Powers v. Commissioner of SSA

Filing 13

ENTRY AND ORDER OVERRULING POWERS OBJECTIONS (Doc. # 12 ) TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGES REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. # 11 ); ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATEJUDGES REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. # 11 ) IN ITS ENTIRETY; AFFIRMING THE COMMISSIONERS DECISION THAT POWERS IS NOT DISABLED AND TERMINATING THIS CASE. Signed by Judge Thomas M Rose on 01/08/10. (pb1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION DOUG POWERS, Plaintiff, vs. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. ______________________________________________________________________________ ENTRY AND ORDER OVERRULING POWERS' OBJECTIONS (Doc. #12) TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. #11); ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. #11) IN ITS ENTIRETY; AFFIRMING THE COMMISSIONER'S DECISION THAT POWERS IS NOT DISABLED AND TERMINATING THIS CASE ______________________________________________________________________________ Plaintiff Doug Powers ("Powers") has brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for judicial review of the final decision of the Defendant Commissioner of Social Security (the "Commissioner") denying his application for Social Security benefits. On November 24, 2009, United States Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz filed a Report and Recommendations (doc. #11) recommending that the Commissioner's decision that Powers was not disabled be affirmed. Powers subsequently filed Objections (doc. #12) and the Commissioner has not responded to Powers' Objections. Based upon the reasoning and citations of authority set forth in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations (doc. #11) and in Powers' objections (doc. #12), as well as upon a thorough de novo review of this Court's file, including the Administrative Transcript, and a 1 Case No. 3:08-cv-388 Judge Thomas M. Rose Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

thorough review of the applicable law, this Court adopts the aforesaid Report and Recommendations in its entirety and, in so doing, affirms the Commissioner's decision that Powers is not disabled and therefore not entitled to benefits under the Social Security Act. This Court's function is to determine whether the record as a whole contains substantial evidence to support the Administrative Law Judge's ("ALJ's") decision. Bowen v. Commissioner of Social Security, 478 F.3d 742, 745-46 (6th Cir. 2007). This Court must also determine whether the ALJ applied the correct legal criteria. Id. Regarding the substantial evidence requirement, the Commissioner's findings must be affirmed if they are supported by "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971)(citing Consolidated Edison Company v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)); Landsaw v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 803 F.2d 211, 213 (6th Cir. 1986). Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Richardson, supra, at 401; Ellis v. Schweicker, 739 F.2d 245, 248 (6th Cir. 1984). Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla, but only so much as would be required to prevent a directed verdict (now judgment as a matter of law) against the Commissioner if this case were being tried to a jury. Foster v. Bowen, 853 F.2d 483, 486 (6th Cir. 1988); NLRB v. Columbian Enameling and Stamping Company, 306 U.S. 292, 300 (1939). The second judicial inquiry - reviewing the ALJ's legal criteria - may result in reversal even if the record contains substantial evidence supporting the ALJ's factual findings. See Bowen, 478 F.3d at 746. A reversal based on the ALJ's legal criteria may occur, for example, when the ALJ has failed to follow the Commissioner's "own regulations and where that error

2

prejudices a claimant on the merits or deprives the claimant of a substantial right." Bowen, 478 F.3d at 746(citing in part Wilson v. Commissioner of Social Security, 378 F.3d 541, 546-47 (6th Cir. 2004)). In this case, the ALJ has applied the correct legal criteria and the record as a whole contains substantial evidence to support the ALJ's decision. WHEREFORE, based upon the aforesaid, Powers' Objections (doc. #12) to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations are OVERRULED, and this Court adopts the Report and Recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. #11) in its entirety. The Commissioner's decision that Powers was not disabled and therefore not entitled to Social Security benefits is AFFIRMED. The captioned cause is hereby ordered terminated upon the docket records of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, at Dayton. DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio, this Eighth day of January, 2010. . s/Thomas M. Rose _____________________________________ JUDGE THOMAS M. ROSE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record

3