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)

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