733 (5th Cir. 2012). "Substantial evidence is that which is relevant and sufficient for a reasonable mind to accept as adequate to support a conclusion; it must be more than a scintilla, but it need not be a preponderance." Leggett v. Chater, 67 F.3d 558, 564 (5th Cir. 1995). A court may not re-weigh the evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner. Boyd v. Apfel, 239 F.3d 698, 704 (5th Cir. 2001). This Court must affirm the Commissioner's decision unless the Court finds that (1) the ALJ applied the incorrect legal standard, or (2) the ALJ's determination was not supported by substantial evidence. Id.

B. Standard for Social Security Entitlement

In order to qualify for Social Security disability benefits, a claimant has the burden of demonstrating that he or she has a "medically determinable physical or mental impairment" that has lasted for at least twelve months, therefore preventing him or her from engaging in substantial gainful activity. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). Substantial gainful activity is considered any work activity involving significant physical or mental abilities for pay or profit. 20 C.F.R § 404.1572(a) and (b). The Commissioner employs a five-step sequential process to evaluate claims of disability and decides whether: (1) the claimant is not working in substantial gainful activity; (2) the claimant has a severe impairment; (3) the claimant's impairment meets or equals a listed impairment in Appendix 1 of the Regulations;

(4) the impairment prevents the claimant from doing past relevant work; and (5) the impairment prevents the claimant from doing any other work. Newton v. Apfel, 209 F.3d 448, 453 (5th Cir. 2000) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520). The claimant bears the burden of proving the first four steps. If the claimant succeeds in doing so, the burden shifts to the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.