Pauley v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 31

DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. # 28 ); OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS THERETO (DOC. # 29 ); AFFIRMING ALJ'S NON-DISABILITY FINDING AS SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE; JUDGMENT TO ENTER IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT AND AGAINST PLAINTIFF; TERMINATION ENTRY. Signed by Judge Walter H. Rice on 10/26/2020. (srb)

Case: 3:16-cv-00031-WHR-MJN Doc #: 31 Filed: 10/26/20 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: 2267

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
SHEILA PAULEY,

:

Plaintiff,
v.

:

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.

Case No. 3:16-cv-31
JUDGE WALTER H. RICE

:

DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE
JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. #28);
OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS THERETO (DOC. #29);
AFFIRMING ALJ’S NON-DISABILITY FINDING AS SUPPORTED BY
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE; JUDGMENT TO ENTER IN FAVOR OF
DEFENDANT AND AGAINST PLAINTIFF; TERMINATION ENTRY

On July 8, 2020, United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman issued
a Report and Recommendations, Doc. #28, recommending that the Court affirm
the ALJ’s non-disability finding as supported by substantial evidence. This matter
is currently before the Court on Plaintiff’s Objections, Doc. #29, and Defendant’s
Response, Doc. #30.
Based on the reasoning and citations of authority set forth by Magistrate
Judge Michael J. Newman in his Report and Recommendations, Doc. #28, as well
as upon a thorough de novo review of this Court’s file and the applicable law, the
Court ADOPTS said judicial filing in its entirety, and OVERRULES Plaintiff’s
Objections thereto, Doc. #29.

Case: 3:16-cv-00031-WHR-MJN Doc #: 31 Filed: 10/26/20 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: 2268

Plaintiff notes that the July of 2014 MRI, which was the subject of this
Court’s previous remand order, shows objective evidence of severe nerve root
compression. She notes that the ALJ conceded that the state agency reviewers
did not have the opportunity to review this MRI. Plaintiff argues that the ALJ is
not qualified to interpret raw medical data in functional terms, and notes that the
ALJ’s non-disability finding is contrary to that of her treating physician, Dr. Snider.
The ALJ explained, however, that, despite the MRI evidence showing severe
nerve root compression, Plaintiff had received “only minimal treatment” for her
back-pain complaints, and had “performed a substantial degree of light level work
throughout the development of this case.” Doc. #21-2, PageID#1714.
Moreover, Dr. Snider found that, with medication, Plaintiff’s pain was “under
relatively good control” and physical examinations “showed only some diffuse
tenderness and ‘relatively normal’ passive range of motion with only mild to
moderate discomfort upon testing, and only on some occasions.” Id. The ALJ
fully explained why he found that Dr. Snider’s opinion—that Plaintiff was incapable
of full-time, sedentary work—was “not well supported by medically acceptable
clinical findings in the record and is inconsistent with other substantial medical
evidence of record.” Id. at PageID##1718.
For these reasons, the Court AFFIRMS the ALJ’s non-disability finding as
supported by substantial evidence. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
Judgment shall be entered in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff.

2

Case: 3:16-cv-00031-WHR-MJN Doc #: 31 Filed: 10/26/20 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: 2269

The captioned case is hereby ordered terminated upon the docket records of
the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division,
at Dayton.

Date: October 26, 2020
WALTER H. RICE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3