Cornett v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 18

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS and affirming the decision of the commissioner. Signed by Judge James L Graham on 9/7/12. (ds)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

ALEXIS D. CORNETT,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action 2:11-cv-00709
Judge James L. Graham
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
ORDER
Plaintiff brings 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 31, 2012 Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge. (ECF No. 16.) The Magistrate Judge specifically recommended that the Court affirm the
decision of the Commissioner. On August 6, 2012, Plaintiff filed her Objections to the Report
and Recommendation. (ECF No. 17.) 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 December 9, 2005. The medical record reflects that Plaintiff suffers from
fibromyalgia, headaches, and irritable bowel syndrome (“IBS”).1 On July 27, 2010, an

1

The Report and Recommendation provides a detailed overview of the relevant medical records
and the administrative hearing testimony. The Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s recitation of the facts
by reference. (Report & Recommendation 2-11, ECF No. 16.)

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 has the severe impairment of disabling headaches. The
ALJ further found that Plaintiff’s fibromyalgia was not a severe impairment. The ALJ’s other
findings included that Plaintiff had the ability to perform a wide range of light work; could not
climb ladders, ropes or scaffolds; could not balance; and could not drive as part of her
employment. The ALJ emphasized the lack of objective findings in the record that would
support Plaintiff’s allegations of disabling symptoms. The ALJ also determined that Plaintiff
was not entirely credible with regard to her allegations of symptoms more severe than the
residual functional capacity (“RFC”) reflected.
On July 31, 2012, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court affirm the
Commissioner’s decision. Plaintiff’s objections substantially revisit arguments she raised within
her initial Statement of Errors.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the Court reviews Plaintiff’s Objections to the Report
and Recommendation de novo. The Court may accept, reject, or alter the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation as it sees fit. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within the Social Security context, the
Court reviews whether substantial evidence supports the decisions of the Commissioner and
whether the Commissioner made its decision pursuant to the applicable standards. Ealy v.
Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 594 F.3d 504, 512 (6th Cir. 2010).
Having performed a de novo review of the Report and Recommendations, the Court

2

agrees with, and adopts, the findings and reasoning of the Magistrate Judge.2 Specifically, the
Court finds that, although perhaps none of the four credibility factors upon which the ALJ relied,
standing alone, provides substantial support for her credibility determination, the combination of
the four factors suffices to substantiate the ALJ’s ultimate conclusions.3
The Court further finds that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination that
Plaintiff’s fibromyalgia was not a severe impairment. Other than Plaintiff’s subjective
complaints, the record provides little if any indication that Plaintiff’s fibromyalgia limits her
ability to work. None of Plaintiff’s physicians issued opinions stating that her fibromyalgia
diagnosis limited her work abilities. The testimony of both Drs. Bolz and Fischer further
supports the ALJ’s severe-impairment conclusion.
Finally, the Court finds that even if the ALJ had erred in determining Plaintiff’s
fibromyalgia was not a severe impairment, any such error would not constitute reversible error.
The ALJ went on to assess Plaintiff’s RFC and in so doing specifically referenced Plaintiff’s
fibromyalgia in her analysis.
Accordingly, based on the above, as well as the reasoning within the Report and
Recommendation, Plaintiff’s Objections (ECF No. 17) are OVERRULED, and the Report and
Recommendation (ECF No. 16) is ADOPTED. The decision of the Commissioner is
AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
2

The Magistrate Judge considered the issues Plaintiff raises within her Objections. The Court
finds it unnecessary to repeat the Magistrate Judge’s analysis on these same issues.
3

In the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge discusses in depth the four factors that
the ALJ relied on in making her credibility determination. (Report & Recommendation 15-19, ECF No.
16.) It is unnecessary to recount that discussion here.

3

S/ James L. Graham
James L. Graham
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Date: September 7, 2012

4