Kearney v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
18
ENTRY AND ORDER OVERRULING KEARNEY'S OBJECTIONS (Doc. 16 ) TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 14 ); ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATEJUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IN ITS ENTIRETY; AFFIRMING THE ALJ'S DETERMINATION THAT KEARNEY WAS NOT DISABLED AND TERMINATING THIS CASE. Signed by Judge Thomas M Rose on 3/17/14. (ep)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
KELLY KEARNEY,
Case No. 3:13-cv-021
Plaintiff,
Judge Thomas M. Rose
Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman
-vCAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ENTRY AND ORDER OVERRULING KEARNEY’S OBJECTIONS (Doc.
#16) TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. #14); ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE
JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IN ITS ENTIRETY;
AFFIRMING THE ALJ’S DETERMINATION THAT KEARNEY WAS
NOT DISABLED AND TERMINATING THIS CASE
______________________________________________________________________________
Kelly Kearney (“Kearney”) 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 is not disabled and, therefore, not entitled to Social Security disability
benefits. On February 7, 2014, United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman entered a
Report and Recommendation (doc. #14) recommending that the Commissioner’s decision that
Kearney was not disabled be affirmed. Kearney subsequently filed objections (doc. #16) and the
Commissioner responded to Kearney’s Objections (doc. #17). This matter is, therefore, ripe for
decision.
Kearney sought financial assistance from the Social Security Administration by applying
for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) benefits in April of 2003. Kearney claimed that she
had been disabled since March 10, 2003, due to an ankle injury. This application was denied on
June 26, 2003, and Kearney did not request reconsideration. Kearney then filed a second
application for DIB on June 8, 2007. In the second application, Kearney claimed that she had
been under a disability since January 18, 2001, due to a right-foot impairment, ankle injury and a
diagnosis of cancer.
The Commissioner denied Kearney’s application initially and on reconsideration. On
January 20, 2010, Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Janice Bruning (“Bruning”) held a hearing
following which she determined that Kearney was entitled to a closed period of disability
benefits from January 18, 2001 through October 31, 2005, but not thereafter.
In April of 2010, the Social Security Office of Central Operations informed the
Commissioner that the closed period of benefits awarded by ALJ Bruning could not be paid to
Kearney because Kearney’s prior claim (filed in April 2003) was denied and not appealed. The
Office of Central Operations suggested that ALJ Bruning’s decision be reopened and that an
award of benefits be denied.
On July 9, 2010, the Social Security Appeals Council found that, because Kearney’s
request to reopen the claim filed in April of 2003 was not considered in ALJ Bruning’s decision,
ALJ Bruning’s decision was vacated and the matter was remanded for further analysis. Upon
remand, ALJ David Redmond (“Redmond”) conducted a hearing following which he found that
Kearney was not disabled prior to the date her insured status expired. Thereafter, the Appeals
Council denied Kearney’s request for review and ALJ Redmond’s decision became the
Commissioner’s final decision. Kearney 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
-2-
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.
#15) and in Kearney’s Objections (doc. #16) and the Commissioner’s Response (doc. #17), as
well as upon a thorough de novo review of this Court’s file and a thorough review of the
applicable law, this Court affirms the Commissioner’s decision that Kearney was not disabled in
accordance with the Social Security Act.
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 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). Thus, the Commissioner has a “zone of choice” within
which he or she can act without the fear of interference from the court. Buxton v. Halter, 246
F.3d 762, 773 (6th Cir. 2001).
The second judicial inquiry - reviewing the ALJ’s legal criteria - may result in reversal
-3-
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 applied the correct legal criteria and the record as a whole contains
substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s decision. As a result, Kearney’s Objections to the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations are OVERRULED. The Commissioner’s
decision that Kearney was not disabled 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.
DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio this Seventeenth Day of March, 2014.
s/Thomas M. Rose
_______________________________
THOMAS M. ROSE
UNITED STATED DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record
-4-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?