Shumaker v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 18

Memorandum Opinion adopting Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 16 ). The Commissioner's decision to deny plaintiff's claim for disability insurance benefits is affirmed in part and remanded in part under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. Section 405(g) for proceedings consistent with the conclusion above. Judge Sara Lioi on 2/4/2013. (P,J)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
JOSEPH P. SHUMAKER,
PLAINTIFF,
vs.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
DEFENDANTS.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:11CV2801
JUDGE SARA LIOI
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before the Court is the report and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge in the
above-entitled action, recommending that the Commissioner’s decision be affirmed in part and
remanded in part. (Doc. No. 16.)
On January 29, 2013, the Commissioner filed a response, indicating that he would
not be filing any objections. (Doc. No. 17.) The plaintiff filed no objections and made no request
for an extension of time.1
The Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation and
accepts the same, adopting its reasoning as the Court’s own. Accordingly, the Court concludes that
substantial evidence does not support the Commissioner’s decision denying plaintiff’s claim for

1

Under the relevant statute, objections were due within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the R&R. 28
U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(C). The R&R was filed on January 15, 2013, and was immediately served electronically. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(E). Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1) and (d), when computing time for filing objections, January 15th is
excluded, every day thereafter is counted, and three additional days are added. Therefore, objections were due on
February 1, 2013. Failure to file written objections to a Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation constitutes a
waiver of a de novo determination by the district court of any issue covered in the report. Thomas v. Arn, 728 F.2d 813
(6th Cir. 1984), aff’d, 474 U.S. 140 (1985), reh’g denied, 474 U.S. 1111 (1986); see United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d
947 (6th Cir. 1981).

disability insurance benefits only to the extent that the Administrative Law Judge failed to discuss
the impact, if any, of three decisions by the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) that plaintiff is
disabled to some extent under its regulations.2
Accordingly, the Commissioner’s decision to deny plaintiff’s claim for disability
insurance benefits is AFFIRMED in part and REMANDED in part under sentence four of 42
U.S.C. § 405(g) for proceedings consistent with the conclusion above.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 4, 2013
HONORABLE SARA LIOI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

As properly noted in the R&R, “[b]ecause VA standards differ from the standards employed by the [Social Security
Administration], VA decisions are not binding on the determination of whether an individual is disabled for purposes
of social security disability. . . . However, while not binding, the Sixth Circuit has observed that disability decisions of
other governmental agencies must be taken into account.” (Doc. No. 16 at 1445, citing cases.)