PAGE 1 – OPINION AND ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

MARY A. LEE,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

Case No. 6:13-cv-0809-SB

OPINION AND ORDER

Michael H. Simon, District Judge.

United States Magistrate Judge Stacie Beckerman issued Findings and Recommendation

(“F&R”) in this case on April 20, 2015. Dkt. 28. Judge Beckerman recommended that the 

decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) finding Plaintiff not to be 

disabled under the Social Security Act be affirmed. 

Under the Federal Magistrates Act (“Act”), the Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in 

whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1)(C). If a party files objections to a magistrate’s findings and recommendations, “the 

court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed 

findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 

Case 6:13-cv-00809-SB Document 32 Filed 06/17/15 Page 1 of 3
PAGE 2 – OPINION AND ORDER

For those portions of a magistrate’s findings and recommendations to which neither party 

has objected, the Act does not prescribe any standard of review. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 

140, 152 (1985) (“There is no indication that Congress, in enacting [the Act], intended to require 

a district judge to review a magistrate’s report to which no objections are filed.”); United States. 

v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (holding that the court must 

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

otherwise”). Although in the absence of objections no review is required, the Act “does not 

preclude further review by the district judge[] sua sponte . . . under a de novo or any other 

standard.” Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154. Indeed, the Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 

72(b) recommend that “[w]hen no timely objection is filed,” the Court review the magistrate’s 

recommendations for “clear error on the face of the record.”

Plaintiff timely filed an objection (Dkt. 30), to which Defendant responded. Dkt. 31.

Plaintiff objects to all of the legal analyses and conclusions by Judge Beckerman regarding the 

errors Plaintiff alleges were made by the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). The Court

performs a de novo review, considering Plaintiff’s objections, the record before 

Judge Beckerman, and the F&R. The Court agrees with Judge Beckerman’s conclusions and 

adopts the F&R, except as set forth herein.

In considering whether the ALJ properly analyzed the credibility of a report issued by 

Dr. Judy Pinsonneault, the F&R discussed, among other things, whether Plaintiff’s symptoms 

were controlled by medication and concluded that Plaintiff had difficulty controlling her blood 

sugar levels in large part due to her unwillingness to follow the recommendations of her 

physicians. Dkt. 28 at 21-22. Plaintiff objects that this discussion and conclusion that Plaintiff 

may not have been compliant with medical directives was not raised or discussed by the ALJ and 

Case 6:13-cv-00809-SB Document 32 Filed 06/17/15 Page 2 of 3
PAGE 3 – OPINION AND ORDER

is, therefore, impermissible post hoc rationalization by the Magistrate. The Court declines to 

adopt this portion of the F&R discussing whether Plaintiff’s blood sugar levels were controlled 

by medication.

In considering the ALJ’s credibility determination relating to Dr. Pinsonneault, the 

relevant question is not whether Plaintiff’s symptoms were in fact well controlled by medication. 

The relevant inquiry is whether the ALJ properly discounted Dr. Pinsonneault’s report, 

completed after only one visit with Plaintiff, because, among other reasons, the report was 

internally inconsistent by concluding that Plaintiff is permanently disabled while also concluding

that Plaintiff’s symptoms were well controlled by medication. The issue is not the veracity of 

either of those statements contained within Dr. Pinsonneault’s report, but the fact that those two 

statements are inconsistent. As noted in another portion of the F&R, an ALJ may discount the 

credibility of a doctor whose conclusions are internally inconsistent. Dkt. 28 at 23 (citing

Salchenberg v. Colvin, 534 F. App’x 586, 588 (9th Cir. 2013)). The Court adopts the remainder 

of the F&R’s discussion regarding the ALJ’s credibility analysis of Dr. Pinsonneault.

CONCLUSION

The F&R (Dkt. 28) is ADOPTED IN PART, as set forth herein. The decision by the 

Commissioner is AFFIRMED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 17th day of June, 2015.

/s/ Michael H. Simon

Michael H. Simon

United States District Judge

Case 6:13-cv-00809-SB Document 32 Filed 06/17/15 Page 3 of 3