Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
19
Memorandum Opinion and Order Adopting Report and Recommendation 17 to affirm the Commissioner's denial of 1 Plaintiff's Complaint. Judge Christopher A. Boyko on 10/10/2013. (R,D)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
KAREN SUE SMITH,
Plaintiff,
vs.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 1:12CV2280
JUDGE CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
OPINION AND ORDER
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO, J.:
This matter comes before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Objection (ECF DKT #18) to
the Report and Recommendation (ECF DKT #17) of Magistrate Judge Limbert, that the
Court affirm the Commissioner’s decision denying Plaintiff’s Claim for Disability Insurance
Benefits (“DIB”) and Disabled Widow’s Benefits (“DWB”). For the following reasons, the
Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Limbert’s Report and Recommendation and AFFIRMS
the Commissioner’s denial of Plaintiff’s Claim for DIB and DWB.
BACKGROUND
The following is a factual synopsis of Plaintiff’s claims. The Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation provides a more complete and detailed discussion of the
facts. Due to the nature of this case, there is an extensive medical background. For a
complete overview of Plaintiff’s medical history, see Magistrate Judge Limbert’s Report
and Recommendation, which refers to the original Complaint and incorporates all
documents in relation to the dispute.
On January 4, 2008, Plaintiff filed applications for DIB and DWB, alleging a
disability onset date of July 15, 2007 due to chronic lung problems, heart problems,
fibromyalgia, and depression. The Social Security Administration (“SSA”) denied
Plaintiff’s applications initially and on reconsideration. On August 25, 2008, Plaintiff filed
a request for an administrative hearing. The hearing took place on July 22, 2010. The
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) issued a Decision denying benefits. Plaintiff filed a
request for review, which the Appeals Council denied. On September 10, 2012, Plaintiff
filed the instant suit seeking review of the ALJ’s decision.
Plaintiff has alleged errors concerning her conditions of obesity and depression. In
her Objections to Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff only objects to the
Magistrate’s finding that her depression was a non-severe impairment that resulted in no
non-exertional limitations due to a lack of objective findings establishing such limitations.
The Court will address only the Magistrate’s review of the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff’s
depression was not a severe impairment.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court exercises jurisdiction over the final decision of the Commissioner
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and 42 U.S.C. § 1383(c)(3). McClanahan v. Comm’r of
Soc. Sec., 474 F.3d 830, 832-33 (6th Cir. 2006). In conducting judicial review, the Court
must affirm the Commissioner's conclusions unless the Commissioner failed to apply the
correct legal standard or made findings of fact that are unsupported by substantial
evidence. Id. (citing Branham v. Gardner, 383 F.2d 614, 626-27 (6th Cir. 1967)). “The
findings of the [Commissioner] as to any fact if supported by substantial evidence shall be
conclusive . . .” McClanahan, 474 F.3d at 833 (citing 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)). “Substantial
-2-
evidence is more than a scintilla of evidence but less than a preponderance and is such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.” McClanahan, 474 F.3d at 833 (citing Besaw v. Sec’y of Health and Human
Servs., 966 F.2d 1028, 1030 (6th Cir. 1992)). “The findings of the Commissioner are not
subject to reversal merely because there exists in the record substantial evidence to
support a different conclusion . . . This so because there is a ‘zone of choice’ within which
the Commissioner can act, without the fear of court interference.” McClanahan, 474 F.3d
at 833 (citing Buxton v. Halter, 246 F.3d 762, 772 (6th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted)).
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Under 42 U.S.C. § 402(e), a widow may qualify for disability benefits if (1) she is
the widow of a wage earner who died fully insured, (2) she has attained the age of fifty but
not yet sixty, (3) she is disabled as defined in the social security statute, and (4) her
disability began before the end of the prescribed period. 42 U.S.C. § 402(e); see also 20
C.F.R. § 404.335. To be eligible for benefits, a claimant must be under a “disability” as
defined by the Social Security Act. 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(a) & (d), 1382c(a).
The Commissioner uses a five-step sequential evaluation process to evaluate a
SSI claim:
1.
