From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Chaney v. Astrue

United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Columbia Division
Aug 19, 2009
1:08-0021 (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 19, 2009)

Summary

holding that a provider who "examined [the claimant] two times in the relevant five-year period ... and seems to have been hired for the purposes of litigation" was not a treating physician

Summary of this case from Howse v. Soc. Sec. Admin.

Opinion

1:08-0021.

August 19, 2009


ORDER


Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Bryant in which he recommends denial of the Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record and affirmance of the decision of the Commissioner. No objections have been filed.

The Court has read and considered the Report and finds the same to be correct in fact and law. The Report and Recommendation is adopted by this Court.

For the reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation, the Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record, Document #13, is DENIED, Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Record, Document #19, is GRANTED, and the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED. This case is DISMISSED.

It is so ORDERED.


Summaries of

Chaney v. Astrue

United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Columbia Division
Aug 19, 2009
1:08-0021 (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 19, 2009)

holding that a provider who "examined [the claimant] two times in the relevant five-year period ... and seems to have been hired for the purposes of litigation" was not a treating physician

Summary of this case from Howse v. Soc. Sec. Admin.
Case details for

Chaney v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:GLENN ALLEN CHANEY, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security

Court:United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Columbia Division

Date published: Aug 19, 2009

Citations

1:08-0021 (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 19, 2009)

Citing Cases

Howse v. Soc. Sec. Admin.

The Court reiterates its skepticism as to Dr. Carrier's status as a treating physician for purposes of 20…