Decker v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 13

ENTRY AND ORDER OVERRULING DECKERS OBJECTIONS (Doc. 12 ) TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ; ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'SREPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 11 ) IN ITS ENTIRETY; AFFIRMING THE COMMISSIONERS DECISION THAT DECKER WAS NOT DISABLED AND TERMINATING THIS CASE. Signed by Judge Thomas M Rose on 7/26/2011. (sc1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
MARY DECKER
Plaintiff,

Case No. 3:10-cv-372

vs.

Judge Thomas M. Rose

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Commissioner of Social Security,

Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
ENTRY AND ORDER OVERRULING DECKER’S OBJECTIONS (Doc.
#12) TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATIONS ; ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. #11) IN ITS ENTIRETY;
AFFIRMING THE COMMISSIONER’S DECISION THAT DECKER WAS
NOT DISABLED AND TERMINATING THIS CASE
______________________________________________________________________________
Plaintiff Mary Decker (“Decker”) 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 her application for supplemental security benefits (“SSI”). On June
21, 2011, United States Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz entered a Report and
Recommendations (doc. #11) recommending that the Commissioner’s decision that Decker was
not disabled be affirmed. Decker subsequently filed Objections (doc. #12) and the time has run
and the Commissioner has not responded to Decker’s Objections. This matter is, therefore, ripe
for decision.
Decker sought SSI benefits on March 24, 1989. SSI benefits were then granted but were
later terminated when Decker was incarcerated for two years. Decker next filed a second
1

application for SSI on June 28, 2005, alleging disability from March 1, 1989. The Commissioner
denied this application initially and on reconsideration. An Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”)
then held a hearing following which he determined that Decker was not disabled. The Appeals
Council denied Decker’s request for review and the ALJ’s decision became the Commissioner’s
final decision. Decker then filed an action in this Court seeking judicial review.
Based upon the reasoning and citations of authority set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendations (doc. #11) and in Decker’s Objections (doc. #12), as well as upon
a thorough de novo review of this Court’s file, including the Administrative Transcript, and a
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
Decker was not disabled. Finally, Decker’s Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendations are overruled.
This Court’s function is to determine whether the record as a whole contains substantial
evidence to support the 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 ALJ’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,

2

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 ALJ/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
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’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and the ALJ has
applied the correct legal criteria. WHEREFORE, based upon the aforesaid, Decker’s Objections
to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations (doc. #12) 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 Decker was not disabled and, therefore, not
entitled to benefits under the Social Security Act is AFFIRMED. Finally, 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.

3

DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio, this Twenty-Sixth Day of July, 2011.
.

s/Thomas M. Rose
_____________________________________
JUDGE THOMAS M. ROSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record

4