Case Name in Social Security Case - Unavailable

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
GARY ADAMS, '
'
Plaintiff, '
'
versus ' CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:24-CV-216-MAC
'
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECUIRTY, '
'
Defendant. '
ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The Plaintiff requests judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social
Security Administration with respect to his application for disability-based benefits. The court
referred this matter to the Honorable Christine L. Stetson, United States Magistrate Judge, for
consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this court. The magistrate judge
submitted a report recommending that the Commissioner’s decision be affirmed. The court has
considered the report and recommendation (#15), and the Plaintiff’s objections (#16).
Adams’ objections assert that the magistrate judge failed to consider the ALJ’s failure to
provide a narrative explaining why the ALJ did not include mental limitations in his residual
functional capacity assessment to account for the mental requirements of his past relevant work
as a floor supervisor. He also objects to the report and recommendation’s evaluation of the
evidence supporting the ALJ’s RFC finding stating that it conflicts with Dr. Likover’s opinion
as to his ability to sit for fifty percent of the workday.
The magistrate judge pointed out in the report and recommendation that the ALJ evaluated
Adams’ mental impairments as non-severe and found no evidence in the record of mental
Case 9:24-cv-00216-MAC-CLS Document 17 Filed 02/27/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
limitations that would erode his RFC finding for light, skilled work. As acknowledged by
Adams, it is his burden to demonstrate his limitations and the inability to perform his past
relevant work. He notes in his objections a duty by the ALJ to develop the record; however,
Disability Determination Services did in fact order a medical evaluation from Dr. Phong Luu.
(Tr. 609-612.) Adams reported to Dr. Luu a history of depression and anxiety for the last nine
years, and that he takes Escitalopram, which improves his mental conditions. (Tr. 610.) The
exam revealed that he was alert, had clear and appropriate speech with a normal tone. (Tr. 611.)
No functional mental limitations were noted in his report. (Id.) The magistrate judge also noted
that the state agency medical consultants found his mental impairments were non-severe. In
addition, Adams’ limited treatment for his mental condition does not offer any evidence of any
mental functional limitations. (Tr. 984-1002.) The court finds the record contains substantial
evidence to support the ALJ’s RFC finding of light work with no mental limitations. See
Hernandez v. Astrue, 278 F. App’x 333, 338 (5th Cir. 2008) (requiring the ALJ to incorporate
only those limitations he finds “consistent with the weight of the evidence as a whole”).
As to Dr. Likover’s opinion, the ALJ discussed Dr. Likover’s report finding that “Adams
is to return to work, light duty” and “there is no contraindication to him returning to work.”
(Tr. 1022.) As noted by Adams, Dr. Likover stated that he should be on light duty restriction
with 50% sitting and 50% standing for his right knee and back pain. (Id.) Dr. Likover also
stated that Adams is hurting due to “a strain sprain or contusion that will heal on its own.” (Id.)
Adams argues that if the RFC assessment conflicts with an opinion from a medical source, the
adjudicator must explain why the opinion was not adopted citing to SSR 96-8P. A 50% sitting
restriction, however, does not directly conflict with an RFC for a reduced range of light work.
Case 9:24-cv-00216-MAC-CLS Document 17 Filed 02/27/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
Light work typically “requires a good deal of walking or standing.”1 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(b).
Also, the ALJ found Dr. Likover’s opinion persuasive. This does not require him to wholly
adopt the opinion, however. Webster v. Kijakazi, 19 F.4th 715, 719 (5th Cir. 2021) (“The social
security regulations explain that the ALJ is the fact-finder in making the RFC assessment, and
the ALJ is not required to adopt the RFC verbatim from a medical opinion, as this would nullify
his role as fact-finder.”).
The ALJ discussed Adams’ complaints regarding sitting too long; considered his lack of
hospitalization or emergency room treatment; discussed his consultative exam; and looked at his
treatment records for his right knee and back condition. (Tr. 20-21.) He explained that while
“some limitations preclude heavy and medium work, it does not suggest it precludes all work.”
(Tr. 20.) The undersigned finds the ALJ’s evaluation of Dr. Likover’s opinion and the overall
RFC to be supported by substantial evidence and without legal error. See Keith S. v. O'Malley,
No. 1:23-CV-174-H-BU, 2024 WL 4329138, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 13, 2024) (“The ALJ’s
discussion of the persuasiveness of a medical opinion and the consistency and supportability
factors is not confined to the specific discussion of the opinion itself but is considered in light of
the entire [residual functional capacity] discussion and the evidence discussed therein.”) (quoting
Garner v. Kijakazi, No. 1:22-CV-563-DH, 2023 WL 1976713, at *5 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 13,
2023)).
The court has conducted a de novo review of the objections in relation to the pleadings
and the applicable law. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). After careful review, the court finds that
the objections are without merit and the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the United
1 SAMC Dr. Kavitha Reddy opined that Adams could perform medium work. The ALJ, however, found this
unpersuasive to Adams’ favor. (Tr. 21.)
Case 9:24-cv-00216-MAC-CLS Document 17 Filed 02/27/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
States magistrate judge are correct, and the underlying administrative decision is free from legal
error and supported by substantial evidence.
Accordingly, the court OVERRULES the Plaintiff’s objections, ADOPTS the report and
recommendation of the magistrate judge, and AFFIRMS the Commissioner’s denial of benefits.
A final judgment will be entered separately in this case in accordance with the magistrate judge’s
recommendation.
________________________________________
MARCIA A. CRONE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 27th day of February, 2026.
Case 9:24-cv-00216-MAC-CLS Document 17 Filed 02/27/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>