Detrick, Substitute Party for Michael Detrick v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
18
DECISION AND ENTRY: (1) AFFIRMING THE ALJ'S NON-DISABILITY FINDING; (2) TERMINATING THIS CASE ON THE DOCKET. Signed by Judge Michael J. Newman on 3/30/2022. (srb)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
RICHARD D.
substituted party on behalf of
MICHAEL D., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
Case No. 3:20-cv-161
vs.
COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINSTRATION,
District Judge Michael J. Newman
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
DECISION AND ENTRY: (1) AFFIRMING THE ALJ’S NON-DISABILITY FINDING;
(2) TERMINATING THIS CASE ON THE DOCKET
______________________________________________________________________________
This is a Social Security disability benefits appeal brought by Plaintiff Michael D.’s
(“Plaintiff”) father on Plaintiff’s behalf. 1 Doc. No. 9 at PageID 575. At issue is whether the
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) erred in finding Plaintiff not “disabled” and therefore not
eligible to Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”). This case is before the Court on Plaintiff’s
Statement of Errors (Doc. No. 10), the Commissioner’s memorandum in opposition (Doc. No. 13),
the administrative record (Doc. No. 9), 2 and the record as a whole.
I.
A.
Procedural History
Plaintiff alleges a disability onset date of December 5, 2016, due to a number of alleged
Due to Plaintiff’s death from lung cancer in February 2017, Plaintiff’s father, Richard D., brought this
case as a substitute party and executor of Plaintiff’s estate. Doc. No. 4 at PageID 7; Doc. No. 9 at PageID
204-05. The amended complaint also names as Plaintiffs Michael D.’s two surviving adult sons—Michael
S. D. and Jordan D. (who are also executors of Plaintiff’s estate). Doc. No. 4 at PageID 7. The name
“Plaintiff” throughout this Decision and Entry refers to Michael D., whose application for benefits with the
Social Security Administration is at issue in this case.
2
Hereafter, citations to the electronically filed administrative record will refer only to PageID numbers.
1
impairments including, inter alia, severe PTSD, depression, and an anxiety disorder. PageID 23940, 413. (Although Plaintiff later died from lung cancer, see supra n.1, he did not claim to be
disabled by a lung impairment or by cancer. 3 Id.) After an initial administrative denial of his
application, ALJ Laura S. Twilley on issued a written decision on April 19, 2019, finding Plaintiff
not disabled and ineligible to receive DIB. PageID 209-221. Specifically, the ALJ found at Step
Five of the sequential benefits evaluation, see infra, §II(B), that based upon Plaintiff’s residual
functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform a reduced range of work at all exertional levels 4 “there
[were] jobs that exist[ed] in significant numbers in the national economy [at that time] that
[Plaintiff could] perform[.]” PageID 219.
The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request for review, making the ALJ’s non-disability
finding the final administrative decision of the Commissioner. PageID 27-29; see Casey v. Sec’y
of Health & Human Servs., 987 F.2d 1230, 1233 (6th Cir. 1993). Plaintiff then filed this timely
appeal. See Cook v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 480 F.3d 432, 435 (6th Cir. 2007).
B.
Evidence of Record
The evidence of record is adequately summarized in the ALJ’s decision (PageID 209–21),
Plaintiff’s Statement of Errors (Doc. No. 10), and the Commissioner’s memorandum in opposition
It appears Plaintiff first learned he might have lung cancer in early September 2019, well after the ALJ
issued her non-disability decision (on April 19, 2019). See PageID 147, 209-21.
4
The ALJ thus found, in effect, Plaintiff was able to perform sedentary, light, medium, heavy, and very
heavy work, as defined by the regulations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567. Light work, for example, “involves
lifting no more than 20 pounds at a time with frequent lifting or carrying of objects weighing up to 10
pounds” and “requires a good deal of walking or standing, or…sitting most of the time with some pushing
and pulling of arm or leg controls.” Id. § 404.1567(b). An individual who can perform light work is
presumed also able to perform sedentary work. Id. Sedentary work “involves lifting no more than 10
pounds at a time and occasionally lifting or carrying articles like docket files, ledgers, and small tools.
Although a sedentary job is defined as one which involves sitting, a certain amount of walking and standing
is often necessary in carrying out job duties.” Id. § 404.1567(a).
3
2
(Doc. No. 13). The undersigned incorporates by reference the summaries in the foregoing and
sets forth herein the facts relevant to this case.
