Pritchard v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 17

ENTRY AND ORDER OVERRULING PRITCHARD'S OBJECTIONS (Doc. 16 ) TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 15 ); ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATEJUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN ITS ENTIRETY; AFFIRMING THE ALJ'S DETERMINATION THAT PRITCHARD WAS NOT UNDER A DISABILITY 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
JAMES PRITCHARD,
Case No. 3:13-cv-027
Plaintiff,
Judge Thomas M. Rose
Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman

-vCAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security

Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ENTRY AND ORDER OVERRULING PRITCHARD’S OBJECTIONS
(Doc. #16) TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. #15); ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE
JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN ITS ENTIRETY;
AFFIRMING THE ALJ’S DETERMINATION THAT PRITCHARD WAS
NOT UNDER A DISABILITY AND TERMINATING THIS CASE
______________________________________________________________________________
James Pritchard (“Pritchard”) 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 he is not disabled and, therefore, not entitled to Social Security disability
benefits. On January 30, 2014, United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman entered a
Report and Recommendation (doc. #15) recommending that the Commissioner’s decision that
Pritchard was not disabled be affirmed. Pritchard subsequently filed objections. (Doc. #16.) The
time has run and the Commissioner has not responded to Pritchard’s Objections. This matter is,
therefore, ripe for decision.
Pritchard sought financial assistance from the Social Security Administration by applying
for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) benefits in February of 2010. Pritchard claimed that
he had been disabled since June 16, 2006, due to a number of mental impairments including

bipolar disorder.
The Commissioner denied Pritchard’s application initially and on reconsideration.
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Mary F. Withum (“Withum”) held a hearing following which
she determined that Pritchard was not disabled. The Appeals Council denied Pritchard’s request
for review and ALJ Withum’s decision became the Commissioner’s final decision. Pritchard
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.
#15) and in Pritchard’s Objections (doc. #16), 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 Pritchard 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

-2-

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
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, Pritchard’s Objections to the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations are OVERRULED. The Commissioner’s
decision that Pritchard 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
-3-