Filed: Sep. 20, 2018
Latest Update: Sep. 20, 2018
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION KARON OWEN BOWDRE , Chief District Judge . On June 20, 2018, the magistrate judge entered a report recommending that the court affirm the Commissioner's decision. (Doc. 18). The claimant filed objections on July 20, 2018. (Doc. 20). For the following reasons, the court OVERRULES all objections, ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the report and recommendation, and will AFFIRM the Commissioner's decision. First, the claimant states that the ALJ erred in giving little weight to Dr. Iyer's
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION KARON OWEN BOWDRE , Chief District Judge . On June 20, 2018, the magistrate judge entered a report recommending that the court affirm the Commissioner's decision. (Doc. 18). The claimant filed objections on July 20, 2018. (Doc. 20). For the following reasons, the court OVERRULES all objections, ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the report and recommendation, and will AFFIRM the Commissioner's decision. First, the claimant states that the ALJ erred in giving little weight to Dr. Iyer's ..
More
MEMORANDUM OPINION
KARON OWEN BOWDRE, Chief District Judge.
On June 20, 2018, the magistrate judge entered a report recommending that the court affirm the Commissioner's decision. (Doc. 18). The claimant filed objections on July 20, 2018. (Doc. 20). For the following reasons, the court OVERRULES all objections, ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the report and recommendation, and will AFFIRM the Commissioner's decision.
First, the claimant states that the ALJ erred in giving little weight to Dr. Iyer's consulting opinion. The court OVERRULES that objection. The claimant fails to point out any specific error of law or fact in the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. Instead, she disagrees with the magistrate judge's recommendation on that issue and block quotes cases with absolutely no analysis and fails to show how those quotes apply to her objection. The court agrees with the magistrate judge that the ALJ did not err in giving Dr. Iyer's opinion little weight and that substantial evidence supports the ALJ's reasons for that weight.
In her second objection, the claimant asserts that res judicata prevents the ALJ from changing her finding regarding the weight she gave Dr. Iyer's opinion in the second ALJ decision. The court also OVERRULES that objection. The claimant cites 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.987 and 404.989 to support her argument. However, that section deals with "re-opening" an opinion, not what the ALJ can do after an Appeals Council remand. The magistrate judge correctly and thoroughly explained the correct C.F.R. section and case law on this issue in his report. The court agrees with the magistrate judge that the ALJ was not bound by her findings in her first decision after the Appeals Council remanded the case to her and directed her to write a new opinion.
After careful consideration of the record in this case, the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, and the claimant's objections, the court OVERRULES all objections, ADOPTS the magistrate judge's report, and ACCEPTS his recommendation. The court finds that the decision of the Commissioner should be AFFIRMED.
The court will enter a separate Final Order in conformity with this Memorandum Opinion.
DONE and ORDERED.
