Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 19

ORDER adopting re 15 Report and Recommendations.. Signed by Judge Gregory L Frost on 10/30/14. (kn)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
BRENDA S. SMITH,
Case No. 2:13-cv-1080
JUDGE GREGORY L. FROST
Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King

Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER
This action seeks review under 42 U.S.C. ' 405(g) of a final decision of Defendant,
Carolyn W. Colvin, the Commissioner of Social Security, that denied an application for
disability and disability insurance benefits filed by Plaintiff, Brenda S. Smith. On September 2,
2014, the United States Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court reverse the decision of the
Commissioner and remand the action. (ECF No. 15, at Page ID # 552.) The matter is now
before the Court for consideration of Defendant’s objection (ECF No. 16) to the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation and Plaintiff’s response (ECF No. 18).
I. Discussion
A. Standard Involved
If a party objects within the allotted time to a report and recommendation, the Court
“shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed
findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b). Upon review, the Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

1

The Court’s review “is limited to determining whether the Commissioner’s decision ‘is
supported by substantial evidence and was made pursuant to proper legal standards.’” Ealy v.
Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 594 F.3d 504, 512 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Rogers v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.,
486 F.3d 234, 241 (6th Cir. 2007)); see also 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (“The findings of the
Commissioner of Social Security as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be
conclusive.”). Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept
to support the ALJ’s conclusions. Bass v. McMahon, 499 F.3d 506, 506 (6th Cir. 2007).
Put another way, a decision supported by substantial evidence is not subject to reversal,
even if the reviewing court might arrive at a different conclusion. Mullen v. Bowen, 800 F.2d
535, 545 (6th Cir. 1986). “Substantial evidence exists when ‘a reasonable mind could accept the
evidence as adequate to support a conclusion [and] . . . presupposes that there is a zone of choice
within which the decision-makers can go either way, without interference by the courts.’”
Blakley v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 581 F.3d 399, 406 (6th Cir. 2009) (internal citation omitted).
Even if supported by substantial evidence, however, “‘a decision of the Commissioner will not
be upheld where the [Commissioner] fails to follow its own regulations and where that error
prejudices a claimant on the merits or deprives the claimant of a substantial right.’” Rabbers v.
Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 582 F.3d 647, 651 (6th Cir. 2009) (quoting Bowen v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.,
478 F.3d 742, 746 (6th Cir. 2007)).
B. Analysis
In her Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge found that the administrative
law judge failed to assess Plaintiff’s obesity in the manner contemplated by SSR 02-01p. The
Magistrate Judge correctly explained that the administrative law judge failed to consider
expressly the impact of Plaintiff’s obesity in conjunction with her severe impairments and failed

2

to provide a sufficient explanation of how the obesity issue was handled. Moreover, as the
Magistrate Judge noted, the underlying expert reports do not excuse this handling of Plaintiff’s
obesity because the reports themselves do not consider expressly the obesity.
Defendant seeks to explain away these issues by assuring the Court that of course the
experts and the administrative law judge implicitly considered Plaintiff’s obesity. The problem
with Defendant’s objection is that there is no basis whatsoever in the record supporting such
supposition. Mere references to obesity do not equal a sufficient explanation for the treatment
afforded that issue, and assumptions about what the experts likely knew do not substitute for
actual express determinations. There is no actual evidence that anyone fairly considered and
addressed the obesity issue below.
Like the Magistrate Judge, this Court reads the administrative law judge’s reasoning to
ignore the requisite inquiry that should accompany consideration and evaluation of obesity. The
ultimate conclusion regarding Plaintiff’s application for disability and disability insurance
benefits may or may not be the same as that already reached by the administrative law judge, but
Plaintiff is entitled to an explanation of how her obesity factored into that decision. The
Magistrate Judge provided a correct and thorough analysis of the profound deficiencies plaguing
the administrative law judge’s decision, and Defendant’s objection simply rehashes arguments
sufficiently addressed and disposed of in the Report and Recommendation. The Court
incorporates by reference the Magistrate Judge’s well-reasoned decision and concludes that
Defendant’s objection is without merit.
II. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court OVERRULES Defendant’s objection (ECF No.
16), ADOPTS and AFFIRMS the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 15), REVERSES the

3

decision of the Commissioner pursuant to Sentence 4 of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and REMANDS the
action for further consideration of Plaintiff’s obesity consistent with SSR 01-01p. The Clerk
shall enter judgment accordingly and terminate this action on the docket records of the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Gregory L. Frost
GREGORY L. FROST
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4