Fender v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 1:2011cv00412 - Document 19 (S.D. Ohio 2013)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS in part re 18 Report and Recommendations. The Court REVERSES the decision of the ALJ pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); and ENTERS Final Judgment in favor of the Plaintiff, finding that she is entitled to Supplemental Security Income benefits as of April 2006. The Court AWARDS Plaintiff Supplemental Security Income benefits based on that date, REMANDS the case to Defendant Commissioner for an immediate award consistent with this Opinion & Order, and closes this case on the Court's docket. Signed by Judge S Arthur Spiegel on 3/21/2013. (km1)

Download PDF

Fender v. Commissioner of Social Security Doc. 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION SHELLY FENDER, : : : : : : : : : : : Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, NO. 1:11-CV-0412 OPINION & ORDER Defendant. This Judge’s matter Report and recommends that Plaintiff’s is before the Recommendation the decision application for Court (doc. of the on the 18), Magistrate in which Commissioner Supplemental Security she to deny Income be reversed and the matter be remanded under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. §405(g). Proper notice was given to the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), including notice that the parties would waive further appeal if they failed to file objections to the Report and Recommendation in a timely manner. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). Order, no objections have been filed. herein, the Court AFFIRMS the United States v. As of the date of this For the reasons indicated Magistrate Judge’s Recommended 1 Dockets.Justia.com Decision and ADOPTS the Magistrate Judges’ Report and Recommendation in most respects, REVERSES the decision of the Commissioner as not supported by substantial evidence, and ENTERS final judgment in favor of Plaintiff. Having reviewed this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation thorough, well-reasoned, and correct as to her assessment of the Administrative Law Judge’s decision. Thus, to the extent her Report and Recommendation recommends that the Commissioner’s decision to deny benefits be reversed, this Court agrees and adopts and affirms the Report and Recommendation. However, to extent that recommends the this administrative affirm. that the matter proceedings, the Report and be remanded Court declines Recommendation for to further adopt and Instead, the Court finds that an immediate award of benefits is warranted in this matter. The record contains strong proof, with no significant evidence to the contrary, disability under the Act. that Plaintiff suffers from a Specifically, the Medical Expert’s testimony provides substantial evidence that Plaintiff’s asthma meets the definition of disability, and that uncontradicted by other evidence in the record. evidence is The Magistrate Judge’s thorough analysis of the record is illuminating and her 2 conclusion is correct: the ALJ unequivocally committed legal error in this case in his application of the evidence provided by the Medical Expert to the relevant law. The Magistrate Judge nonetheless recommends that the case be remanded for further administrative proceedings because she found Plaintiff that the suffered treatment”. record from was her not asthma clear “in enough spite on of whether prescribed This Court disagrees and finds that the record provides strong evidence that Plaintiff’s prescribed treatment was not successful in controlling her asthma, and proof to the contrary testified is not that uncontradicted present. her Specifically, prescribed evidence in regimen the the Medical failed, record that and Expert there Plaintiff is was compliant with her treatment when she was able to afford it, and on at least one occasion she was unable to take it due to an uncontrolled infection. circumstances of this Given the established record and the case, and given the strong proof of disability without proof to the contrary, a remand for further proceedings would simply be a waste of judicial resources and would not support the interests of justice. Secretary, 17 F.3d 171 (6th Cir. 1994). See Faucher v. Accordingly, this matter should be remanded to Defendant for an immediate award of benefits. Newkirk v. Shalala, 25 F.3d 316, 318 (6th Cir. 1994). 3 In Magistrate sum, the Judge’s Court Report adopts and and affirms Recommendation in part (doc. the 18); REVERSES the decision of the ALJ pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); and ENTERS Final Judgment in favor of the Plaintiff, finding that she is entitled to Supplemental Security Income benefits as of April 2006. Income The Court AWARDS Plaintiff Supplemental Security benefits based on that date, REMANDS the case to Defendant Commissioner for an immediate award consistent with this Opinion & Order, and closes this case on the Court’s docket. SO ORDERED. Dated: March 21, 2013 s/S. Arthur Spiegel________________ S. Arthur Spiegel United States Senior District Judge 4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.