ORDER

JAMES G. CARR, SR., District Judge.

This is a Social Security case in which the plaintiff, James Diltz, appeals the Commissioner's decision denying him disability benefits.

An administrative law judge (ALJ) concluded that, although Diltz suffers from severe impairments, he has the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform light work subject to certain limitations. (Doc. 10 at 18-19). The ALJ further opined that, within this RFC, Diltz could work in a significant number of jobs that exist in the national economy. (Id. at 24).

Pending is Magistrate Judge Baughman's Report & Recommendation (Doc. 22). The R&R recommends that I reverse the ALJ's decision and remand for further consideration of two medical opinions: the state reviewing psychologist's opinion and the consulting examining psychologist's opinion. Magistrate Judge Baughman recommends such reconsideration because, 1) though the ALJ gave the state reviewing psychologist's opinion great weight, the RFC omits several limitations that opinion recommended (see Doc. 10 at 2-3), and 2) the ALJ gave the consulting examining psychologist's report no weight but gave great weight to another opinion that relied on that report (see id. at 4).

The Magistrate Judge advised that any objections to the R&R be due within fourteen days. The Commissioner has not objected to the R&R, and the fourteen-day deadline has passed. I therefore find that the parties have waived their right to de novo review. See Thomas v. Arn, 728 F.2d 813, 814-15 (6th Cir. 1984).

It is, therefore,

ORDERED THAT

So ordered.

REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

Introduction

James Diltz sought disability insurance benefits because of orthopedic impairments and neurocogntive disorders. The Commissioner found that he had a residual functional capacity ("RFC") that enabled him to perform a significant number of jobs that exist in the national economy.1 This decision lacks the support of substantial evidence. I, therefore, recommend the reversal of the Commissioner's decision and remand for further consideration.

Issues Presented

Diltz presents two issues for decision:

Analysis

A. The state agency reviewing psychiatrist's opinion

The Court reviews the Commissioner's factual findings for substantial evidence, asking whether "a reasonable mind might accept" the relevant evidence "as adequate to support a conclusion."2

The RFC finding must always consider and address medical source opinions. If the RFC finding conflicts with an opinion from a medical source, the adjudicator must explain why the opinion was not adopted.3

On reconsideration, Bonnie Katz, Ph.D., opined that Diltz had a number of limitations caused by his neurocognitive disorders:

The ALJ gave this opinion great weight.5 Nevertheless, the only mental limitations incorporated into the RFC were "simple work that is not fast paced meaning no work where the pace of productivity is dictated by an external source over which the individual has no control such as an assembly line or conveyor belt."6 Specifically, the ALJ included no limitations regarding simple decisions, instructions, and tasks; relationships with coworkers, supervisors, or the general public; or low stress. Despite the weight given to Dr. Katz's opinion, the ALJ gave no reasons for omitting multiple limitations that she opined.

Further, the ALJ did not pose to the VE any hypotheticals incorporating the omitted limitations.7

There is no basis, therefore, for assessing whether these limitations would have prevented Diltz from performing a significant number of jobs that exist in the national economy.

This absence of good reasons for omitting the limitations of a source given great weight deprives the RFC of the support of substantial evidence and requires a remand for reconsideration.

B. The opinion of the consulting examining psychologist

The ALJ gave the opinion8 of the consulting, examining psychologist, Dr. A.E. Virgil, no weight.9 As reasons for this weight, the ALJ observed that the opinion was speculative and a blanket statement about Diltz's ability to work.10 Although Dr. Virgil observed that Diltz performed satisfactorily during the interview and testing administered, he opined that he would have substantial limitations understanding, remembering, and carrying out instructions; maintaining attention; concentrating; maintaining persistence and pace; performing simple tasks; and responding appropriately to supervisors and co-workers in a work setting.11

On remand, the ALJ should reevaluate the weight given to Dr. Virgil's opinion. Dr. Katz, whose opinion received great weight, reviewed Dr. Virgil's opinion,12 and the limitations she opined are consistent in many respects with those identified by Dr. Virgil, including limitations omitted from the RFC by the ALJ. On remand, the weight assigned to Dr. Virgil's opinion should be reconsidered.

Conclusion

The RFC adopted by the ALJ lacks the support of substantial evidence because the ALJ did not give good reasons for excluding therefrom limitations opined by state agency reviewing psychologist Dr. Katz, whose opinion the ALJ gave great weight. I, therefore, recommend that the decision of the ALJ be reversed and remanded for reconsideration, including the mental limitations incorporated into the RFC based on the opinions of Drs. Katz and Virgil.

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.

Objections

Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed with the Clerk of Courts within fourteen (14) days of receipt of this notice. Failure to file objections within the specified time waives the right to appeal the District Court's order.13