Case Name in Social Security Case - Unavailable

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
KRISTINA KAY LAFFERTY,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SSA, CAROLYN
W. COLVIN,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Case No. 6:24-cv-459-JDK-JDL
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Kristina Kay Lafferty brings this civil suit pursuant to the Social
Security Act, Section 205(g), for judicial review of the Commissioner’s denial of her
application for Social Security benefits. The case was referred to United States
Magistrate Judge John D. Love, who issued a Report and Recommendation
recommending affirming the Commissioner’s decision and dismissing the case with
prejudice. Docket No. 17. Plaintiff filed objections to the Report. Docket No. 18.
The Court reviews objected-to portions of the Magistrate Judge’s Report de
novo. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“A judge of the court shall
make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed
findings and recommendations to which objection is made.”). The Court conducting
a de novo review examines the entire record and makes an independent assessment
under the law. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir.
1996) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)
(extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen days). The Court reviews
Case 6:24-cv-00459-JDK-JDL Document 19 Filed 03/05/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
unobjected-to portions of the Magistrate Judge’s Report for clear error or abuse of
discretion and reviews the legal conclusions to determine whether they are contrary
to law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989) (holding that, if
no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is
“clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law”).
Plaintiff objects to the Report’s recommendation that the Court affirm the
ALJ’s determination that Plaintiff does not have a severe impairment. Docket No.
18 at 1. Specifically, Plaintiff states that the ALJ erred by improperly discounting
the medical opinion of Dr. Bradley Stephan, who concluded that Plaintiff did
have a severe impairment. Id. Plaintiff maintains that the Report improperly
determined the “onset date” of her disability in disregarding Dr. Stephan’s opinion.
See id. She argues that the medical records prior to the “onset date” demonstrate
that she had a chronic condition that continued to escalate into a disability. See
id. Because the ALJ excluded these records in making its determination,
Plaintiff argues that the ALJ’s finding “is not supported by substantial evidence
and the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation on this issue should be rejected.” Id.
The Court finds that the Report correctly affirmed the ALJ’s finding that
Plaintiff’s back impairment did not constitute a severe impairment. See Docket No.
17 at 9. “ALJs have considerable discretion in assigning weight to medical opinions
and may reject the opinion of a physician when the evidence supports a contrary
conclusion.” Jones v. Comm’r, SSA, No. 4:21-CV-00895-SDJ-CAN, 2022 WL
19517056, at *13 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 19, 2022) (quoting Richardson v. Colvin, 4:15-CV-
Case 6:24-cv-00459-JDK-JDL Document 19 Filed 03/05/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
0879, 2017 WL 237637, at *10 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 17, 2017)). Here, the majority of the
medical records considered by Dr. Stephan were created prior to Plaintiff’s alleged
onset date of the disability. Transcript at 23, 69–80 (emphasis added). While
Plaintiff is correct that the onset date describes when the impairment became
disabling, “medical evidence that predates the alleged disability onset date is
ordinarily not relevant to evaluating a claimant’s disability.” See Arnold v. Comm’r
of Soc. Sec., No. 4:22-CV-04240, 2024 WL 23179, at *4 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 2, 2024)
(quoting Jackson v. Kijakazi, 588 F. Supp. 3d 558, 582 n.19 (S.D.N.Y. 2022)); see also
Owens v. Heckler, 770 F.2d 1276, 1280 & n.2 (5th Cir. 1985) (finding that medical
records pertaining to a time period before the alleged onset of disability was
immaterial to a claim of disability for a later time period). Accordingly, the ALJ’s
decision to disregard Dr. Stephan’s medical opinion is supported by substantial
evidence.
Having conducted a de novo review of the record in this case and the
Magistrate Judge’s Report, the Court has determined that the Magistrate Judge’s
Report is correct, and Plaintiff’s objection is without merit. Accordingly, the Court
OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objection (Docket No. 18) and ADOPTS the Report of the
Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 17) as the opinion of the Court. The decision of the
Commissioner is AFFIRMED, and this cause of action is DISMISSED with
prejudice.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of
___________________________________
JEREMY D. KERNODLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5th	March, 2026.
Case 6:24-cv-00459-JDK-JDL Document 19 Filed 03/05/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>