Hall v. Commissioner of Social Security, 1:17-cv-363. (2018)
Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20180824i73
Visitors: 13
Filed: Aug. 23, 2018
Latest Update: Aug. 23, 2018
Summary: DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doe. 13) AND TERMINATING THIS CASE IN THIS COURT TIMOTHY S. BLACK , Magistrate Judge . This case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference to United States Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court and, on July 23, 2018, submitted a Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 13). Plaintiff filed
Summary: DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doe. 13) AND TERMINATING THIS CASE IN THIS COURT TIMOTHY S. BLACK , Magistrate Judge . This case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference to United States Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court and, on July 23, 2018, submitted a Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 13). Plaintiff filed o..
More
DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doe. 13) AND TERMINATING THIS CASE IN THIS COURT
TIMOTHY S. BLACK, Magistrate Judge.
This case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference to United States Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court and, on July 23, 2018, submitted a Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 13). Plaintiff filed objections on August 6, 2018. (Doc. 14).1
As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has reviewed the comprehensive findings of the Magistrate Judge and considered de novo all of the filings in this matter. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court does determine that the Report and Recommendation should be and is hereby ADOPTED in its entirety.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above:
1) The Commissioner's decision to deny Plaintiff SSI benefits is AFFIRMED, as that decision is supported by substantial evidence;
2) The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly, whereupon this case is TERMINATED from the docket of this Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. After reviewing the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiffs objections, and the case record, the Court finds that Plaintiff's objections are not well taken. Plaintiff raises two objections. The first is that the Report and Recommendation improperly allowed the AU to give only partial weight to portions of Dr. Berg's opinion. To the contrary, the Report and Recommendation makes clear that the ALT's decision provides sufficiently clear and logical consideration of Plaintiffs functional limitations and a mental RFC that clearly considered and incorporated Dr. Berg's opinions. (Doc. 13 at 7-8). The Court agrees. Plaintiffs second objection is that the Report and Recommendation erred in finding that the All fully and adequately accounted for Plaintiffs moderate limitations in concentration, persistence, and pace. The Report and Recommendation notes that the AU considered the opinions of two agency consultants and Dr. Berg that assessed Plaintiff with only moderate levels of impairment. (Id. at 8). Plaintiff argues that the All failed to follow the state agency opinion that Plaintiff would be limited to only superficial social interactions due to depression, and would be limited in making plans independently. (Doc. 14 at 2). As the Report and Recommendation explains, however, an AU is not required to include restrictions in the RFC that the ALJ did not accept. See Casey v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 987 F.2d 1230, 1235 (6th Cir. 1993). The All's logic and rationale were consistent in its review. The Court agrees with the Report and Recommendation that substantial evidence supports the mental RFC as determined.
Source: Leagle
