Young v. Astrue

Filing 22

ENTRY AND ORDER OVERRULING THE COMMISSIONERS OBJECTIONS (Doc. 21 ) TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGES REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATEJUDGES REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 20 ) IN ITS ENTIRETY; REMANDING THIS CASE TO THE COMMISSIONER FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION CONSISTENT WITH THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND TERMINATING THIS CASE. Signed by Judge Thomas M Rose on 8/19/2013. (kf)

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

Case No. 3:12-cv-029

vs.

Judge Thomas M. Rose

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

Chief Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington

Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
ENTRY AND ORDER OVERRULING THE COMMISSIONER’S
OBJECTIONS (Doc. #21) TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE
JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. #20) IN ITS
ENTIRETY; REMANDING THIS CASE TO THE COMMISSIONER FOR
FURTHER CONSIDERATION CONSISTENT WITH THE REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND TERMINATING THIS CASE
______________________________________________________________________________
Yvette Young (“Young”) brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for judicial
review of the decision of the Defendant Commissioner of Social Security (the “Commissioner”)
that she was not disabled and, therefore, not entitled to Social Security disability benefits. On
July 3, 2013, Chief United States Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington entered a Report and
Recommendations (doc. #20) recommending that no finding be made as to whether Young was
disabled and that this case be remanded to the Commissioner for further consideration consistent
with the Report and Recommendations.
The Commissioner subsequently filed Objections (doc. #21) and the time has run and
Young has not responded to the Commissioners’ Objections. This matter is, therefore, ripe for

1

decision.
Young sought financial assistance from the Social Security Administration by applying
for Supplemental Security Income. She claimed that he had been disabled since July 1, 2006.
The Commissioner denied Young’s application initially and on reconsideration.
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) James W. Lessis (“Lessis”) held a hearing following which
he determined that Young was not disabled. The Appeals Council denied Young’s request for
review and ALJ Lessis’ decision became the Commissioner’s final decision. Young then
appealed to this Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
As required by 28 U.S.C. §636(b) and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 72(b), the
District Judge has made a de novo review of the record in this case. Based upon the reasoning
and citations of authority set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations (doc.
#20) and in the Commissioner’s Objections (doc. #21), as well as upon a thorough de novo
review of this Court’s file and a thorough review of the applicable law, this Court adopts the
aforesaid Report and Recommendations in its entirety and, in so doing makes no finding as to
whether Young was disabled. Further, this Court remands this case to the Commissioner for
further consideration consistent with the Report and Recommendations.
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

2

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 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 did not apply the correct legal criteria. WHEREFORE, the
Commissioner’s Objections to the Chief Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations are
OVERRULED, and this Court adopts the Report and Recommendations of the Chief United
States Magistrate Judge in its entirety. No finding is made as to whether Young was disabled.
Further, this case is remanded to the Commissioner for further consideration consistent with the
Report and Recommendations. Finally, the captioned cause is hereby ordered terminated upon

3

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 Nineteenth Day of August, 2013.
.

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

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record

4