Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Baker v. Colvin

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle

February 10, 2015

DEBORAH L. BAKER, Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

MARSHA J. PECHMAN, District Judge.

THE COURT, after careful consideration of the Honorable Magistrate Judge Brian A. Tsuchida's Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 18), Plaintiff Deborah L. Baker's Objections to the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 19), and Defendant Carolyn W. Colvin's Response to Plaintiff's Objections (Dkt. No. 20), ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and DISMISSES this case with prejudice.

Background

Deborah L. Baker ("Plaintiff") raises six objections to the Report and Recommendation ("R&R"):

1. The Magistrate Judge erred by finding that the ALJ's failure to discuss the earlier medical opinions of Dr. Wheeler, Dr. Neims, and Dr. Krueger was harmless error.
2. The Magistrate Judge erred by finding that the ALJ stated legitimate reasons for rejecting the medical opinions of Dr. Coder, Dr. Wheeler, and Dr. Tarantino and that the ALJ gave appropriate weight to the opinions of Dr. Postovoit and Dr. Eather.
3. The Magistrate Judge erred by finding that the ALJ was correct in giving significant weight to Dr. Bunnell's opinion.
4. The Magistrate Judge erroneously found that the ALJ properly rejected Plaintiff's credibility.
5. The Magistrate Judge erred by finding that the ALJ's failure to address Ms. Zimmer's statements was harmless error.
6. The Magistrate Judge erroneously found the ALJ's RFC finding was supported by substantial evidence.

(Dkt. No. 19 at 2-12.) Plaintiff requests that the Court decline to adopt the R&R and remand this case to the Commissioner for further proceedings. (Id. at 12.) The Court considers each of Plaintiff's objections in turn.

Discussion/Analysis

A. Legal Standard

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, the district judge must resolve de novo any part of the Magistrate Judge's R&R that has been properly objected to and may accept, reject, or modify the recommended ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.