Mitchell v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 16

Order Adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge affirming the Commissioner's final decision. Related document 15 Report and Recommendation. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 8/14/2017. (R,Sh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

SHANE JOSEPH MITCHELL,
Plaintiff
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:16 CV 2303

JUDGE SOLOMON OLIVER, JR.

ORDER

The Commissioner of Social Security Administration (“Commissioner”) denied disability
benefits and supplemental security income to Plaintiff Shane Joseph Mitchell (“Plaintiff”or
“Mitchell”), in the above-captioned case. Plaintiff sought judicial review of the Commissioner’s
decision, and this court referred the case to Magistrate Judge Jonathan D. Greenberg (“Magistrate
Judge” or “Judge Greenberg”) for preparation of a Report and Recommendation (“R & R”). Both
parties submitted briefs on the merits. Plaintiff requested an order reversing the Commissioner’s
decision on the basis that the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) determination at Step Five of the
Sequential Evaluation, that Mitchell had residual functional capacity for light work based on a
significant number of jobs available to him, was not supported by substantial evidence. Mitchell
contended that the ALJ erred by relying on the Vocational Expert’s (“VE”) testimony that Plaintiff
could perform, without the use of his right arm, the identified occupations of Laundry Sorter,
Remnant Sorter, and Video Monitor. The Commissioner sought final judgment upholding the
decision below.

Judge Greenberg submitted his R & R (ECF No. 15) on July 24, 2017, concluding that the
court should affirm the Commissioner’s final decision. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge rejected
Mitchell’s assertion that, because he is unable to perform a full range of light work due to right upper
extremity limitation, he was, based on the definition of “light work” set forth in Social Security
Ruling 83-10, categorically incapable of performing any such work. (R & R at 7–8.) Judge
Greenberg also found that, contrary to Plaintiff’s assertions, there was no contradiction between the
VE’s testimony and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (“DOT”) because the DOT does not
address the matter upon which the VE’s testimony touched—whether the three identified
occupations require bilateral arm and hand use. (Id. at 8–11.) Finally, the Magistrate Judge
concluded that Mitchell failed to demonstrate that the number of jobs—201,880 identified by the VE
available to Plaintiff in the national economy—was inaccurate or unreliable. (Id. at 11–12.) As of
the date of this Order, Plaintiff had not filed Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s R & R.
The court finds, after careful de novo review of the Magistrate Judge’s R & R and all other
relevant documents in the record, that the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions are fully supported by the
record and controlling case law. Accordingly, the court adopts as its own Judge Greenberg’s Report
and Recommendation (ECF No. 15). The court hereby affirms the Commissioner’s final decision.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ SOLOMON OLIVER, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

August 14, 2017

-2-