Cortez v. Social Security Administration, No. 2:2013cv00074 - Document 14 (E.D. La. 2014)
Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS - IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is DENIED and that defendant's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 3/25/2014.(bwn)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Cortez v. Social Security Administration Doc. 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA STEPHANIE CORTEZ, CIVIL ACTION Plaintiff VERSUS NO. 13-74 SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, SECTION "E" Defendant ORDER AND REASONS On January 3, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued a thorough and well-reasoned report and recommendation in this Social Security Disability case, recommending that Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment be denied and Defendant's motion for summary judgment be granted.1 Plaintiff timely filed objections to that report and recommendation.2 The Court has reviewed those objections and finds no error in the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation. The ALJ's finding that the Plaintiff's headaches are not a severe impairment is substantially supported by the record, and particularly by the ALJ's factual finding that the Plaintiff's "statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of these symptoms are not credible" and by the limited course of treatment she pursued for headaches during the relevant time period.3 The Magistrate Judge did not rely on post-hoc arguments to support the ALJ's decision, as Plaintiff apparently contends; both the ALJ and the Magistrate Judge correctly considered the severity of Plaintiff's 1 R. Doc. 12. 2 R. Doc. 13. 3 R. Doc. 8-2 at 14, 17. Dockets.Justia.com impairments for the same relevant time period during which she was eligible for benefits.4 Because the ALJ's finding regarding the severity of Plaintiff's headaches is supported by substantial evidence, the ALJ's reliance on those findings in its residual functional capacity analysis was proper, as the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded. Finally, Plaintiff criticizes the ALJ's citation to a particular article regarding lumbar discography. The ALJ cited that article as only one of several reasons to discount the unpersuasive testimony of one of Plaintiff's treating physicians; even if the article has since been questioned, substantial record evidence still supports the ALJ's decision. In sum, Plaintiff identifies no error either in the ALJ's decision or in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. Therefore, the Court hereby approves the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and adopts it as the Court's opinion herein. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is DENIED and that defendant's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 25th day of March, 2014. ____________________________ SUSIE MORGAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 4 R. Doc. 8-2 at 14.
]]>
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.
