Blair v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 17

Order Adopting Report and Recommendation (re 16 ) affirming the Commissioner's final decision. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr on 3/29/2017. (D,M)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

DEBRA BLAIR,
Plaintiff
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:16 CV 1019

JUDGE SOLOMON OLIVER, JR.

ORDER

The Acting Commissioner of Social Security (the “Commissioner”) denied Plaintiff Debra
Blair’s (“Plaintiff”) claim for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income under
Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 416(i), 423, 1381 et seq. Plaintiff sought
judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision, asserting two assignments of error: (1) that the
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) erred in weighing and in rejecting the opinions of Plaintiff’s
treating physician; and (2) that the ALJ erred by failing to consider Plaintiff’s alleged
noncompliance with recommended medical treatment in accordance with Social Security Ruling 8259.
The court referred the case to Magistrate Judge Jonathan D. Greenberg pursuant to Local
Rule 72.2(b) for preparation of a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). Both parties filed briefs
on the merits. On February 23, 2017, Judge Greenberg filed his R&R (ECF No. 16), recommending
that the court affirm the Commissioner’s final decision. With respect to Plaintiff’s first assignment
of error, Judge Greenberg reasoned that the ALJ did not err in her decision and that the ALJ
provided reasons that were “sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent reviewers the

weight the adjudicator gave to the treating source’s medical opinion and the reasons for that weight.”
(R&R 21–29 (quoting Rogers v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 486 F.3d 234, 242 (6th Cir. 2007)).) With
respect to Plaintiff’s second assignment of error, Judge Greenberg reasoned that the ALJ was not
required to consider the criteria under SSR 82-59 because a “finding of disability is a prerequisite”
to the application of the criteria. (Id. at 29–30.)
As of the date of this Order, no objections have been filed to the R&R, thereby waiving the
right to appeal the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th
Cir. 1981); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
After careful review of Judge Greenberg’s R&R and all other relevant documents in the
record, the court finds no clear error. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note; Thomas
v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require the district
court review of a magistrate[] [judge’s] factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other
standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”). Thus, the court adopts as its own Judge
Greenberg’s R&R. (ECF No. 16.) In the alternative, the court finds that, even upon de novo review,
Judge Greenberg’s findings are well taken, and adopts as its own his R&R for the reasons stated in
the R&R. The court hereby affirms the Commissioner’s final decision.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/S/ SOLOMON OLIVER, JR.
CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

March 29, 2017

-2-