Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Marc M. v. Saul, 1:18-cv-02693-RLY-DML. (2019)

Court: District Court, S.D. Indiana Number: infdco20191002j70 Visitors: 16
Filed: Sep. 30, 2019
Latest Update: Sep. 30, 2019
Summary: ORDER ON THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION RICHARD L. YOUNG , District Judge . Plaintiff Marc M. suffers from morbid obesity, osteoarthritis of the bilateral knees, and multilevel lumbar spondylosis. On August 30, 2018, he filed a request for judicial review of the final decision of Defendant Andrew M. Saul, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration denying Plaintiff's application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C.
More

ORDER ON THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff Marc M. suffers from morbid obesity, osteoarthritis of the bilateral knees, and multilevel lumbar spondylosis. On August 30, 2018, he filed a request for judicial review of the final decision of Defendant Andrew M. Saul, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration denying Plaintiff's application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 401 et seq., and supplemental security income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1381 et seq. The court referred the matter to the Magistrate Judge, who issued her Report and Recommendation. The Magistrate Judge concluded that the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence, and therefore recommended that the decision denying benefits be upheld. Plaintiff timely filed his Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, claiming the Magistrate Judge erred in two ways. First, she erred in finding the ALJ's analysis of step three concerning whether Listing 1.02A (major dysfunction of a joint) or 1.04 (disorders of the spine) were met or equaled was adequate and supported by substantial evidence. Second, she erred in finding that his residual function capacity determination was supported by substantial evidence.

The court, having read and reviewed the parties' submissions and the applicable law, finds the Magistrate Judge did not err. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Objections (Filing No. 16) are OVERRULED and the court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation.

SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. To protect privacy interests of claimants for Social Security benefits and consistent with a recommendation of the Court Administration and Case Management Committee of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, the Southern District of Indiana has chosen to use only the first name and last initial of non-governmental parties in its Social Security judicial review opinions.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer