Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 19

Order Adopting Report and Recommendation re 17 . The Commissioners decision denying Plaintiffs application for benefits is adopted. The case is dismissed with prejudice. Judge Donald C. Nugent on 10/3/14. (G,CA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

ROBERT SMITH,
Plaintiff,
v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:13 CV 2357
JUDGE DONALD C. NUGENT
ORDER ADOPTING
MAGISTRATE’S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION

This matter comes before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate
Judge Kenneth S. McHargh. The Report and Recommendation (ECF # 17), issued on September
16, 2014, is hereby ADOPTED by this Court.

Plaintiff sought review of the Commissioner’s

decision denying his application for Supplemental Security Income benefits under Title XVI of the
Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1381, et seq. The Magistrate found that the Administrative Law
Judge’s (“ALJ’s”) determination was based on the correct legal standards and that the findings were
supported by substantial evidence in the record.
The Plaintiff timely filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. (ECF #18). He
contends that the ALJ did not adequately assess Plaintiff’s limitations stemming from his “severe
antisocial personality disorder.” In particular, Plaintiff claims that the ALJ should have included

a limitation regarding his alleged inability to respond appropriately to supervision and co-workers.
The Court has reviewed de novo those portions of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation to which objection has been made. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). The Court finds
Magistrate Judge McHargh’s Report and Recommendation to be thorough, well-written, wellsupported, and correct. The Court finds that Plaintiff’s objections raise no arguments (factual or
legal) that have not been fully addressed by the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation.
In addition to the supporting evidence cited by the Magistrate, the following evidence
also supports the ALJ’s decision to withhold limitations relating to co-workers and supervisors. The
state agency physician Mathew Paris, Psy.D.1 did opine that Plaintiff had a history of antisocial
personality disorder, but did not call it severe.

He rated Plaintiff’s overall psychological

functioning, including his ability to get along with coworkers and to respond appropriately to
criticism from supervisors, as moderate. The record also show that Dr. Paris said that Plaintiff’s
antisocial personality disorder was longstanding, evidenced by behavior dating back to criminal
activity more than twenty years ago. However, Plaintiff indicated the last twenty years, prior to the
onset of his physical illness, he had been able to hold several different jobs, that he had no problem
with authority figures (over and above his general dislike for people), and that his impatience with
people actually stemmed from the pain he suffered from migraine headaches, and not to any general
anti-social disorder. (ECF #14 at 36-37, 44). Further, Nancy Borgeson, the vocational expert who
testified at the hearing indicated that even if a person limited to sedentary or certain light duty work
was unable to respond appropriately to supervisors and coworkers this would not necessarily change

1

In some parts of the record the Dr.’s name is spelled “Paris” and in some it is spelled
“Paras.”
-2-

the assessment of employability. She opined that if this inability to respond appropriately reached
a threshold of 50% of the time, it could prevent them from sustaining full-time work. (ECF # 14 at
51). There was no evidence in the record that Plaintiff met this threshold. In fact, the evidence cited
by the AJL and the Magistrate indicate that Plaintiff was able to work with people when he was
employed even though dealing with people in general may have frustrated him.
The Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation correctly addresses all of the Petitioner’s
claims; the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record; and, the Petitioners
objections are unwarranted. This Court, therefore, adopts the Magistrate’s Report in its entirety. The
Commissioner’s decision denying Plaintiff’s application for benefits is adopted. The case is
dismissed with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Donald C. Nugent
DONALD C. NUGENT
United States District Judge

DATED:

October 3, 2014

-3-