Case Name: Lou Ann WETHERBY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-03-03
Citations: 368 F. App'x 199
Docket Number: No. 09-3012-cv
Parties: Lou Ann WETHERBY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, B.D. PARKER, Circuit Judges, EVAN J. WALLACH, Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 368
Pages: 199–200

Head Matter:
Lou Ann WETHERBY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 09-3012-cv.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
March 3, 2010.
Kevin J. Doyle, Assistant United States Attorney (Tristram J. Coffin, United States Attorney for the District of Vermont, Carol L. Shea, Chief of Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, on the brief) Burlington, VT, for Appellee.
William J. Bloomer, Bloomer & Bloomer, P.C., Rutland, VT, for Appellant.
PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, B.D. PARKER, Circuit Judges, EVAN J. WALLACH, Judge.
The Honorable Evan J. Wallach, of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Plaintiff Lou Ann Wetherby appeals from the May 28, 2009 judgment of the District Court denying plaintiffs motion for an order reversing the decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (the "Commissioner"), granting defendant's motion for an order affirming the Commissioner's decision, and affirming the Commissioner's decision denying plaintiffs application for disability benefits. On appeal plaintiff argues that the District Court erred in affirming the decision of the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") because (1) the ALJ improperly failed to accord controlling weight to the treating physician's disability opinions; (2) the ALJ improperly substituted his own judgment for competent medical opinions when making his findings; and (3) the ALJ improperly required objective findings to support the medical testimony of Wetherby's treating physician. We assume the parties' familiarity with the facts and procedural history of the case.
We have reviewed each of plaintiffs claims and find them to be without merit. Substantially for the reasons stated by Magistrate Judge Conroy in his careful and thoughtful report and recommendation of March 16, 2009, see Wetherby v. Astrue, 08-CV-00165 (D.Vt. March 16, 2009), which the District Court adopted, see Wetherby v. Astrue, 08-CV-00165, 2009 WL 1544012 (D.Vt. May 28, 2009), the May 28, 2009 judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.