BLACKMON
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed the Commissioner's decision denying Plaintiff benefits, adopting the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation.
Plaintiff sought Social Security benefits, which were denied by the Commissioner. A Magistrate Judge recommended affirming the denial, and Plaintiff o…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Appeals Council Review cases and more on FLexlaw
In this Social Security appeal, U.S. Magistrate Judge Daniel C. Irick entered a Report and Recommendation submitting that the Court should affirm the Defendant Commissioner of Social Security’s (“Commissioner”) decision denying Plaintiff benefits. (Doc. 24 (“R&R”).) Plaintiff objects on two grounds: (1) the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) residual functional capacity (“RFC”) finding was materially deficient because it did not include certain limitations; and (2) the Appeals Council reviewing the ALJ’s decision erred in refusing to consider new evidence of issues with her hip. (Doc. 25 (“Objection”), pp. 1, 11.) But Plaintiff made these same arguments before Judge Irick, and his R&R properly explains that the record shows the ALJ’s RFC finding was not materially deficient in the context of the entire record and the Appeals Council did not abuse its discretion in finding the new evidence irrelevant. (Docs. 21, 24); see Owens v. Heckler, 748 F. 2d 1511, 1514 (11th Cir. 1984). So after an independent de novo review of the record, the Court agrees with Judge Irick’s well-reasoned R&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Ernest S. ex rel. Jeffrey S. v. State Bd. of Educ., 896 F. 2d 507, 513 (11th Cir. 1990). Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: 1. Plaintiff's Objection (Doc. 25) is OVERRULED. 2. The R&R (Doc. 24) is ADOPTED AND CONFIRMED and made a
part of this Order in its entirety.
3. The Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED.
4. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff and then to close the file. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida, on August 17, 2023.
a hhh ROY B. DALTON, JR. United States District Judge
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Jeffrey S. v. State Bd. OF Educ. OF State OF Ga., 896 F.2d 507 (11th Cir. 1990)