An individual who is working and engaging in substantial gainful activity
will not be found to be “disabled” regardless of medical findings (20 C.F.R.
§§ 404.1520(b) and 416.920(b) (1992));
2.
An individual who does not have a “severe impairment” will not be found to
be “disabled” (20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c) and 416.920(c) (1992));
3.
If an individual is not working and is suffering from a severe impairment
which meets the duration requirement, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1509 and
416.909 (1992), and which meets or is equivalent to a listed impairment in
20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, a finding of disabled will be made
without consideration of vocational factors (20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d) and
416.920(d) (1992));
4.
If an individual is capable of performing the kind of work he or she has done
in the past, a finding of “not disabled” must be made (20 C.F.R. §§
404.1520(e) and 416.920(e) (1992));
-3-
5.
If an individual’s impairment is so severe as to preclude the performance of
the kind of work he or she has done in the past, other factors including age,
education, past work experience and residual functional capacity must be
considered to determine if other work can be performed (20 C.F.R. §§
404.1520(f) and 416.920(f) (1992)).
Hogg v. Sullivan, 987 F.2d 328, 332 (6th Cir. 1992). The claimant has the evidentiary
burden in the first four steps and the Commissioner has the burden in the fifth step.
Moon v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1175, 1181 (6th Cir. 1990).
This Court’s scope of review is limited to determining whether substantial evidence
supports the findings of the Commissioner and whether the Commissioner applied the
correct legal standards. Abbott v. Sullivan, 905 F.2d 918, 922 (6th Cir. 1990). The Court
cannot reverse the decision of an ALJ, even if substantial evidence exists in the record
that would have supported an opposite conclusion, so long as substantial evidence
supports the ALJ’s conclusion. Walters v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 127 F.3d 525, 528 (6th
Cir.1997).
In the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate points out that the
ALJ erred in finding that Plaintiff did not report depression or receive medication for her
depression. However, the Magistrate Judge determined Plaintiff failed to show more than
she was diagnosed with depression. Board certified internist Anthony Finizia, M.D.,
diagnosed Plaintiff with depression, and treated her, but did not indicate that Plaintiff’s
depression resulted in functional limitations, or required her to seek further treatment. At
Step Two, the ALJ determines whether a claimant's impairments are severe and whether
they meet the twelve-month durational requirement. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a). At this
Step, the claimant bears the burden of proving the threshold requirement of a "severe
impairment." Higgs v. Bowen, 880 F.2d 860, 863 (6th Cir. 1988). The claimant must also
show that she suffered from a medically severe impairment or impairments that lasted or
could be expected to last for a continuous period of at least twelve months. Id.
The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that there is no objective medical
-4-
evidence or doctor’s opinion that shows Plaintiff’s depression resulted in any work-related
limitations. Dr. Finizia noted in his June 1, 2010 treatment note that Plaintiff’s depression
and anxiety was controlled on medication. “Without an opinion that a particular
impairment ‘caused any functional limitation on [a claimant’s] ability to work,’ an ALJ is
entitled to treat the impairment as non-severe and need not include any limitations
resulting from it into the residual functional capacity finding.” Henson v. Comm’r of Soc.
Sec., No. 2:12CV624), 2013 WL 2287088, (May 23, 2013), quoting Clark v. Astrue, 2012
WL 3309690, at *10 (N.D. Ohio June 5, 2012), adopted and affirmed, 2012 WL 3309685
(N.D. Ohio Aug. 13, 2012). Therefore, the Court agrees that there was substantial
evidence for the ALJ to find at Step Two that Plaintiff’s depression was not a severe
impairment.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing analysis, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Objections are
without merit, and the Commissioner’s decision denying DIB and DWB benefits is
supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation (ECF DKT #17) is ADOPTED and the Commissioner’s denial of
Plaintiff’s Claim for Disability Insurance Benefits and Disabled Widow’s Benefits is
AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: 10/10/13
s/Christopher A. Boyko
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
United States District Judge
-5-
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?