Rowe v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 14

OPINION and ORDER adopting in part 11 Report and Recommendation in that the Court AFFIRMS the Commissioner's decision. Signed by Judge Sarah D. Morrison on 3/26/24. (sem).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
MELINDA R.,
Plaintiff,
v.

:

COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,

Case No. 2:23-cv-1090
Judge Sarah D. Morrison
Magistrate Judge Stephanie K.
Bowman

:
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff brings this action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c) for review of
a final decision by the Commissioner of Social Security denying her application for
Social Security disability insurance and supplemental security income benefits.
Plaintiff filed her Statement of Errors on July 10, 2023. (Statement of Errors, ECF
No. 8.) On January 18, 2024, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation recommending that the Court overrule Plaintiff’s statement of
errors and affirm the Commissioner’s denial of benefits. (R&R, ECF No. 11.)
Plaintiff timely objected to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation
(ECF No. 12) and the Commissioner filed a Response (ECF No. 13).
For the reasons below, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objection,
ADOPTS in part the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, and
AFFIRMS the Commissioner’s decision.

I.

BACKGROUND
The Magistrate Judge accurately summarized the background of this case.

Report and Recommendation Sections I. and II.B. are ADOPTED in full. Section
II.C. is ADOPTED in every part except the final paragraph.
II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
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). 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 . . . .”).
III.

ANALYSIS
In her Statement of Errors, Plaintiff argued that the ALJ’s decision should be

reversed because, though the ALJ adopted the opinion of the State Agency
Psychologist Mary Hill, Ph.D., she neither included Dr. Hill’s limitation for
superficial interaction with coworkers and supervisors in the RFC, nor explained
whether or why that limitation was intentionally omitted. (See generally, Statement
2

of Errors.) The Magistrate Judge recommended that the contention of error be
overruled and the Commissioner’s decision denying benefits be affirmed. (See
generally, R&R.) The conclusion was based on three different lines of reasoning:
First, because “the definitions of ‘superficial’ and ‘occasional’ are not inconsistent in
the specialized context of a vocational RFC finding.” (R&R, 13 (emphasis omitted).)
Second, because “the ALJ incorporated multiple ‘qualitative’ limitations that
reasonably encompassed . . . Dr. Hill’s ‘superficial interaction’ limitation.’” (Id., 22.)
And third, because she “f[ound] any error to have been harmless.” (Id., 24.) As to the
second line of reasoning, the Court agrees.
The Court has carefully reviewed the record and concludes that the decision
of the Commissioner is supported by substantial evidence and was made pursuant
to proper legal standards. In so doing, the Court ADOPTS only Section II.C.2. of
the Report and Recommendation. Because the reasoning in this Section fully
disposes of the case, the Court need not address Sections II.C.1.1 or II.C.3.
IV.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons above, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s Objection (ECF

No. 12), ADOPTS in part the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation

The Undersigned appreciates the Magistrate Judge’s thorough exploration
of the apparent split within the district on the materiality of any distinction
between “superficial” and “occasional” interaction with the public or other people in
the context of light, unskilled work. Nevertheless, for reasons that are not necessary
to the decision in this case, the Undersigned stands behind the reasoning
articulated in Hutton v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 2:20-cv-339, 2020 WL 3866855
(S.D. Ohio July 9, 2020) (Vascura, M.J.), R&R adopted at 2020 WL 4334920 (S.D.
Ohio July 28, 2020) (Morrison, J.).
1

3

(ECF No. 11), and AFFIRMS the Commissioner’s decision. The Clerk is
DIRECTED to TERMINATE this case from the docket.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Sarah D. Morrison
SARAH D. MORRISON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4