BULLARD
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 disability benefits because the magistrate judge's report was well-reasoned, supported by evidence, and the plaintiff failed to timely object.
The plaintiff applied for disability benefits, which were denied by the Commissioner. The magistrate judge recommended affirming the Commissioner's de…
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 Acceptable Medical Source cases and more on FLexlaw
This Social Security appeal challenges the commissioner’s decision denying the plaintiff’s disability application. The plaintiff requests (Doc. 1) a reversal of the final administrative decision because the plaintiff is allegedly disabled and was wrongfully denied benefits. The magistrate judge recommends (Doc. 24) affirming the commissioner’s decision, and the plaintiff fails to timely object. The ALJ finds that the plaintiff’s mental impairments are “mild.” (Doc. 24 at 8) The magistrate judge’s report argues that “even if the ALJ erred by finding Plaintiff’s mental impairments to be non-severe, the error would be harmless because the ALJ found at least one severe impairment.” (Doc. 24 at 5) The magistrate judge observes that the ALJ not only notes the conflicting evidence about the plaintiff’s mental faculties, but the ALJ also addresses and refutes the countervailing evidence. That is, the ALJ’s determinations, based on medical and non-medical evidence, amply support a finding that the plaintiff’s mental impairments are “non[-]severe.” (Doc. 24 at 8) And the plaintiff’s assertion of severe limitations lacks support from an “acceptable medical source.” (Doc. 24 at 9) Next, the magistrate judge concludes (1) that the ALJ “adequately considered all of Plaintiff’s impairments, both severe and non-severe, in combination”; (2) that “substantial evidence” supports the ALJ’s findings; (3) that the ALJ aptly considered the plaintiff’s church activity, work on “social justice issues,” and recent travels to support his determination that the plaintiff lacks either a social deficit or a severe mental limitation; and (4) that the balance of the medical examinations, considered in light of the dearth of support from an “acceptable medical source,” buttresses the ALJ’s determination about the plaintiff’s mental capability.1 (Doc. 24 at 10) Also, the magistrate judge “find[s no] misstatements . . . or assumptions by the ALJ that warrant a reversal,” despite the plaintiff’s assertion to the contrary. (Doc. 24 at 16) The magistrate judge reasons that record evidence corroborates the plaintiff’s ability to “perform a reduced range of sedentary work,” which evidence includes the plaintiff’s ability to lift her ten-pound dog. (Doc. 24 at 17) Finally, the magistrate judge finds no issue with the ALJ’s evaluation of statements by the plaintiff’s husband. Not only did the ALJ consider and address the husband’s statements, but also “the explicit credibility determination as to Plaintiff’s
STEVEND.MERRYDAY [...]