Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02743/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02743-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 - 06cv2743

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KATHY GAST,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06cv2743-L (POR)

ORDER

(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED

STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE; 

(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT;

(3) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT;

(4) AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF

THE COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL

SECURITY 

vs.

JOANNE B. BARNHART,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

Plaintiff filed the instant action for judicial review of denial of her application for

social security disability benefits. She subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment,

requesting reversal or remand of the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) denial of her

application for benefits. The Commissioner filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. 

The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Louisa S. Porter for a report and

recommendation in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Civil Local Rule

72.1(c)(1)(c). 

Plaintiff alleged she was injured in November 2000 when she worked as a customer

service representative for America West and lifted heavy baggage from the check-in area to

Case 3:06-cv-02743-L-POR Document 16 Filed 12/18/07 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 - 06cv2743

the conveyor belt. When physical therapy and pain medication were not successful to

alleviate the pain in Plaintiff’s neck and left arm, she underwent surgery in January 2002 to

repair damage in her neck area. Although Plaintiff’s condition improved after surgery, she

continued to have some pain in her neck and left shoulder. Plaintiff’s treating physician

recommended she return to permanent light-duty work. Plaintiff was subsequently seen by

an orthopedist for the pain in her shoulder. He concluded she had a shoulder injury,

however, the most that could be done to treat it was medication.

At the hearing before the ALJ on August 2, 2006, Plaintiff testified she was disabled

due to the pain in her neck, left arm and left shoulder, and due to migraine headaches. She

was working part-time at a podiatrist’s office, escorting patients to their rooms.

The ALJ concluded Plaintiff had severe impairments after her neck surgery,

including the shoulder injury. However, the impairments did not equal or exceed the

Listings. He held Plaintiff had the residual functional capacity to perform sedentary work,

including her past relevant work as an office manager, and was therefore not disabled. 

In her motion, Plaintiff complained the ALJ did not adequately assess her ability to

sustain gainful activity due to exacerbations of her symptoms, particularly neck pain, and

migraine headaches. In the report and recommendation, the magistrate judge pointed to the

lack of any objective medical evidence in the administrative record that Plaintiff suffered

from migraines. At the hearing before the ALJ, Plaintiff testified she had not received

treatment for migraines since she moved to San Diego in July 2005. As to the neck pain,

the magistrate judge concluded, upon reviewing the record, that the ALJ provided specific,

clear and convincing reasons for rejecting Plaintiff’s testimony regarding the severity of her

neck pain, which were supported by the administrative record. Accordingly, the magistrate

judge recommended denying Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion and granting the

Commissioner’s cross-motion. Plaintiff did not file any objections to the report and

recommendation.

A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended decision” on a

dispositive matter prepared by a magistrate judge proceeding without the consent of the

Case 3:06-cv-02743-L-POR Document 16 Filed 12/18/07 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 - 06cv2743

parties for all purposes. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). “The court shall

make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to

which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Section 636(b)(1) does not require some

lesser review by the district court when no objections are filed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S.

140, 149-50 (1985). The “statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the

magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not

otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc),

cert. denied, 540 U.S. 900 (2003) (emphasis in original). 

Accordingly, in the absence of any objections, the report and recommendation is

ADOPTED. It is hereby further ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is DENIED.

2. The Commissioner's cross-motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. 

3. The Commissioner’s decision to deny benefits is AFFIRMED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 18, 2007

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO:

HON. LOUISA S. PORTER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:06-cv-02743-L-POR Document 16 Filed 12/18/07 Page 3 of 3