Filed: Aug. 26, 2019
Latest Update: Aug. 26, 2019
Summary: ORDER AFFIRMING RECOMMENDED DECISION LANCE E. WALKER , District Judge . On July 12, 2019, the United States Magistrate Judge filed with the court, with copies to counsel, his Report and Recommended Decision. The plaintiff filed an objection to the Recommended Decision and a request for oral argument on July 26, 2019. In the objection, the plaintiff argues the Report and Recommended Decision does not properly review the ALJ's treatment of the plaintiff's contentions (1) that he needed an as
Summary: ORDER AFFIRMING RECOMMENDED DECISION LANCE E. WALKER , District Judge . On July 12, 2019, the United States Magistrate Judge filed with the court, with copies to counsel, his Report and Recommended Decision. The plaintiff filed an objection to the Recommended Decision and a request for oral argument on July 26, 2019. In the objection, the plaintiff argues the Report and Recommended Decision does not properly review the ALJ's treatment of the plaintiff's contentions (1) that he needed an ass..
More
ORDER AFFIRMING RECOMMENDED DECISION
LANCE E. WALKER, District Judge.
On July 12, 2019, the United States Magistrate Judge filed with the court, with copies to counsel, his Report and Recommended Decision. The plaintiff filed an objection to the Recommended Decision and a request for oral argument on July 26, 2019. In the objection, the plaintiff argues the Report and Recommended Decision does not properly review the ALJ's treatment of the plaintiff's contentions (1) that he needed an assistive device to ambulate effectively, for a period of at least 12 months, which limitation should have been included in the RFC hypothetical provided to the vocational expert; and (2) that the ALJ botched the process of weighing expert opinion concerning all or portions of the relevant period.
Plaintiff's request for oral argument is DENIED, as I find the briefs fully adequate to facilitate de novo review. I have reviewed and considered the Recommended Decision, together with the entire record; I have made a de novo determination of all matters adjudicated by the Recommended Decision; and I concur with the recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge for the reasons set forth in the Recommended Decision, and determine that no further proceeding is necessary.
More specifically, given this particular record, I consider Dr. Green's opinion, which is both post-operative and retrospective, to provide a substantial evidentiary foundation upon which the ALJ could erect her challenged findings; reject the contention that the record compels the finding that the plaintiff required an assistive device in order to ambulate effectively for a period of 12 months or more; and conclude that the ALJ acted within her authority when she evaluated plaintiff's subjective report of 12 or more months of disabling pain, notwithstanding the opinion evidence of record that gives credence to his claims.1
The Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge is hereby AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. The final administrative decision is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
