From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ingram v. Astrue

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division
Jul 28, 2008
Case No. 8:07-cv-1591-JDW-TBM (M.D. Fla. Jul. 28, 2008)

Summary

holding that ALJ's failure to address plaintiff's obesity did not warrant remand because "no physician suggested that Plaintiff's obesity imposed any additional work-related limitations and Plaintiff did not allege any limitation in function as a result of his obesity in his application for benefits or during the hearing"

Summary of this case from Eubanks-Glades v. Colvin

Opinion

Case No. 8:07-cv-1591-JDW-TBM.

July 28, 2008


ORDER


BEFORE THE COURT is the Report and Recommendation submitted by the Magistrate Judge recommending that the decision of the Commissioner of the United States Social Security Administration denying Plaintiff's applications for Social Security disability benefits and Supplemental Security Income payments be affirmed. (Dkt. 16). Neither party filed written objections to the Report and Recommendation, and the time for doing so has expired.

After careful consideration of the Report and Recommendation in conjunction with an independent examination of the file, the Court is of the opinion that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted, confirmed, and approved in all respects. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's thorough and well-reasoned determination that the Commissioner's decision comports with applicable legal standards and is supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1) The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 16) is adopted, confirmed, and approved in all respects and is made a part of this order for all purposes, including appellate review.

2) The decision of the Commissioner of the United States Social Security Administration is affirmed.

3) All pending motions are DENIED as moot.

4) The Clerk is directed to close this case.

DONE AND ORDERED in Tampa, Florida.


Summaries of

Ingram v. Astrue

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division
Jul 28, 2008
Case No. 8:07-cv-1591-JDW-TBM (M.D. Fla. Jul. 28, 2008)

holding that ALJ's failure to address plaintiff's obesity did not warrant remand because "no physician suggested that Plaintiff's obesity imposed any additional work-related limitations and Plaintiff did not allege any limitation in function as a result of his obesity in his application for benefits or during the hearing"

Summary of this case from Eubanks-Glades v. Colvin

finding even though claimant's weight was noted repeatedly throughout the record, ALJ's failure to mention obesity or address it in accordance with SSR 02-1p did not constitute grounds for reversal where no evidence suggested RFC affected by obesity

Summary of this case from English v. Saul

finding that even though the claimant's weight was noted repeatedly throughout the record, the ALJ's failure to mention obesity or address it in accordance with SSR 02-1p did not constitute grounds for reversal where the claimant had not identified any evidence suggesting that his RFC was affected by his obesity

Summary of this case from Session v. Berryhill

finding that even though the claimant's weight was noted repeatedly throughout the record, the ALJ's failure to mention obesity or address it in accordance with SSR 02-1p did not constitute grounds for reversal where the claimant had not identified any evidence suggesting that his RFC was affected by his obesity

Summary of this case from Barron v. Colvin

finding that even though the claimant's weight was noted repeatedly throughout the record, the ALJ's failure to mention obesity or address it in accordance with SSR 02-1p did not constitute grounds for reversal where the claimant had not identified any evidence suggesting that his RFC was affected by his obesity

Summary of this case from McIntire v. Colvin

finding that even though the claimant's weight was noted repeatedly throughout the record, the ALJ's failure to mention obesity or address it in accordance with SSR 02-1p did not constitute grounds for reversal where the claimant had not identified any evidence suggesting that his RFC was affected by his obesity

Summary of this case from Sanders v. Astrue
Case details for

Ingram v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:WILLIE L. INGRAM, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of the…

Court:United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division

Date published: Jul 28, 2008

Citations

Case No. 8:07-cv-1591-JDW-TBM (M.D. Fla. Jul. 28, 2008)

Citing Cases

Macaulay v. Astrue

Nor is this even a case in which the ALJ completely failed to mention the claimant's obesity, but nonetheless…

Winters v. Colvin

(Tr. 505). A body mass index of 30.0 or above constitutes "obesity" and a body mass index greater than or…