II.
A.
Standard of Review
This Court’s inquiry on a Social Security appeal is to determine (1) whether substantial
evidence supports the ALJ’s non-disability finding, and (2) whether the ALJ employed the correct
legal criteria. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Bowen v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 478 F.3d 742, 745-46 (6th Cir.
2007). When engaged in this review, the Court must consider the record as a whole. Hephner v.
Mathews, 574 F.2d 359, 362 (6th Cir. 1978).
Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion.” Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971). When
substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s denial of benefits, that finding must be affirmed, even if
substantial evidence also exists in the record upon which the ALJ could have found Plaintiff
disabled. Buxton v. Halter, 246 F.3d 762, 772 (6th Cir. 2001). Thus, the ALJ has a “‘zone of
choice’ within which he [or she] can act without the fear of court interference.” Id. at 773.
The second judicial inquiry—reviewing the correctness of the ALJ’s legal analysis—may
result in reversal even if the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record.
Rabbers v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 582 F.3d 647, 651 (6th Cir. 2009). “[A] decision of the
Commissioner will not be upheld where the [Social Security Administration] fails to follow its
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.
B.
“Disability” Defined
To be eligible for DIB, a claimant must be under a “disability” as defined by the Social
3
Security Act. 42 U.S.C. § 423(a). Narrowed to its statutory meaning, a “disability” includes
physical and/or mental impairments that are both “medically determinable” and severe enough to
prevent a claimant from (1) performing his or her past work, and (2) engaging in any other
“substantial gainful activity” that is available in the regional or national economies. Id. §
423(d)(2).
Administrative regulations require a five-step sequential evaluation for disability
determinations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). Although a dispositive finding at any step ends the
ALJ’s review, see Colvin v. Barnhart, 475 F.3d 727, 730 (6th Cir. 2007), the complete sequential
review poses five questions:
1.
Has the claimant engaged in substantial gainful activity?;
2.
Does the claimant suffer from one or more severe impairments?;
3.
Do the claimant’s severe impairments, alone or in combination, meet or
equal the criteria of an impairment set forth in the Commissioner’s Listing
of Impairments, 20 C.F.R. Subpart P, Appendix 1?;
4.
Considering the claimant’s RFC, can he or she perform his or her past
relevant work?; and
5.
Assuming the claimant can no longer perform his or her past relevant
work—and also considering the claimant’s age, education, past work
experience, and RFC—do significant numbers of other jobs exist in the
national economy which the claimant can perform?
20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4); see also Miller v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 181 F. Supp.2d 816, 818 (S.D.
Ohio 2001). A claimant bears the ultimate burden of establishing disability under the Social
Security Act’s definition. Key v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 109 F.3d 270, 274 (6th Cir. 1997).
III.
In his Statement of Errors, Plaintiff argues the ALJ erred when calculating his RFC at Step
Four and making his significant number of jobs finding at Step Five. Doc. No. 10 at PageID 847-
4
50. To those ends, Plaintiff emphasizes that although the ALJ recognized examining psychiatrist
Charles Walters, M.D.’s finding—that PTSD and a major depressive disorder caused Plaintiff to
have “reduced reliability” in his occupational and social functioning—the ALJ erred by not
incorporating a corresponding limitation in Plaintiff’s RFC. Id. at 847-48 (citing PageID 217, 64752). This, Plaintiff contends, resulted in errors at Steps Four and Five.
Having carefully reviewed the administrative record and the parties’ briefs, and also having
carefully considered the ALJ’s analysis leading to the non-disability finding here at issue, the Court
finds the ALJ carefully and reasonably developed and reviewed the record; appropriately
considered the medical evidence at issue; properly weighed opinion evidence based upon reasons
supported by substantial evidence; reasonably assessed the consistency of Plaintiff’s statements
regarding his alleged disability with the record as a whole; posed appropriate hypothetical
questions to the vocational expert (“V.E.”); accurately determined Plaintiff’s RFC; and
appropriately concluded, at Step Five (and in reliance on the VE’s sworn testimony), that Plaintiff
could then perform a significant number of jobs in the national economy.
IV.
Accordingly, the Court AFFIRMS the ALJ’s non-disability finding as supported by
substantial evidence, and TERMINATES this case on the docket.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
March 30, 2022
/s Michael J. Newman
Hon. Michael J. Newman
United States District Judge
5
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?