Purk v. Commissioner Social Security Administration
Opinion and Order Adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and affirming the Commissioner's final decision denying Purk's applications for POD, DIB and SSI. Related document 14 . Signed by Judge Dan Aaron Polster on 3/28/2017. (R,Sh)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
DEBORAH L. PURK,
COMMISSIONER OF SOC. SECURITY,
CASE NO. 5:16 CV 1453
JUDGE DAN AARON POLSTER
OPINION AND ORDER
On September 14, 2012, Plaintiff Deborah L. Purk filed this action challenging the final
decision of Defendant Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) who denied her
applications for a Period of Disability (“POD”), Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”), and
Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act, 42
U.S.C. § 416(I), 423, 1831 et seq. (Doc #: 1.) Purk now argues that the Administrative Law
Judge (“ALJ”) erred at Step Five of the sequential evaluation by relying on the vocational
expert’s testimony that Purk acquired transferable skills. (Doc #: 12.)
On March 10, 2017, after reviewing the merits briefs and the record, Magistrate Judge
David A. Ruiz issued a Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) recommending that the Court
affirm the Commissioner’s final decision. (Doc #: 14.) The Magistrate Judge correctly noted
that testimony from a vocational expert, in response to a hypothetical question, may constitute
substantial evidence that the claimant retains the ability to perform specific jobs, so long as the
hypothetical question accurately accounts for a claimant’s physical and mental impairments.
The Magistrate Judge also correctly noted that the ALJ is required to incorporate into it’s
hypotheticals only those limitations he or she has accepted as credible. But Purk is not
challenging the ALJ’s determination of the severity of her impairments, the ALJ’s residual
functional capacity analysis or conclusion, or the hypothetical questions the ALJ posed to the
vocational expert (“VE”). Rather, Purk argues that the VE incorrectly determined that one of her
past jobs, which she herself identified as “shipping & receiving,” was that of a Shipping and
Receiving clerk–a skilled position with transferable skills that would enable Purk to perform
other occupations within the limitations the ALJ set forth in the hypothetical.
Plaintiff now argues, for the first time on judicial review, that her job duties in shipping
and receiving were more comparable to the duties performed by a “Packager, Machine” and/or
“Hand Packager”–unskilled positions with no transferable skills. Such a finding by the VE
would render Purk unemployable and, thus, disabled. As the Magistrate Judge stated, however,
Purk’s argument is devoid of legal authority except for a single citation to a Social Security
Ruling that is not on point, she does not cite the record to support the description of her past
work, and her counsel had the opportunity to question the VE at the hearing and did, but never
raised this particular issue. The Magistrate Judge concluded that, because Purk neither identified
this alleged conflict at the hearing or prior to the issuance of the ALJ’s decision, the ALJ did not
err by relying on the VE’s testimony which constituted substantial evidence that Purk could
perform a significant number of jobs in the national economy.
On page 15 of the R & R, Magistrate Judge Ruiz notified the parties that
[a]ny objections to this [R & R] must be filed with the Clerk of Court within
fourteen (14) days after the party objecting has been served with a copy of this [R
& R]. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to
appeal the District Court’s order. See United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th
Cir. 1981). See also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985), reh’g denied, 474 U.S.
Furthermore, under the relevant statute,
Within fourteen days after being served with a copy [of the R & R], any party may
serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as
provided by rules of court. A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination
of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations
to which objection is made.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). It is now eighteen (18) days since the parties were served with a copy of
the R & R, and Plaintiff has neither filed objections nor requested an extension of time to file
The Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge Ruiz’s thorough R & R and agrees with
him that the Commissioner’s final decision should be affirmed for the reasons stated therein.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s R & R (Doc #: 14), and AFFIRMS the
Commissioner’s final decision denying Purk’s applications for POD, DIB and SSI.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Dan A. Polster March 28, 2017
Dan Aaron Pollster
United States District Judge
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?