1 Citations to the proposed findings, conclusions, and

recommendation issued by the United States Magistrate Judge will

be "FC&R."

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

TAMARA L. RIVERS, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

VS. § NO. 4:04-CV-539-A

§

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, §

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL §

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, §

§

Defendant. §

MEMORANDUM OPINION

and

ORDER

Came on for consideration the above-captioned action wherein

Tamara L. Rivers is plaintiff and the Commissioner of Social

Security, currently Jo Anne B. Barnhart, is defendant. On August

9, 2005, the United States Magistrate Judge issued his proposed

findings, conclusions, and recommendation,1 and granted the

parties until August 30, 2005, in which to file and serve any

written objections thereto. By order signed August 26, 2005, the

court gave plaintiff an extension to September 29, 2005, for the

filing of her objections. On September 29, 2005, plaintiff filed

her objections, and on October 28, 2005, defendant responded to

the objections. 

 

 Case 4:04-cv-00539-A Document 22-2 Filed 01/03/06 Page 1 of 5 PageID 114
2

I.

Standards of Review

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the only issues before the

court are whether the final decision of the Commissioner that

plaintiff is not disabled within the meaning of the Social

Security Act is supported by substantial evidence, and whether

the decision complies with applicable legal standards. Crouchet

v. Sullivan, 885 F.2d 202, 204 (5th Cir. 1989). If supported by

substantial evidence, the Commissioner's findings are conclusive

and must be affirmed. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 390

(1971). The court may not reweigh the evidence or substitute its

opinion for that of the Commissioner, but must scrutinize the

record in its entirety to ascertain whether substantial evidence

exists to support the Commissioner's findings. Fraga v. Bowen,

810 F.2d 1296, 1302 (5th Cir. 1987). Substantial evidence is

more than a mere scintilla, less than a preponderance, and is

such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as

adequate to support a conclusion. Crouchet, 885 F.2d at 204. In

determining whether the Commissioner's decision is supported by

substantial evidence, the court considers (1) objective medical

facts and clinical findings, (2) diagnosis of examining

physicians, (3) subjective evidence of pain and disability as

testified to by the claimant, and (4) the claimant's age,

education, and work history. Smith v. Schweiker, 646 F.2d 1075,

1077 (5th Cir. Unit A June 1981). "[N]o substantial evidence"

will be found only where there is a "conspicuous absence of 

 

 Case 4:04-cv-00539-A Document 22-2 Filed 01/03/06 Page 2 of 5 PageID 115
3

credible choices" or "no contrary medical evidence." Johnson v.

Bowen, 864 F.2d 340, 343-44 (5th Cir. 1988) (citing Hames v.

Heckler, 707 F.2d 162, 164 (5th Cir. 1983)).

Once the magistrate judge has issued his proposed findings,

conclusions, and recommendations, and the plaintiff has made

objections thereto, the district judge makes a de novo

determination of those portions of the magistrate judge's

specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection

is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The

court now makes that determination in the context of the basic

principles mentioned above.

II.

Plaintiff's Objection and Ruling Thereon

Plaintiff made only one objection to the FC&R. She objects

that:

The [administrative law judge's] finding that

[plaintiff] can perform her past relevant work as a

receptionist is inconsistent with his mental residual

functional capacity finding that [plaintiff] is

"limited to tasks requiring contact with people only

incidental to work performed" and, thereby, is

unsupported by substantial evidence.

Pl.'s Objections at 1.

The argument urged by plaintiff in support of her objection

is predicated entirely on imaginative use of dictionary

definitions of the word "incidental" to create what plaintiff

perceives to be a technical inconsistency between the assessment

of the administrative law judge ("ALJ") of plaintiff's mental

residual functional capacity ("RFC") and his finding as to the

 

 Case 4:04-cv-00539-A Document 22-2 Filed 01/03/06 Page 3 of 5 PageID 116
4

mental demands of plaintiff's past work as a receptionist. The

ALJ's assessment of plaintiff's mental RFC was as follows:

At all times relevant to this decision, the claimant

. . . had the following non-exertional limitations: 

she is limited to non-complex tasks in a routine

setting and she is limited to tasks requiring contact

with people only incidental to work performed.

Tr. at 17, ¶ 6. His finding as to the mental demands of

plaintiff's past relevant work as a receptionist was as follows:

Contact with the public is only incidental to the

client base in the office where the work is performed.

Id. at 16.

After having made a close study of the assessments and

findings of the ALJ, the court has concluded that the

inconsistency perceived by plaintiff is nonexistent. The ALJ

quite consistently concluded that plaintiff's mental RFC included

the ability to appropriately interact with people with whom she

would be in contact incidental to her work as a receptionist. 

The ALJ properly matched up the people-contact mental RFC of

plaintiff with the people-contact demands of plaintiff's past

relevant work as a receptionist. The court declines to accept

plaintiff's distortions, based on selected dictionary

definitions, of the ALJ's assessment and finding.

 

 Case 4:04-cv-00539-A Document 22-2 Filed 01/03/06 Page 4 of 5 PageID 117
5

III.

Conclusion and Order

For the reasons stated above, the objection of plaintiff is

without merit. Therefore, the court accepts the magistrate

judge's proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations. 

Consistent therewith,

The court ORDERS that the Commissioner's decision that

plaintiff did not qualify for a period of disability and

disability insurance benefits be, and is hereby, affirmed.

SIGNED January 3, 2006.

 /s/ John McBryde 

JOHN McBRYDE

United States District Judge

 

 Case 4:04-cv-00539-A Document 22-2 Filed 01/03/06 Page 5 of 5 PageID 118