Boose v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 20

Order Affirming Denial of Benefits and Adopting 16 Report and Recommendation. Judge Jack Zouhary on 8/8/2017. (D,L)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION Erin J. Boose, Case No. 3:16 CV 2368 Plaintiff, ORDER AFFIRMING DENIAL OF BENEFITS -vsJUDGE JACK ZOUHARY Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. Plaintiff Erin Boose timely filed a Complaint (Doc. 1) against the Commissioner of Social Security, seeking judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision to deny her disability insurance benefits. This Court has jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and the case was referred to Magistrate Judge Ruiz for a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) under Local Rule 72.2(b)(1). Following briefing (Docs. 12, 14–15), the Magistrate Judge issued an R&R, recommending this Court affirm the final decision of the Commissioner (Doc. 16). The matter is now before this Court on Boose’s Objection to the R&R (Doc. 18) and Defendant’s Response (Doc. 19). All the arguments raised in Boose’s Objection were previously raised in her briefs (Docs. 12-1, 15) on the merits and addressed in the R&R. She argues that the Magistrate Judge erred in the same manner as the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) -- that is, by failing to recognize that the ALJ’s residual functional capacity (RFC) determination did not account for certain limitations identified by state psychological consultants. In accordance with Hill v. Duriron Co., 656 F.2d 1208 (6th Cir. 1981) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) & (C), this Court has made a de novo determination regarding the Magistrate Judge’s findings. This determination included a review of the administrative record and the hearing before the ALJ. Because the R&R accurately discusses record facts and correctly applies the law to Boose’s claim, this Court adopts the R&R in full and rejects Boose’s re-raised arguments for the reasons contained in the R&R. Specifically, this Court agrees that the ALJ’s RFC determination adequately incorporated Boose’s work-related limitations, as identified by Drs. Tangeman and Demuth. This Court therefore denies the Objection (Doc. 18) and adopts the R&R (Doc. 16). IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Jack Zouhary JACK ZOUHARY U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE August 8, 2017 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?