United States District Court, D. Nevada
CATHERINE A. ORCUTT, Plaintiff(s),
NANCY A BERRYHILL, Defendant(s).
before the court is Magistrate Judge Leen's report and
recommendation (“R&R”). (ECF No. 25).
Defendant Carolyn Colvin (“defendant”) filed an
objection (ECF No. 26), to which plaintiff Catherine Orcutt
(“plaintiff”) replied (ECF No. 27).
before the court is plaintiff's motion to remand. (ECF
No. 19). Defendant filed a response (ECF No. 22), to which
plaintiff replied (ECF No. 23).
before the court is defendant's motion to affirm (ECF No.
24). Plaintiff did not file a response, and the time to do so
parties do not object to the factual presentation in the
R&R. Rather, defendant objects to Magistrate Judge
Leen's legal analysis with respect to the pertinent
facts. See (ECF No. 26). Therefore, the court adopts
the factual representation in the R&R and will detail
factual and procedural background in the discussion section
of this order as necessary to explain the court's
may file specific written objections to the findings and
recommendations of a United States magistrate judge made
pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-4. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B);
LR IB 3-2. Where a party timely objects to a magistrate
judge's report and recommendation, the court is required
to “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). The
court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in
part, the findings or recommendations made by the
to Local Rule IB 3-2(a), a party may object to the report and
recommendation of a magistrate judge within fourteen (14)
days from the date of service of the findings and
recommendations. Similarly, Local Rule 7-2 provides that a
party must file an opposition to a motion within fourteen
(14) days after service of the motion.
defendant's objections to Magistrate Judge Leen's
R&R are so expansive, covering nearly every point of
legal analysis contained therein, the court will conduct a
de novo review of the underlying motions to remand
(ECF No. 19) and to affirm (ECF No. 24). See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
motion to remand, plaintiff argues that the administrative
law judge (“ALJ”) made three reversible errors.
(ECF No. 19-1). First, plaintiff asserts that the ALJ's
residual functional capacity determination is unsupported by
substantial evidence. Id. Second, plaintiff asserts
that the ALJ's “credibility assessment is
unsupported by substantial evidence because the ALJ erred in
considering the required factors.” Id.
Finally, plaintiff asserts that the ALJ erred in eliciting
vocational testimony from a vocational expert that was based
upon an “incomplete” hypothetical question.
Id. The court will address each of the alleged
errors in turn.
The residual functional capacity determination
motion, plaintiff argues that the ALJ erroneously discounted
the opinions of her treating physicians in favor of an
opinion from a non-examining state agency physician without
providing adequate reasons for the weight accorded to each
source. (ECF No. 19-1). Plaintiff asserts that this
miscalculation resulted in a “residual functional
capacity” determination that was unsupported by
substantial evidence in the record. Id.
plaintiff takes issue with the ALJ's finding that
plaintiff's admitted activities of daily living and
part-time work were inconsistent with treating physician Dr.
Robinson's opinion that plaintiff was disabled.
Id. Plaintiff argues that ...