Crumbley v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 22

Opinion & Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 9/13/18. The Court, for the reasons set forth in this order, adopts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and affirms the Administrative Law Judge's decision. (Related Docs. 1 and 21 ) (D,MA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
----------------------------------------------------------------------DORIS CRUMBLEY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No. 1:17-cv-2096

OPINION & ORDER
[Resolving Doc. 1]

----------------------------------------------------------------------JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
On August 16, 2013, Plaintiff Doris Crumbley filed an application for disability insurance
benefits with the Social Security Administration (the “SSA”).1 And, on September 27, 2013, she filed
an application for supplemental security income with the SSA.2 In both applications, Plaintiff alleged
that she became disabled on January 19, 2013.3
On September 30, 2013, the SSA denied both applications.4 The SSA then denied Plaintiff’s
request for reconsideration on January 9, 2014.5 Plaintiff Crumbley then requested an ALJ hearing, 6
which occurred on June 22, 2015.7 Shortly thereafter, the ALJ issued a partially favorable decision,
concluding that Plaintiff was disabled, but that her disability began on September 4, 2014, rather
than January 13, 2013, as Plaintiff had claimed.8 Plaintiff Crumbley sought review of that decision
by the Social Security Appeals Council. The Appeals Council denied her request.9
Plaintiff then brought this suit, requesting review of the ALJ’s decision.10 Specifically, Plaintiff
claims that: (i) the ALJ failed to consider her back pain and mental problems as “severe impairments”

1

Doc. 13 at 220-26.
Id. at 227-32.
3
Id. at 220, 227.
4
Id. at 88-113.
5
Id. at 116-43.
6
Id. at 171-72.
7
Id. at 43-83.
8
Id. at 14-42.
9
Id. at 1-13.
10
Doc. 1.
2

Case No. 1:17-cv-2096
Gwin, J.
and (ii) the ALJ incorrectly concluded that Plaintiff was capable of performing work that existed in
significant numbers in the national economy in the time before September 4, 2014.11 Magistrate
Judge Greenberg has considered Plaintiff’s case and recommends that the Court affirm the ALJ’s
decision.12 Neither Plaintiff nor Defendant have objected to that recommendation.
If a party had objected to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation, the Court would consider
the objected-to portions of the recommendation de novo.13 Because neither party has objected, the
Court may adopt the Report and Recommendation without review.14
Moreover, the Court has conducted its own review of the briefing and record and agrees with
the conclusions in the Report and Recommendation.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and
AFFIRMS the ALJ’s decision.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/

Dated: September 13, 2018

James S. Gwin

JAMES S. GWIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11

Id.

12

Doc. 21.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
14
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).
13

-2-