Jones v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
17
OPINION AND ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 14 ; Judgment to issue; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, clb)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
BEN JONES,
Plaintiff,
Case No: 1:10-cv-535
v
HON. JANET T. NEFF
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
/
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff seeks judicial review of a decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration to deny him Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB). 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The matter
was referred to the Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that
this Court affirm the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) rendered on behalf of the
Commissioner. The matter is presently before the Court on Plaintiff’s objection to the Report and
Recommendation. Defendant filed a response to the objection. In accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) and FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3), the Court has performed de novo consideration of the
portion of the Report and Recommendation to which Plaintiff objects. The Court denies the
objection and enters this Opinion and Order.
Plaintiff presents one objection: his argument that this Court should reject the Magistrate
Judge’s recommendation to affirm the ALJ because the ALJ erred in failing to find that he satisfies
the requirements of § 12.05(C) (Mental Retardation) of the Listing of Impairments. Listing 12.05(C)
provides:
Mental retardation refers to significantly subaverage general intellectual
functioning with deficits in adaptive functioning initially manifested during the
developmental period; i.e., the evidence demonstrates or supports onset of the
impairment before age 22.
The required level of severity for this disorder is met when ...
(C) [The claimant has demonstrated] a valid verbal, performance, or full scale IQ
of 60 through 70 and a physical or other mental impairment imposing an additional
and significant work-related limitation of function[.]”
20 C.F.R. § 12.05.
The Magistrate Judge found that “[t]he record contains no evidence that Plaintiff experienced
deficiencies in adaptive behavior or suffered from mental retardation prior to the age of 22 or at
anytime thereafter” (R & R, Dkt 14 at 12). The Magistrate Judge pointed out that neither Plaintiff’s
health care providers nor any of the medical professionals who examined the record in this case
concluded that Plaintiff satisfied the “diagnostic description” of mental retardation articulated in the
introductory paragraph of § 12.05 or experienced deficiencies in adaptive functioning prior to
attaining the age of 22 (id.). Moreover, the Magistrate Judge found the fact that Plaintiff has
maintained employment throughout much of his adult life “inconsistent with the conclusion that he
is mentally retarded” (id.). Conversely, the Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff had identified no
evidence in support of his position, other than Plaintiff pointing out that he had attended a
segregated and allegedly inferior school, which the Magistrate Judge opined was not substantial
evidence satisfying this listing.
In his objection, Plaintiff opines that this case presents “a great opportunity” for this Court
to adopt a position, contrary to Sixth Circuit precedent, that “there is no need for a plaintiff to
present evidence of mental limitations before age 22” (Objs., Dkt 15 at 3), an invitation that this
Court, like the Magistrate Judge, declines. Plaintiff also argues that the Magistrate Judge failed to
2
consider that “there was no evidence of educational records that could be obtained due to Plaintiff’s
so-called education” (id. at 4). However, as Defendant points out (Resp., Dkt 16 at 3), Plaintiff did
not proffer any evidence to substantiate his claim that his school records are unavailable. And, in
any event, Plaintiff addresses neither the evidence of his long work history nor the opinions of his
health care providers and medical professionals, evidence that the Magistrate Judge properly
concluded supported the ALJ’s determination that Plaintiff failed to find that he satisfies the
requirements of § 12.05(C) (Mental Retardation) of the Listing of Impairments. Plaintiff’s objection
reveals no error by the Magistrate Judge requiring a disposition other than the affirmance
recommended by the Magistrate Judge. Therefore:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Objections (Dkt 15) are DENIED, the Report and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt 14) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the Opinion
of the Court, and the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is AFFIRMED.
A Judgment will be entered consistent with this Opinion and Order.
/s/ Janet T. Neff
JANET T. NEFF
United States District Judge
Dated: September 19, 2011
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?