Christensen v. King

United States District Court, District of Utah · February 12, 2025 · No. 1:24-cv-00007

Summary

This is a United States District Court order adopting a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation and overruling the plaintiff’s objections in a Social Security disability appeal. The court reviewed the Administrative Law Judge’s decision denying disability benefits, finding it supported by substantial evidence and consistent with applicable legal standards. Consequently, the court affirmed the Commissioner’s denial of benefits.

Court
United States District Court, District of Utah
Jurisdiction
United States District Court, District of Utah
Decision date
February 12, 2025
Docket number
1:24-cv-00007
Procedural posture
Plaintiff appealed the Social Security Administration Commissioner’s denial; district court reviewing magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.
Standard of review
De novo review of the portions of the report that were objected to; clear error review of unobjected portions.
Precedential value
nonprecedential
Parties
Christensen v. King
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

judicial review of agency actionadministrative lawcivil procedure

Practice areas

administrative lawcivil procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the magistrate judge erred in rejecting the plaintiff’s summary of the record.
  2. Whether the Administrative Law Judge is the proper decision‑maker to evaluate the plaintiff’s disabling impairment.
  3. Whether the ALJ improperly weighed and rejected the plaintiff’s medical providers’ opinions.

Holdings

  1. The magistrate judge correctly rejected the plaintiff’s summary because the summary was inaccurate; the court affirmed the rejection.
  2. The ALJ is the proper fact‑finder to determine whether the plaintiff’s impairment is disabling under the regulations.
  3. The ALJ’s weighing of the medical opinions was supported by substantial evidence and the correct legal standard; the court will not substitute its judgment.

Key quotations

When reviewing an objection to a Report and Recommendation, the district court should “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” (R&R 12)
Objections “must be both timely and specific to preserve an issue for de novo review.” (R&R 13)

Factual background

Nicole C. applied for disability benefits in July 2020 based on physical and mental impairments. The initial application was denied, and a subsequent reconsideration was also denied. An Administrative Law Judge denied the claim on June 29, 2023, and the Appeals Council denied review. The Commissioner’s final decision denied benefits, which the plaintiff challenged in district court.

Procedural history

Plaintiff filed for SSDI benefits in July 2020; application denied, reconsidered and denied; ALJ denied claim on June 29, 2023; Appeals Council denied review; plaintiff filed complaint in district court; magistrate judge issued report and recommendation affirming denial on Nov. 1, 2024; plaintiff objected; court adopted report and recommendation.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…