Napier v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 23

DECISION AND ENTRY Adopting 19 the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. Signed by Judge Timothy S. Black on 9/22/17. (gs)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

ERICA RENA NAPIER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No. 1:16-cv-650

Judge Timothy S. Black
Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman

DECISION AND ENTRY
ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 19)

This case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Western Division to United
States Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman. Pursuant to such reference, the
Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court and, on June 12, 2017,
submitted a Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 19). Plaintiff filed objections on June

1

29, 2017. (Doc. 21). 1
As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has
reviewed the comprehensive findings of the Magistrate Judge and considered de novo
all of the filings in this matter. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court does
determine that such Report and Recommendation should be and is hereby adopted

1

Plaintiff’s objections are not well taken. This is Plaintiff’s second attempt to overrule the
ALJ’s determination regarding benefit eligibility in federal court. Plaintiff’s previous case
resulted a Report and Recommendation from the Magistrate Judge (subsequently adopted by the
District Court) reversing and remanding the case to the ALJ for further development of the
record to determine whether Plaintiff met or equaled Listing 12.05 for what was then called
“mental retardation.” (A.R. at 1396–1410). Plaintiff now argues that Defendant failed to expand
the administrative record as required. However, as the Report and Recommendation explains,
the analysis given by the ALJ explaining his second decision denying benefits to Plaintiff was
significantly expanded from his earlier decision. This more thorough explanation for the denial
of benefits is itself a sufficient expansion of the administrative record to find that the ALJ’s
decision was supported by substantial evidence.
Plaintiff also argues that the ALJ’s determination that Plaintiff failed to meet or equal
Listing 12.05 was improper, citing an alleged reliance on outdated IQ scores. However, as
explained in the R&R, the ALJ relied upon a medical expert’s examination of Plaintiff to
determine that Plaintiff’s adaptive functioning was inconsistent with the lower IQ scores relied
on by Plaintiff in her argument that she meets Listing 12.05. (Doc. 19, at 13). The medical
expert’s opinion regarding Plaintiff’s adaptive functioning was based upon personal observation
of Plaintiff during her hearing, as well as Plaintiff’s testimony concerning the activities she is
able to perform in her day to day life (including cooking, shopping, taking care of three children,
living independently, maintaining relationships with friends and family including her parents, exhusband, and current boyfriend, and managing her finances). Plaintiff cites Brown v. Secretary
of HHS, 948 F.2d 268 (6th Cir. 1991), for the proposition that daily activities such as those
attributed to Plaintiff in this case are not inconsistent with a finding of intellectual disability.
However, Brown is not an absolute bar to using a plaintiff’s daily activities to determine that the
plaintiff’s adaptive functioning precludes her from being found to have an intellectual disability,
as seen in subsequent decisions from within the Sixth Circuit. See Hayes v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.,
357 F. App’x. 672, 675 (6th Cir. 2009) (Claimant’s does not show deficits in adaptive
functioning because she cooks, does laundry and shops, manages her finances, and takes public
transportation); Lewis v. Colvin, 2014 WL 2619592, at *7 (E.D. Ky. 2014) (unpublished)
(Plaintiff does not have deficits in adaptive functioning because she can read, write, and
communicate effectively; follow instructions and answer questions; use the computer; do chores;
take public transportation; care for her personal needs; interact with family and friends; and have
a boyfriend).
2

in its entirety. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
1)

The Commissioner’s decision to deny Plaintiff SSI benefits is
AFFIRMED, as that decision is supported by substantial evidence;

2)

Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time (Doc. 20) is DENIED AS MOOT;

3)

The Clark shall enter a judgment accordingly, whereupon this case shall be
CLOSED in this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date:

9/22/17

______________________
Timothy S. Black
United States District Judge

3