Francis v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 17

ORDER ADOPTING and AFFIRMING the 15 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 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 10/11/18. (sem)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

JASON M. FRANCIS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No.: 2:17-cv-1022
JUDGE GEORGE C. SMITH
Magistrate Judge Vascura

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.

ORDER
This case is before the Court to consider the Report and Recommendation issued by the
Magistrate Judge on September 18, 2018. The Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff’s
Statement of Errors be overruled and the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security be
affirmed. (See Report and Recommendation, Doc. 15). This matter is now before the Court on
Plaintiff’s Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 16). 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 one main objection to the ALJ and Magistrate Judge’s findings: the ALJ
failed to properly account for all of the credited mental health limitations. Specifically, Plaintiff
asserts that the ALJ’s mental residual functional capacity (“RFC”) did not contain the opinions
of the state agency psychologists who opined that Plaintiff was restricted to limited and
superficial interaction with others, as well as being restricted to limited fact paced production
standards. (Doc. 16 at 2, citing R. at 99, 110).

Plaintiff further asserts that the ALJ should have gathered more evidence from the
vocational expert at the hearing. And the ALJ should have accounted for all of the credited
limitations opined by the state agency psychologists. The ALJ was required to explain the
rationale behind her decisions.
This objection presents the same issue already presented to, and carefully considered by,
the Magistrate Judge in the Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff has not presented any new
evidence or argument other than what was previously presented in his Statement of Errors.
Plaintiff merely disagrees with the ALJ and Magistrate Judge’s conclusions. Specifically with
respect to consideration of the RFC limitations, the Magistrate Judge found any such error to be
harmless and the Court agrees. The psychologists did not find that Plaintiff could not perform
fast-paced work, only that the amount of fast-paced work should be limited. (Doc. 15 at 9, citing
R. At 67 and 78). Further, most of the jobs identified by the ALJ do not require fast-paced
production standards and Plaintiff can perform them with limited relationships to people, another
limitation.
The Court has carefully considered Plaintiff’s objection, but finds that the decision of the
ALJ was supported by substantial evidence as acknowledged in detail in the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation. Therefore, for the reasons stated in the well-reasoned Report and
Recommendation, this Court finds that Plaintiff’s objection is without merit.
Based on the aforementioned and the detailed Report and Recommendation, the Court
finds that Plaintiff’s objection has been thoroughly considered and is hereby OVERRULED.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation, Document 15, is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED.

-2-

Plaintiff’s Statement of Errors is hereby OVERRULED, and the decision of the Commissioner
of Social Security is AFFIRMED.
The Clerk shall remove Documents 15 and 16 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-