Spallone v. Berryhill, 3:17-CV-1152. (2018)
Court: District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Number: infdco20180622822
Visitors: 2
Filed: Jun. 08, 2018
Latest Update: Jun. 08, 2018
Summary: ORDER ROBERT D. MARIANI , District Judge . AND NOW, THIS 8th DAY OF JUNE, 2018, upon de novo review of Magistrate Judge Carlson's Report & Recommendation ("R&R") (Doc. 17), Plaintiff's Objections thereto (Doc. 18), Defendant's Response (Doc. 19), and all other supporting and opposing briefs and documentation, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The R&R (Doc. 17) is ADOPTED for the reasons discussed therein. 2. Plaintiff's Objections (Doc. 18) are OVERRULED. Plaintiff argues that "
Summary: ORDER ROBERT D. MARIANI , District Judge . AND NOW, THIS 8th DAY OF JUNE, 2018, upon de novo review of Magistrate Judge Carlson's Report & Recommendation ("R&R") (Doc. 17), Plaintiff's Objections thereto (Doc. 18), Defendant's Response (Doc. 19), and all other supporting and opposing briefs and documentation, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The R&R (Doc. 17) is ADOPTED for the reasons discussed therein. 2. Plaintiff's Objections (Doc. 18) are OVERRULED. Plaintiff argues that "[..
More
ORDER
ROBERT D. MARIANI, District Judge.
AND NOW, THIS 8th DAY OF JUNE, 2018, upon de novo review of Magistrate Judge Carlson's Report & Recommendation ("R&R") (Doc. 17), Plaintiff's Objections thereto (Doc. 18), Defendant's Response (Doc. 19), and all other supporting and opposing briefs and documentation, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The R&R (Doc. 17) is ADOPTED for the reasons discussed therein.
2. Plaintiff's Objections (Doc. 18) are OVERRULED. Plaintiff argues that "[t]he ALJ failed to provide controlling weight to Dr. Bosi's opinion." In support of this argument, Plaintiff repeatedly asserts that the Magistrate Judge erred in determining that the ALJ properly rejected Dr. Bosi's opinion and was entitled to give more weight to the medical opinions of "a non-examining State agency" physician. (Doc. 18, at 1-2; see also, id. at 3, 6). This argument grossly mischaracterizes the Magistrate Judge's analysis. Magistrate Judge Carlson did not limit his analysis of the ALJ's decision to the opinions of the "non-examining State agency" physician, but rather noted that the ALJ relied both on the state agency doctor and Spallone's treating psychiatrist in making her decision, and "cogently explained" her reasons for doing so. (See Doc. 17, at 27). Further, upon review of the ALJ's decision, the ALJ only afforded the opinion of the state agency physician "partial weight" (Tr. at 29). Instead, the ALJ afforded the opinion of Dr. Baxi, Plaintiff's treating psychiatrist, "great weight". (Id. at 30). Plaintiff fails to explain why the ALJ erred in affording Dr. Baxi's opinion more weight than that of Dr. Bosi, whom the ALJ noted was not a psychiatrist and whose opinion was "not consistent with the record as a whole." (Id. at 29-30).
3. Plaintiff's Appeal is DENIED.
4. The Commissioner of Social Security's decision is AFFIRMED.
5. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.
Source: Leagle
