Pack v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 14

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendation re 13 Report and Recommendation; and REVERSES AND REMANDS the Commissioner's decision for further proceedings consistent with the Report and Recommendation. Signed by Chief Judge Algenon L. Marbley on 8/28/2024. (cw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
SHARON P.,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No. 2:23-cv-3018
Chief Judge Algenon L. Marbley
Magistrate Judge Karen Litkovitz

ORDER
Plaintiff, Sharon P., an Ohio resident, seeks review of a final decision of the Commissioner
of Social Security finding that her disability ceased on October 21, 2016, such that she no longer
qualified for disability insurance benefits (DIB) after that point. (ECF No. 6). In her statement of
errors, Plaintiff lodged just one challenge to the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”)’s findings:
that the ALJ “failed to adequately account for [Plaintiff’s] need for no more than superficial
interactions with others resulting in an inaccurate residual functional capacity [(“RFC”)].” (ECF
No. 10 at 10).
The Magistrate Judge then issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending
that this Court sustain Plaintiff’s statement of errors and reverse and remand the Commissioner’s
decision for further proceedings with instructions to the ALJ to reevaluate the opinion of Dr. Gary
Bennett, a psychological expert, in accordance with this decision; to reassess plaintiff’s RFC; and
for further medical and vocational development as warranted.” (ECF No. 13 at 17). In support of
this, the R&R explained that “the ALJ’s assessment of Gary Bennett, Ph.D., is not supported by
substantial evidence” because the ALJ failed to provide “a cogent explanation as to why she
assessed [P]laintiff was less limited than Dr. Bennett opined based on his review of the exact same
evidence.” (Id. at 11, 14). Based on Sixth Circuit case law, “common sense dictates that when a
1

Social Security medical expert and the ALJ rely on the very same mental health evidence to reach
functionally disparate findings, the ALJ is impermissibly supplanting the role for which the mental
health professional was hired by Social Security” when the ALJ comes to a contrary conclusion
“[w]ithout pointing to some other evidence that [the doctor] did not consider or articulating why
[the doctor]’s assessment of this evidence was unwarranted.” (Id. at 14, 15).
Both parties were advised of their rights to object to the R&R within fourteen days and of
the rights they would waive by failing to do so. (Id. at 18). This Court has reviewed the R&R.
No objections have been filed, and the time for filing such objections under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)
has expired. Finding the R&R to be correct in fact and law, this Court hereby ADOPTS the R&R
(ECF No. 13) and REVERSES AND REMANDS the Commissioner’s decision for further
proceedings consistent with the R&R.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

ALGENON L. MARBLEY
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DATED: August 28, 2024

2