TANYA WALTON PRATT, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff, Rebecca S. McCorkhill's ("Ms. McCorkhill"), appeal of the Administrative Law Judge's decision denying her application for Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB"). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court referred the matter to the Magistrate Judge (
The relevant facts of this appeal are set forth in detail in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. Ms. McCorkhill suffers from several severe and non-severe impairments, including degenerative disc disease of the cervical and lumbar spine, and depression/bereavement. She filed an application for DIB on August 31, 2009, alleging a disability onset date of July 21, 2009. Her claim was denied initially and upon reconsideration. Administrative Law Judge James Norris ("the ALJ") held hearings on June 24, 2011, November 10, 2011, and January 23, 2012. The ALJ denied Ms. McCorkhill's claim on January 30, 2012, and the Appeals Council denied her request for review on February 21, 2013.
When a party raises specific objections to elements of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the district court reviews those elements de novo, determining for itself whether the magistrate judge's decision as to those issues is supported by substantial evidence or was the result of an error of law. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 72(b). The district court "`makes the ultimate decision to adopt, reject, or modify' the report and recommendation, and it need not accept any portion as binding;" the court may, however, defer to and adopt those conclusions where a party did not timely object. Sweet v. Colvin, No. 1:12-cv-00439-SEB-TAB, 2013 WL 5487358, *1 (S.D. Ind. Sept. 30, 2013) (quoting Schur v. L.A. Weight Loss Ctrs., Inc., 577 F.3d 752, 759-761 (7th Cir. 2009)).
Ms. McCorkhill raises five objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. She alleges that Magistrate Judge Dinsmore erred: 1) in affirming the ALJ's finding that she was not disabled due to chronic neck and low back pain, based upon allegations that the ALJ ignored testimony by Karl Manders, M.D. ("Dr. Manders"); 2) in his discussion of Richard Hutson's, M.D. ("Dr. Hutson") testimony regarding Ms. McCorkhill's pain; 3) regarding the ALJ's consideration of Schvon Cummings', M.D. ("Dr. Cummings") evaluation; 4) regarding the ALJ's credibility determination; and 5) regarding the ALJ's step 4 determination. The Court finds no reversible error on the basis of each of these objections and will address each in turn.
Ms. McCorkhill argues the ALJ erred by ignoring Dr. Manders' testimony in his opinion, and that the Magistrate Judge's review of Dr. Manders' testimony was improper post hoc rationalization. The Report and Recommendation explains that Dr. Manders stated at the first hearing that he was not a psychologist and could not testify as to Ms. McCorkhill's psychological impairments that may be contributing to her claims of chronic pain.
Next, Ms. McCorkhill argues that the Magistrate Judge's review erroneously concluded that Dr. Hutson did not testify regarding her pain, and that the ALJ erroneously ignored Dr. Hutson's testimony. However, the Court finds that both the Magistrate Judge and the ALJ properly addressed and characterized Dr. Hutson's opinion testimony. The Magistrate Judge addressed the fact that Dr. Hutson did not testify about how Ms. McCorkhill's psychological impairments had an impact on her subjective complaints of pain, not that he did not testify regarding her pain from other causes.
Ms. McCorkhill also argues that the Magistrate Judge erroneously determined that the ALJ properly explained his rejection of Dr. Cummings' evaluation. However, the ALJ adequately addressed the reasons why he gave little or no weight to Dr. Cummings' opinion, stating that the proposed limitations "are inconsistent with his own findings upon examination" and were "not supported by the objective or clinical findings documented in the claimant's medical evidence of record."
Additionally, Ms. McCorkhill argues that the Magistrate Judge erred when he accepted the ALJ's credibility determination because the Magistrate Judge overlooked that the ALJ ignored or misinterpreted evidence supporting her total disability. Ms. McCorkhill argues that the ALJ ignored evidence from Dr. Manders, Dr. Kobza, and Dr. Cummings that allegedly support a finding of disability. As previously discussed, the ALJ properly addressed why the opinions of Dr. Manders and Dr. Cummings were disregarded, and the ALJ's opinion does extensively address the findings of Dr. Kobza, concluding that Dr. Kobza was unable to pin-point the origins of Ms. McCorkhill's allegations of pain.
Finally, Ms. McCorkhill argues that the Magistrate Judge erroneously determined that the ALJ adequately explained his rejection of Dr. Cummings' evaluation, and that the ALJ's step 4 determination is contrary to Social Security Ruling 82-62. As previously discussed, the Magistrate Judge properly found that the ALJ adequately articulated his reasons for rejecting Dr. Cummings' evaluation. Further, Ms. McCorkhill does not explain how the ALJ's step 4 determination is contrary to SSR 82-62 and asserts this in only a conclusory statement; thus, this argument is waived.
For the reasons set forth above, the Court finds that there is no error in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and therefore
SO ORDERED.