Champion v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
14
DECISION AND ENTRY adopting Report and Recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge re 11 Report and Recommendations, and terminating this case in this Court. Signed by Judge Timothy S. Black on 3/28/19. (rrs)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
FRANCES CHAMPION
Plaintiff,
vs.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No. 1:17-cv-789
Judge Timothy S. Black
Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman
DECISION AND ENTRY
ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 11) AND
TERMINATING THIS CASE IN THIS COURT
This case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference to United
States Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman. Pursuant to such reference, the
Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court and, on February 5, 2019
submitted a Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 11). Plaintiff filed objections on
February 12, 2019. (Doc. 12). Defendant filed a response to Plaintiff’s objections on
February 19, 2019. (Doc. 13).
After reviewing the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff’s objections, and the
case record, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s objections are not well-taken. Plaintiff raises
three objections. Plaintiff’s objections are largely the same arguments that Plaintiff made
in the Statement of Errors (Doc. 7) and the reply to Defendant’s opposition to the
Statement of Errors (Doc. 10); and the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge offers well-
reasoned analysis addressing Plaintiff’s arguments in the Report and Recommendation.
Nevertheless, the Court will address those objections below.
First, Plaintiff argues that the Magistrate Judge erroneously applied res judicata
and collateral estoppel based on the weight that the administrative law judge (“ALJ”)
gave a 2010 ALJ decision regarding plaintiff that resulted in a non-disability
determination. (Doc. 12 at 3–4). The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge correctly
found that the ALJ in this case properly applied the principles set forth in Drummond v.
Commissioner of Social Security, 126 F.3d 837 (6th Cir. 1997) and Social Security
Acquiescence Ruling (“AR”) 98-4(6), which require an ALJ to adopt a prior residual
functional capacity (“RFC”) decision except to the extent that any new and material
evidence documented a change in Plaintiff’s condition. Here, the 2010 ALJ decision
RFC found Plaintiff capable of a reduced range of light work. (Tr. 10, 97). Plaintiff
contends that new and material evidence, specifically the increase in severity of her
headaches, documented a change in her condition. Plaintiff cites to the Sixth Circuit’s
decision in Earley v. Commissioner, 893 F.3d 929 (6th Cir. 2018) to argue that res
judicata and collateral estoppel do not apply in an ALJ’s determination of a second
application for disability benefits because “human health is rarely static.” Id. at 933.
However, the Sixth Circuit did not overrule Drummond and instead found that “it is fair
for an administrative law judge to take the view that, absent new and additional evidence,
the first administrative law judge’s findings are a legitimate, albeit not binding,
consideration in reviewing a second application.” Id. Here, the ALJ did review
Plaintiff’s new application and based the 2016 RFC finding both on the 2010 decision
2
and new medical evidence. The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge correctly found
that “the ALJ based Plaintiff’s RFC on the prior ALJ decision . . . and on the abovediscussed additional objective medical evidence.” (Doc. 11 at 13 (emphasis added)).
The ALJ and Magistrate Judge did not simply apply the principles of res judicata or
collateral estoppel.
Second, Plaintiff argues that the Magistrate Judge erred in the weight assigned to
doctors. (Doc. 12 at 4–6). This argument lacks merit. Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred
in failing to afford controlling weight to the findings of Dr. Marvin Rorick by not giving
“good reasons” for not accepting his limitations. However, the Report and
Recommendation notes that the ALJ did not give Dr. Rorick controlling weight because,
although he offered extreme functional limitations, his examinations consistently
produced normal findings. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s finding that the
ALJ offered good reason for affording Dr. Rorick little weight because his severe
limitations were “inconsistent with the evidence as a whole, including diagnostic imaging
and physical and [sic] examination findings, [as well as Plaintiff’s] activities of daily
living.” (Tr. 12). As discussed at length in the Report and Recommendation, the ALJ
provided good reasons for the amount of weight afforded to the opinions of the doctors
and those reasons are substantially supported by the evidence of the record. (Doc. 11 at
7–13).
Third, Plaintiff contends that the Magistrate Judge erred in its finding that the ALJ
properly considered the subjective evidence and Plaintiff’s credibility. (Doc. 12 at 6).
Plaintiff contends that there is “objective evidence” regarding her headaches and
3
pseudotumor cerebri to support her testimony. However, as the Report and
Recommendation discusses, the ALJ properly considered the medical evidence indicating
a lack of objective evidence, Plaintiff’s subjective reports to her treating doctors, and the
Plaintiff’s engagement in a wide variety of daily activities in its credibility analysis. The
Magistrate Judge also properly noted that an ALJ’s credibility analysis is to be given
great weight as long as it is supported by substantial evidence. (Doc. 11 at 14). The
Court agrees with the Report and Recommendation that the ALJ’s credibility findings
were substantially supported.
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 the Plaintiff’s objections (Doc. 12) should be and are hereby
OVERRULED and the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 11) should be and is hereby
ADOPTED in its entirety.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above:
1) The Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED, as that decision is supported by
substantial evidence;
2) The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly, whereupon this case is
TERMINATED from the docket of this Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date:
3/28/19
Timothy S. Black
United States District Judge
4
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?