Mosby v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 34

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendation 27 ; Affirming the decision of the Commissioner. This case is terminated on the docket of this Court. Signed by Judge Herman J. Weber on 9/17/14. (mb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

ERICA LAWRENCE,
Plaintiff
v.

C-1-13-294

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant

This

matter

is

before

the

Court

upon

the

Report

and

Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (doc. no. 27)
and plaintiff=s objections thereto (doc. no. 32).

Plaintiff, a Disability

Insurance Benefits (DIB) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
claimant, brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 405(g) seeking
judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social
Security denying plaintiff's application for DIB and SSI benefits.

The

Magistrate Judge concluded that there is substantial evidence to
support the Commissioner's findings and recommended that the final
decision of the Commissioner that plaintiff is not entitled to benefits be

2
affirmed.
I.
Plaintiff filed applications for DIB and SSI in 2008, alleging a disability
onset date of June 16, 2007.
and on reconsideration.

Those applications were denied initially

Plaintiff=s request for a de novo hearing before

the ALJ was granted and an evidentiary hearing was held March 4,
2010.

Plaintiff was represented by counsel at the hearing and

presented testimony.

Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Donald

Becher filed a written decision dated April 8, 2010 in which he
determined that, despite several severe mental impairments, plaintiff
remained capable of full-time employment and therefore was not
disabled. After the ALJ’s decision, plaintiff retained new counsel and
there is some ambiguity in the record regarding a “duplicate appeal.”
There is no evidence of a formal appeal of that decision.
Plaintiff obtained new counsel and filed new application for DIB
and SSI in July, 2010, alleging a new disability onset date of April 9,
2010.

Those

reconsideration.

applications

were

denied

initially

and

upon

An administrative hearing was held before a new

3
ALJ, Gilbert A. Sheard, in January 2012. Plaintiff appeared, represented
by her attorney at that time and provided testimony. An impartial
medical expert and an impartial vocational expert also testified.
Following the hearing, ALJ Sheard filed a written decision dated March
29, 2012, in which he also determined that plaintiff was not disabled.
Plaintiff’s counsel filed a Notice of Appeal to the Appeals Council, which
denied further review, leaving the ALJ’s 2012 decision as the
Commissioner’s last decision.

ALJ Sheard determined that plaintiff

had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since her alleged
disability onset date, and that she had severe impairments of anxiety
and

depression.

He

found,

however,

that

plaintiff’s

severe

impairments did not meet or equal any of the listed impairments in 20
C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, a determination that plaintiff
does not challenge.

Based in part on the testimony of the psychologist

who testified as a Medical Expert, the ALJ found that plaintiff retained
the RFC for a full range of work, but significantly limited by
non-exertional (mental) restrictions.
II.

4
Plaintiff reiterates the same objections stated in her Statement of
Errors (doc. no. 14).
III.
Judicial review of the Commissioner's decision is limited in scope
by 42 U.S.C. ' 405(g).

The Court's sole function under the statute is to

determine whether there is substantial evidence to support the
Commissioner='s findings of no disability.

The Commissioner's findings

should stand if, after a review of the record in its entirety, the Court
finds that the decision is supported by "such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion."

Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971); Mullen v. Sec. of HHS,
800 F.2d 535 (6th Cir. 1986); Kirk v. Sec. of HHS, 667 F.2d 524 (6th Cir.
1981), cert. denied 461 U.S. 957 (1983).
Upon a de novo review of the record, especially in light of
plaintiff's objections, the Court finds that plaintiff's contentions have
either been adequately addressed and properly disposed of by the
Judge or present no particularized arguments that warrant specific
responses by this Court.

The Court finds that the Judge has accurately

set forth the controlling principles of law and properly applied them to

5
the particular facts of this case and agrees with the Judge that the
Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial evidence in the
record.
Accordingly,

the

Court

ADOPTS

AND

INCORPORATES

BY

REFERENCE HEREIN the Report and Recommendation of the United
States Magistrate Judge (doc. no. 27) and the final decision of the
Commissioner denying plaintiff Disability Insurance Benefits and
Supplemental Security Income benefits is hereby AFFIRMED.

This

case is TERMINATED on the docket of this Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Herman J. Weber
Herman J. Weber, Senior Judge
United States District Court