Barton v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
Filing
16
Memorandum of Opinion and Order For the reasons set forth herein, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 14 ) is hereby adopted. The Court vacates the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security as to the sole i ssue of whether Plaintiff's prescribed cane was medically necessary and remands this case to the Commissioner for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The decision of the Commissioner as to all other findings is affirmed. Judge Benita Y. Pearson on 1/5/2018. (JLG)
PEARSON, J.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
VALERIE BARTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 1:17CV29
JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND
ORDER
An Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) denied Plaintiff Valerie Barton’s application for
Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) after a hearing in the above-captioned case. That decision
became the final determination of the Commissioner of Social Security when the Appeals
Council denied the request to review the ALJ’s decision. The claimant sought judicial review of
the Commissioner’s decision, and the Court referred the case to Magistrate Judge Thomas M.
Parker for preparation of a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local
Rule 72.2(b)(1). On December 8, 2017, the magistrate judge submitted a Report (ECF No. 14)
recommending that the Court vacate the Commissioner’s decision as to the sole issue of whether
Plaintiff’s prescribed cane was medically necessary and remand the case to the Commissioner for
further proceedings. Furthermore, the magistrate judge recommended that the Commissioner’s
handling of all other issues—being the medical opinion evidence of record—is supported by
substantial evidence and requires no remand. ECF No. 14 at PageID#: 1343.
(1:17CV29)
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) provides that objections to a report and recommendation must be
filed within 14 days after service. On December 15, 2017, the Commissioner filed a Response to
the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommended Decision (ECF No. 15), stating that the
Commissioner will not be filing objections. Plaintiff has not filed any objections, evidencing
satisfaction with the magistrate judge’s recommendations. Any further review by this Court
would be a duplicative and inefficient use of the Court’s limited resources. Thomas v. Arn, 728
F.2d 813 (6th Cir. 1984), aff’d, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Howard v. Secretary of Health and Human
Services, 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949–50 (6th Cir.
1981).
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge is hereby adopted.
The Court vacates the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security as to the sole issue of
whether Plaintiff’s prescribed cane was medically necessary and remands this case to the
Commissioner for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The
decision of the Commissioner as to all other findings is affirmed.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
January 5, 2018
Date
/s/ Benita Y. Pearson
Benita Y. Pearson
United States District Judge
1
As indicated above, in his Report, the magistrate judge recommended that the
Commissioner’s handling of the medical opinion evidence of record was supported by
substantial evidence and requires no remand. ECF No. 14 at PageID#: 1343.
2
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?