From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Broughman v. Astrue

United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Roanoke Division
Dec 19, 2008
Civil Action No. 7:07cv00233 (W.D. Va. Dec. 19, 2008)

Summary

finding that "[n]otwithstanding the ALJ's failure to specifically reference the 1999 psychological evaluation, his decision is supported by substantial evidence . . . [t]he ALJ is not obligated to discuss every single piece of evidence in the record, and his failure to cite a specific piece of evidence is not an indication that the evidence was not considered."

Summary of this case from Gaskins v. Colvin

Opinion

Civil Action No. 7:07cv00233.

December 19, 2008


ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION


ORDER

Plaintiff Harriet J. Broughman brings this action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1383(c)(3), incorporating 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), for review of the Commissioner of Social Security's ("Commissioner") final decision denying her claims for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act ("the Act"). The Court referred the matter to United States Magistrate Judge Michael F. Urbanski for a Report and Recommendation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The Magistrate Judge subsequently filed a report, finding that the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ")'s determination that Broughman is not disabled under the Act is supported by substantial evidence. The Magistrate Judge therefore recommended that the Court grant the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment, and deny Broughman's Motion to Remand.

Following the issuance of the Report and Recommendation, the parties were entitled to note any objections within ten (10) days. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). The Court has received no such objections. As a result, and having reviewed the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and pertinent portions of the record, the court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED and ADJUDGED

that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 31) is ADOPTED. The Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 27) is GRANTED, and Broughman's Motion to Remand (Dkt. No. 25) is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to send copies of this Order to counsel of record for all parties.


Summaries of

Broughman v. Astrue

United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Roanoke Division
Dec 19, 2008
Civil Action No. 7:07cv00233 (W.D. Va. Dec. 19, 2008)

finding that "[n]otwithstanding the ALJ's failure to specifically reference the 1999 psychological evaluation, his decision is supported by substantial evidence . . . [t]he ALJ is not obligated to discuss every single piece of evidence in the record, and his failure to cite a specific piece of evidence is not an indication that the evidence was not considered."

Summary of this case from Gaskins v. Colvin
Case details for

Broughman v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:HARRIET J. BROUGHMAN, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of…

Court:United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Roanoke Division

Date published: Dec 19, 2008

Citations

Civil Action No. 7:07cv00233 (W.D. Va. Dec. 19, 2008)

Citing Cases

Jonathan H. v. Saul

But, under the Act, the vocational expert is not obligated to identify jobs in the community in which the…

Gaskins v. Colvin

The Defendant cites a variety of cases for the proposition that the ALJ is not required to use "magic words"…