Hyatt v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 19

ORDER adopting 17 the Report and Recommendation. Signed by Judge Michael H. Watson on 9/18/12. (jk)

.

# .

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
ROBERT CHARLES HYATT,

Plaintiff,
Civil Action 2:11-cv-685
Judge Michael H. Watson
Magistrate Judge E.A. Preston Deavers

v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,

Defendant.
ORDER
Plaintiff brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking review
of an adverse decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner'').
This matter is before the Court for consideration of the July 24, 2012 Report and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. (ECF No. 17.) The Magistrate Judge
specifically recommended that the Court affirm the decision of the Commissioner.
On August 8, 2012, Plaintiff filed his Objections to the Report and
Recommendation. (ECF No. 18.) For the following reasons, Plaintiff's Objections
are OVERRULED and the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED. The
decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED.
Plaintiff filed an application for social security disability insurance benefits
alleging disability since July 20, 2007. The medical record reflects that Plaintiff
suffers from hip and back problems, and has also received treatment for bipolar

disorder. 1 On May 24, 2010, an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") issued a
decision, which ultimately became the Commissioner's final decision, finding that
Plaintiff was not disabled during the relevant period. The ALJ concluded that
Plaintiff engaged in substantial gainful activity following his alleged onset date,
but did have a continuous twelve-month period during which he did not engage in
substantial gainful activity. The ALJ's other findings included that Plaintiff did not
have a severe mental impairment; could perform the full range of light work; and
could perform his past work as a substitute teacher.
On July 24, 2012, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court affirm
the Commissioner's decision. Plaintitrs objections, for the most part, revisit
arguments he raised within his initial Statement of Errors. Plaintiff maintains that
the evidence supports a finding that he had a severe mental impairment.
Additionally, Plaintiff contends that the ALJ's hypothetical question to the
vocational expert failed to adequately convey Plaintitrs limitations. Moreover,
Plaintiff contends that the ALJ erred in considering Plaintitrs credibility.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the Court reviews Plaintifrs Objections to
the Report and Recommendation de novo. The Court may accept, reject, or alter
the Magistrate Judge's recommendation as is sees fit. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1 ).
Within the Social Security context, the Court reviews whether substantial

1

The Report and Recommendation provides a detailed overview of the relevant
medical records and the administrative hearing testimony. (Report & Recommendation
2-9, ECF No. 17.)
Page 2 of 4

evidence supports the decisions of the Commissioner and whether the
Commissioner made its decision pursuant to the applicable standards. Ealy v.

Comm'rofSoc. Sec., 594 F.3d 504,512 (6th Cir. 2010).
Having performed a de novo review of the Report and Recommendations,
the Court agrees with, and adopts, the findings and reasoning of the Magistrate
Judge. 2 Specifically, the Court finds that the combination of evidence from
treating psychiatrist Vinutha C. Reddy, M.D., as well as non-medical evidence
regarding Plaintiffs work history, provide substantial evidence that Plaintiff did not
have a severe mental impairment during the relevant time period. Even
assuming that the ALJ should have found a severe impairment, he went on to
consider Plaintiffs RFC and justifiably concluded that Plaintiff could perform a full
range of light work. Additionally, the Court finds that the ALJ's hypothetical
question accounted for Plaintiff's limitations and the ALJ was entitled to rely on
the vocational expert's conclusion that he could perform his past work as a
substitute teacher. Finally, based on the circumstances highlighted in the Report
and Recommendation, the Court concludes that the ALJ did not err in finding that
Plaintiff was not entirely credible with regard to the extent of his impairments.
Accordingly, based on the above, as well as the reasoning within the
Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff's Objections (ECF No. 18) are

2

The Magistrate Judge considered the issues Plaintiff raises within his
Objections. The Court finds it unnecessary to repeat the Magistrate Judge's analysis
on these same issues.
Page 3 of 4

OVERRULED and the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 17) is ADOPTED.
The decision of ~he Commissioner is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

MIC AEL H. WATSON, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Page 4 of 4