REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION1 and NOTICE REGARDING OBJECTIONS

MICHAEL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.

This is a Social Security case brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Presently before the Court is the Commissioner's Motion for Entry of Judgment With Remand Under Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Doc. 11. The motion requests that the Court enter judgment reversing the Commissioner's decision under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and remand this case back to the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") to "further evaluate the weight given to the opinions of the claimant's treating physicians, as well as any assessments provided by consultative examiners," and to "re-consider the claimant's residual functional capacity." Id. at PageID 977.

Plaintiff Wanda Miller (hereinafter "Plaintiff") objects to the limited scope of the remand sought by the Commissioner's motion. Doc. 14. Plaintiff contends not only that the ALJ improperly weighed the opinions of her treating medical sources, but also that the ALJ erred by failing to apply the doctrine of res judicata in his determination of disability. Doc. 8. Plaintiff's res judicata argument is premised on her receipt of Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") benefits from September 2003 until October 2004, which were based upon an application that she filed prior to the application at issue in this case. See doc. 14. Plaintiff's SSI benefits were awarded upon an initial determination — made at the administrative level — that she was disabled. Id. Plaintiff's SSI benefits were terminated approximately thirteen months later when she became incarcerated. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.211(a); PageID 92, 141, 152.

In her Statement of Errors and opposition to the Commissioner's motion, Plaintiff contends that the ALJ erred in his October 8, 2009 decision by not applying res judicata — as required by Drummond v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 126 F.3d 837 (6th Cir. 1997) — to the prior administrative determination that she was disabled. See docs. 8, 14. Plaintiff argues that any remand of this case should direct the ALJ to address the applicability of res judicata in light of the prior administrative determination of disability in 2003.

I.

The issue of whether res judicata is applicable to an initial determination at the administrative level that a claimant in a Social Security proceeding is "disabled" is not one of first impression in this Division. Recently, in Harris v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., Case No. 3:09-cv-260, Judge Rice adopted Magistrate Judge Ovington's Report and Recommendation ("R&R") that specifically addressed this issue under a factually similar scenario. See Harris, No. 3:09-cv-260, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103013 (S.D. Ohio May 21, 2010) (Ovington, M.J.) (R&R); Harris, No. 3:09-cv-260, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103008 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 29, 2010) (Rice, J.) (Order adopting R&R). In Harris, the claimant's SSI benefits were terminated after five months because the proceeds from a workers' compensation settlement put her over-income. Recently, in Harris v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., Case No. 3:09-cv-260, District Judge Walter Rice adopted Magistrate Judge Sharon Ovington's Report and Recommendation that specifically addressed this issue under a factually-similar scenario. 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103008 (S.D. Ohio, Sept. 29, 2010)(adopting Harris v. Astrue, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103013 (S.D. Ohio, May 21, 2010)). In that case, the claimant's SSI benefits were terminated after five months because the proceeds from a workers' compensation settlement put her over-income. 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103013, at *4. The Court found that, under Drummond, the Commissioner erred by failing to apply the correct legal standard, with regard to res judicata, to a prior initial administrative determination of disability when claimant subsequently filed another application for SSI. Id. at *11-16. In finding that the case should be remanded to the ALJ on the issue of res judicata, the Court opined:

Id. at *11-15.

The Court's analysis in Harris is directly applicable to the case at bar. Not only does Harris share legal and factual similarities with the allegations contained in Plaintiff's Statement of Errors, see doc. 8, but the same arguments made by the Commissioner in opposing the application of res judicata in that case — which were rejected by Judge Rice and Magistrate Judge Ovington — are repeated in his opposition here. See doc. 15. The Court finds no reason to reverse its position on the applicability of res judicata to initial determinations of disability made at the administrative level.

II.

After carefully considering the parties' respective positions and the recent precedent of this Division, the Court finds Plaintiff's opposition to the limited scope of the Commissioner's requested remand to be well-taken. Plaintiff is entitled to an Order remanding this case to the Social Security Administration pursuant to Sentence Four of §405(g) due to the ALJ's failure to discuss or apply Drummond to the prior initial administrative determination that she was disabled.

On remand, the ALJ should be directed to: (1) determine whether administrative res judicata applies to the prior administrative determination that Plaintiff was disabled; (2) determine whether the Commissioner has met his burden to show medical improvement as set forth in Drummond; (3) if benefits are not awarded based upon the prior administrative determination of disability, review Plaintiff's disability claim under the required five-step sequential analysis to determine anew whether Plaintiff was under a disability and thus eligible to receive SSI; (4) reevaluate the weight given to the opinions of Plaintiff's treating physicians, as well as any assessments provided by consultative examiners; and (5) reconsider the claimant's residual functional capacity.