Banfield v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 2:2012cv00353 - Document 21 (M.D. Fla. 2013)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER accepting and adopting 20 Report and Recommendations. The Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is affirmed. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close the file. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 9/19/2013. (RKR)

Download PDF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION SARAH BANFIELD, Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 2:12-cv-353-FtM-29DNF CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. ___________________________________ OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on consideration of Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier s Report and Recommendation (Doc. #20), filed Commissioner s on August decision to 23, 2013, deny Social recommending Security that the Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income be affirmed. No objections have been filed, and the time to do so has expired. The Court reviews the Commissioner s decision to determine if it is supported by substantial evidence and based upon proper legal standards. Crawford v. Comm r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1158 (11th Cir. 2004)(citing Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1439 (11th Cir. 1997)). Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance, and is such relevant evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208, 1211 (11th Cir. 2005)(citing Crawford, 363 F.3d at 1158-59). Even if the evidence preponderates against the Commissioner s findings, the Court must affirm if the decision reached is supported by substantial evidence. Crawford, 363 F.3d at 1158-59 (citing Martin v. Sullivan, 894 F.2d 1520, 1529 (11th Cir. 1990)). The Court does not decide facts anew, make credibility judgments, reweigh the evidence, or substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner. Moore, 405 F.3d at 1211 (citing Bloodsworth v. Heckler, 703 F.2d 1233, 1239 (11th Cir. 1983)); Dyer v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206, 1210 (11th Cir. 2005)(citing Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232, 1240 n.8 (11th Cir. 2004)). The Court reviews the Commissioner s conclusions of law under a de novo standard of review. Ingram v. Comm r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 496 F.3d 1253, 1260 (11th Cir. 2007)(citing Martin, 894 F.2d at 1529). Plaintiff raised three issues: (1) whether the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) erred in evaluating plaintiff s mental impairment; (2) whether the ALJ erred by failing to consider plaintiff s pain and rejecting her credibility; and (3) whether the ALJ erred by not considering the potential for absenteeism by finding plaintiff capable of other work. (Doc. #16.) The Magistrate Judge found that plaintiff s mental condition was considered by the ALJ, but found to be nonsevere and causing only a minor limitation, and the determination was supported by substantial evidence. The Magistrate Judge also found that the ALJ properly applied the Eleventh Circuit s pain standard as only one record reflected an -2- allegation of pain, and plaintiff s subjective complaints intensity and persistence were not supported by the record. of The Magistrate Judge further found that the ALJ did not err by giving great weight to the opinions of state agency medical advisors because the opinions were consistent with the record and plaintiff s status had not substantially changed from the date of assessments. As to the last issue, the Magistrate Judge found that the ALJ did not err by relying on the vocational expert s testimony that there were jobs that plaintiff could perform. Th ALJ did consider the vocational expert s testimony regarding blurry vision and that an individual who missed more than 3 days of work a month would not be able to maintain employment, see Tr. 31; Tr. 64, but the Magistrate Judge noted that plaintiff failed to show that she had blurry vision and therefore the ALJ did not err by finding that the medical record evidence did not support the restrictions. #20, p. 15.) (Doc. After a de novo review, the Court agrees with the findings and recommendations in the Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: 1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. #14) is accepted and adopted by the Court. 2. The Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is affirmed. -3- 3. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close the file. DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this September, 2013. Copies: Hon. Douglas N. Frazier U.S. Magistrate Judge Counsel of Record -4- 19th day of

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.