Flynn v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 22

Order Adopting Report and Recommendation re 20 in its entirety and hereby affirms the Commissioner's final decision. Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr on 8/8/2018. (H,SP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

KELLY JO FLYNN,
Plaintiff
v.
COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:17 CV 1818

JUDGE SOLOMON OLIVER, JR.

ORDER

Plaintiff Kelly Jo Flynn (“Flynn”) appeals the Acting Commissioner of Social Security’s
(“Commissioner”) final decision denying her application for disability insurance benefits (“DIB”),
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1383(c) and 405(g). (Compl., ECF No. 1.)
Flynn asserts that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) erred when he failed to properly
evaluate the medical opinions in the record when he ultimately found that Flynn was not disabled
because she is able to perform jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy, such
as a dishwasher, janitor, or groundskeeper. (See Flynn’s Merit Br., ECF No. 15.) The Commissioner
argues that substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s decision because the ALJ properly considered
the relevant medical opinion evidence in light of the medical record as a whole. (See Comm’r’s
Merit Br., ECF No. 18.)
On July 23, 2018, Magistrate Judge James R. Knepp, II (“Magistrate Judge” or “Judge
Knepp”), submitted a Report and Recommendation, pursuant to Local Rule 72.2, recommending
that the Commissioner’s final decision be affirmed because it is supported by substantial evidence.
(R & R, ECF No. 20.) First, the Magistrate Judge determined that, although the opinion of treating

physicians is generally given “controlling weight” if it is supported by medically acceptable clinical
and laboratory diagnostic techniques, and if it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in
the case record, the ALJ properly articulated “good reasons” to give the opinion evidence provided
by Cristina Canella, CNP, little weight. (Id. at 15–18.) Particularly, because her opinion that Flynn
would be absent from work up to two days a month was contradicted by the generally normal
mental status findings present in the record. (Id.) The Magistrate Judge also determined that the
ALJ’s reasons for discounting the opinion evidence of the examining physician Rita Politzer, Ph.D.,
is supported by the record because Dr. Polizter based many of her findings on Flynn’s own selfreported symptoms and history, which an ALJ is not required to accept. (Id. at 18–19.) Finally, the
Magistrate Judge determined that the ALJ did not error in assigning “great weight” to the opinions
of the state agency reviewing physicians Janet Souder, Psy.D., and Connie Jenkins, M.D., because,
unlike the opinions of Ms. Canella and Dr. Politzer, their opinions were internally consistent, and
consistent with the overall record. (Id. at 19–21.)
On August 6, 2018, Flynn filed a response, indicating that she would not be filing any
objections to the R&R. (Flynn’s Resp., ECF No. 21.) When no objection has been filed, “the court
need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note; see also 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.”).
After careful review of Judge Knepp’s R&R, and all other relevant documents in the record,
the court finds no clear error. Accordingly, the court adopts as its own Magistrate Judge Knepp’s

-2-

R&R (ECF No. 20) in its entirety and hereby affirms the Commissioner’s final decision.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

August 8, 2018

-3-