Hedges v. Commissioner of Social Security
ORDER ADOPTING and AFFIRMING the REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 14 in that Plaintiffs Statement of Errors is hereby OVERRULED, and the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is AFFIRMED. Signed by Judge George C. Smith on 8/29/17. (sem)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WILLIAM E. HEDGES,
Case No.: 2:16-cv-592
JUDGE GEORGE C. SMITH
Magistrate Judge Deavers
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
This case is before the Court to consider the Report and Recommendation issued by the
Magistrate Judge on July 25, 2017. The Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff’s State of
Errors be overruled and the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security be affirmed. (See
Report and Recommendation, Doc. 14). This matter is now before the Court on Plaintiff’s
Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 15). The Court will
consider the matter de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
Plaintiff raises two primary objections to the Report and Recommendation: (1) that the
ALJ failed to provide good reasons for discrediting the opinions of the treating source; and (2)
that the ALJ erroneously determined that Plaintiff’s mental health impairments were non-severe.
(Doc. 15). These are the same two arguments made in his statement of errors specifically
considered by the Magistrate Judge.
First, with respect to the credibility given to Plaintiff’s treating psychologist, Dr. Baker,
the Court does not find that the Administrative Law Judge, nor the Magistrate Judge erred in
giving Dr. Baker’s opinion little weight because it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence,
namely that Plaintiff was capable of performing many daily activities such as socializing with
family, doing housework, watching television, feeding his dogs, taking care of his personal
needs, mowing at time, picking up his son from school, grocery shopping, etc. (Doc. 8, AR at
16–17, 107, 336–43, 610, 937, 949). The Sixth Circuit has held that “[w]here the opinion of a
treating physician is not supported by objective evidence or is inconsistent with the other
medical evidence in the record, the Court generally will uphold an ALJ’s decision to discount
that opinion.” Price v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 342 F. App’x 172, 175–76 (6th Cir. 2009).
Plaintiff’s second objection is that the ALJ and the Magistrate Judge erred in failing to
find that he suffers from severe mental health impairments. The Magistrate Judge fully
considered each of Plaintiff’s specific challenges to the ALJ’s findings: that the ALJ relied on
outdated opinions issues in August 2010; Plaintiff’s argument that his mental health impairments
more than minimally limit his ability to work; that the ALJ erred in analyzing the state agency
psychological opinions; and that the ALJ violated the Appeals Council order. The Court has
again carefully reviewed these arguments and does not find any error by the ALJ or the
The Court has carefully considered all of Plaintiff’s objections and agrees with the
Magistrate Judge’s analysis and findings of the issues raised. Therefore, for the reasons stated in
the well-reasoned Report and Recommendation, this Court finds that Plaintiff’s objections are
Based on the aforementioned and the detailed Report and Recommendation, the Court
finds that Plaintiff’s objections have been thoroughly considered and are hereby OVERRULED.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation, Document 14, is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED.
Plaintiff’s Statement of Errors is hereby OVERRULED, and the decision of the Commissioner
of Social Security is AFFIRMED.
The Clerk shall remove Documents 14 and 15 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
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?