Detty v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

Filing 24

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Signed by Judge George C. Smith on 3/3/16. (lvw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER L. DETTY,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No.: 2:15-cv-637
JUDGE GEORGE C. SMITH
Magistrate Judge Kemp

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.

ORDER
On January 26, 2016, the United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s statement of errors be overruled and that
judgment be entered in favor of the Defendant, the Commissioner of Social Security. (See
Report and Recommendation, Doc. 21). This matter is now before the Court on Plaintiff’s
Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 22). The Court will
consider the matter de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
Plaintiff’s objections primarily restate the arguments he previously asserted in the
Statement of Errors. However, Plaintiff also asserts that the Magistrate Judge should have done
further analysis after finding that the ALJ’s mischaracterization of the Vocational Expert’s
testimony was harmless error. Plaintiff states that the “Magistrate should have determined
whether the wider Hall v. Bowen analysis was undermined by the ALJ’s mistake here.” (Pl.’s
Objs. at 2, Doc. 22). Plaintiff appears to be expanding an argument not fully developed in his
Statement of Errors, that the Magistrate Judge and the ALJ erred by not considering the “types of

work” available. Plaintiff then asserts that rather than substituting its own analysis, the Court
should remand this claim to the ALJ to make a decision which reflects the Vocation Expert’s
actual testimony.
Counsel for the Commissioner of Social Security responds that Plaintiff has failed to
show that the Magistrate Judge or the ALJ erred by not conducting any further analysis, and to
the extent Plaintiff is raising a new argument not addressed in his Statement of Errors, such
argument should be deemed waived. (Defs’ Response at 2-3, Doc. 23).
The Court has carefully considered all of Plaintiff’s argument raised in his Statement of
Errors and the Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. The Court
agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis of the issues raised. The ALJ did note that the
parking lot attendant jobs cited by the Vocational Expert “constituted a significant number of
jobs existing in the economy within the parameters of Hall v. Bowen, 837 F.2d 272 (6th Cir.
1988) (Tr. at 33, Doc. 8). The regulations explain that “[w]ork exists in the national economy
when there is a significant number of jobs (in one or more occupations) having requirements
which you are able to meet with your physical or mental abilities and vocational qualifications.”
20 C.F.R. § 416.966(a) – (b). The Vocational Expert testified that there were 3,634 jobs in the
state of Ohio and 138,202 jobs national that Plaintiff could perform based on his own vocational
profile, residual functional capacity, and factual situation. (Tr. at 76-77, Doc. 8). Accordingly,
Plaintiff has failed to establish an error by the ALJ or the Magistrate Judge in finding that the
Plaintiff would be able to perform a significant number of jobs in the state and national
economy.

2

Based on the aforementioned and the detailed Report and Recommendation, the Court
finds that Plaintiff’s issues, and his specific objections, have been thoroughly considered.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation, Document 21, is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED.
Plaintiff’s Objections are hereby OVERRULED. Plaintiff’s Statement of Errors are hereby
OVERRULED, and the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is AFFIRMED.
The Clerk shall remove Document 21 from the Court’s pending motions list, and enter
final judgment in favor of Defendant, the Commissioner of Social Security.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ George C. Smith__________________
GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3