AVERN COHN, District Judge.
This is a Social Security case. Plaintiff Sandra L. Schlacht has appealed Commissioner of Social Security's denial of her claim for benefits under the Social Security Act. The case was referred to a magistrate judge ("MJ"). Both parties submitted motions for summary judgment. After reviewing the motions, briefs, and the ALJ decision, the magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation ("MJRR") recommending that the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment be granted and Schlacht's motion for summary judgment be denied. Plaintiff has filed objections to the MJRR and Defendant has filed a response.
For the reasons that follow, the Court overrules Schlacht's objections, and adopts the MJRR, denies Schlacht's motion for summary judgment, and grants the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment.
After Schlacht's application for Disability Insurance Benefits was denied, she timely requested an administrative hearing. After the hearing, the ALJ issued a written decision finding that Schlacht is not disabled under the Act. The Appeals Council denied review. Schlacht then commenced this action for district court review. Subsequently, Schlacht filed timely objections to the MJ's recommendation which are now before the court. (ECF No. 15).
The MJRR summarized the ALJ's decision denying benefits:
The ALJ applied the five-step disability analysis and found:
(ECF No. 14, PageID.988-90). On appeal, the MJ reviewed the ALJ's
decision and found that it was supported by substantial evidence.
This Court has jurisdiction to review the Commissioner's final administrative decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Judicial review under this statute is limited in that the court "must affirm the Commissioner's conclusions absent a determination that the Commissioner has failed to apply the correct legal standard or has made findings of fact unsupported by substantial evidence in the record."
The portions of the MJRR that the claimant finds objectionable are reviewed de novo. See
The Court finds that the MJRR is an accurate, well-reasoned review of the record. The MJRR is adopted in its entirety. The Court need only address Schlacht's specific objections at this stage of the case, and articulate reasons for why Schlacht's objections are overruled.
Schlacht argues that the MJ erred when she found that the ALJ's assessment of Schlacht's mental RFC was sufficient. (ECF No. 15). Schlacht says that the ALJ did not properly account for her depression and anxiety, and that "Plaintiff's depression and anxiety were mischaracterized and minimized". (
The is no evidence that the ALJ mischaracterized or minimized Schlacht's depression and anxiety. Rather, he found that Schlacht's subjective complaints did not align with the objective evidence. Despite her subjective symptoms, "Plaintiff did not have any specialized mental health treatment, which suggests that her social limitations are not as severe as she claims." (ECF No. 7-2, PageID.50).
Schlacht takes issue that "[t]he ALJ's decision does not specifically outline Plaintiff's ability to understand; carry out and remember instructions; use judgment in making work-related decisions, respond appropriately to supervision, co-workers in work situations; and deal with changes in a routine work setting."
An ALJ is not required to "explicitly address Plaintiff's limitations with regard to every work-related function."
Schlacht argues that the MJ erred when she found that the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence, and that "overall, Plaintiff's ability to work during the time period at issue was severely over-estimated by the ALJ, and incorrectly affirmed by the [MJ]." (ECF No. 15, PageID.1032).
Schlacht, however, does not point to any particular portion of the ALJ report that was not so supported. The closest Schlacht comes to articulating a specific issue with the report is reference to a 7th Circuit case which states that an ALJ should not substitute his own medical judgment for that a physician. (Id. at 1031). Here, there is no evidence the ALJ substituted his own medical judgment for that of a physician. Further, an ALJ is not required to rely on a physician's opinion when making a determination on disability.
Plaintiff also says that the ALJ "failed to follow regulations." (ECF No. 15, PageID.1031). However, Plaintiff fails to mention any particular regulation the ALJ did not follow, and the Court does not find any such evidence.
For the reasons stated above, the MJRR is ADOPTED, Schlacht's objections are OVERRULED, Schlacht's motion for summary judgment is DENIED, the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, and the ALJ's decision denying benefits is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.