Reed v. Commissioner Of Social Security, No. 3:2008cv00208 - Document 14 (S.D. Ohio 2009)
Court Description: DECISION AND ENTRY REJECTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 IN THEIR ENTIRETY; PLAINTIFFS OBJECTIONS TO SAID JUDICIAL FILING 13 SUSTAINED IN PART AND OVERRULED IN PART; JUDGMENT TO BE ENTERED IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF AND AGAINST DEFENDANT COMMISSIONER, REVERSING COMMISSIONERS DECISION THAT PLAINTIFF WAS NOT DISABLED AND, THEREFORE, NOT ENTITLED TO BENEFITS UNDER THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT, AND REMANDING THE CAPTIONED CAUSE TO THE DEFENDANT COMMISSIONER, PURSUANT TO SENTENCE FOUR OF 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), FOR FURTHER ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION;TERMINATION ENTRY. Signed by Judge Walter H Rice on 9/25/2009. (jwd1)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION DOUGLASS L. REED, Plaintiff, : Case No. 3:08cv208 : vs. : JUDGE WALTER HERBERT RICE COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, : Defendant. : DECISION AND ENTRY REJECTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (DOC. #12) IN THEIR ENTIRETY; PLAINTIFF S OBJECTIONS TO SAID JUDICIAL FILING (DOC. #13) SUSTAINED IN PART AND OVERRULED IN PART; JUDGMENT TO BE ENTERED IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF AND AGAINST DEFENDANT COMMISSIONER, REVERSING COMMISSIONER S DECISION THAT PLAINTIFF WAS NOT DISABLED AND, THEREFORE, NOT ENTITLED TO BENEFITS UNDER THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT, AND REMANDING THE CAPTIONED CAUSE TO THE DEFENDANT COMMISSIONER, PURSUANT TO SENTENCE FOUR OF 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), FOR FURTHER ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION; TERMINATION ENTRY Plaintiff has brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to review a decision of the Defendant Commissioner denying Plaintiff s application for Social Security disability benefits. On April 9, 2009, the United States Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendations (Doc. #12), recommending that the Commissioner s decision that Plaintiff was not disabled and, therefore, not entitled to benefits under the Social Security Act be affirmed. Based upon reasoning and citations of authority set forth in the Plaintiff s Statement of Specific Errors (Doc. #8), his Reply (Doc. #11) to the Defendant Commissioner s Response to said Statement of Specific Errors (Doc. #10), as well as upon a thorough de novo review of this Court s file, including the Administrative Transcript (filed with Defendant s Answer at Doc. #7), and a thorough review of the applicable law, this Court rejects the aforesaid Report and Recommendations in their entirety and, in so doing, orders the entry of judgment in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant Commissioner, concluding that the Commissioner s decision that Plaintiff was not disabled and, therefore, not entitled to benefits under the Social Security Act was not supported by substantial evidence. The Plaintiff s Objections to said judicial filing (Doc. #13) are sustained in part and, to the extent he seeks a remand for the payment of benefits, overruled in part. Accordingly, the decision of the Defendant Commissioner that Plaintiff was not disabled and, therefore, not entitled to benefits under the Social Security Act, is reversed. In reviewing the Commissioner s decision, the Magistrate's task is to determine if that decision is supported by "substantial evidence." 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court, upon objections being made to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations, is required to make a de novo review of those recommendations of the report to which objection is made. This de novo review, in turn, requires this Court to re-examine all the relevant -2- evidence, previously reviewed by the Magistrate, to determine whether the findings of the Secretary [now Commissioner] are supported by "substantial evidence." Lashley v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 708 F.2d 1048, 1053 (6th Cir. 1983); Gibson v. Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, 678 F.2d 653, 654 (6th Cir. 1982). This Court s sole function is to determine whether the record as a whole contains substantial evidence to support the Commissioner s decision. The Commissioner s findings must be affirmed if they are supported by such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971), citing Consolidated Edison Company v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938); Landsaw v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 803 F.2d 211, 213 (6th Cir. 1986). Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Richardson, supra, at 401; Ellis v. Schweicker, 739 F.2d 245, 248 (6th Cir. 1984). Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla, but only so much as would be required to prevent a directed verdict (now judgment as a matter of law) against the Commissioner if this case were being tried to a jury. Foster v. Bowen, 853 F.2d 483, 486 (6th Cir. 1988); NLRB v. Columbian Enameling and Stamping Company, 306 U.S. 292, 300 (1939). To be substantial, the evidence must do more than create a suspicion of the existence of the fact to be established... [I]t must be enough to justify, if the trial were to a jury, a refusal to direct a verdict when the conclusion sought to be drawn from it is one of fact for the jury. -3- LeMaster v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 802 F.2d 839, 840 (6th Cir. 1986), quoting NLRB v. Columbian Enameling and Stamping Company, supra. In determining whether the Commissioner s findings are supported by substantial evidence, the Court must consider the record as a whole. Hephner v. Mathews, 574 F.2d 359 (6th Cir. 1978); Ellis, supra; Kirk v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 667 F.2d 524, 536 (6th Cir. 1981); Houston v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 736 F.2d 365 (6th Cir. 1984); Garner v. Heckler, 745 F.2d 383 (6th Cir. 1984). However, the Court may not try the case de novo, resolve conflicts in evidence or decide questions of credibility. Garner, supra. The findings of the Commissioner of Social Security and proceedings on Claimant s application for social security disability benefits are not subject to reversal merely because there exists in the record substantial evidence to support a different conclusion. Buxton v. Halter, Commissioner of Social Security, 246 F.3d 762 (6th Cir. 2001). If the Commissioner s decision is supported by substantial evidence, it must be affirmed, even if the Court as a trier of fact would have arrived at a different conclusion. Elkins v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 658 F.2d 437, 439 (6th Cir. 1981). -4- In addition to the foregoing, in ruling as aforesaid, this Court makes the following, non-exclusive, observations: 1. The Administrative Law Judge s rejection of the Opinion of Dr. Walters was not based upon substantial evidence, given that said physician s diagnosis and opinions were based upon the totality of the record, consisting of both his examinations and the record of the Defendant s prior hospitalization, which was known to that mental health professional. Moreover, Dr. Walters opinion is corroborated by the GAF scores of 48 and 49, assigned by Drs. McIntosh and Boerger. 2. While Plaintiff s severe residuals of left, non-dominant hand injury, standing alone, might not have rendered him disabled, within the meaning of the Social Security Act, this Court finds the Administrative Law Judge did not consider whether that injury, coupled with his depression, in combination, rendered him unable to engage in competitive employment. 3. Although the decision of the Defendant Commissioner of non-disability is not supported by substantial evidence, remand for further administrative proceedings, rather than remand for the award of benefits, is proper, given that Plaintiff s entitlement to benefits is not clear and contrary evidence weak or lacking. Faucher v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 17 F.3d 171, 176 (6th Cir. 1994). -5- 4. The Administrative Law Judge hints at, but does not definitively find, that Plaintiff s use of alcohol and/or other controlled substances might be the competent producing cause of any claimed disability. This appears to be, based upon a thorough review of his decision (Tr. 10-26), to be speculation, based upon the Administrative Law Judge s noting the Plaintiff s inconsistent history concerning his use of such substances. WHEREFORE, based upon the aforesaid, this Court rejects the Report and Recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. #12) in their entirety, having concluded that the Commissioner s decision that Plaintiff was not disabled and, therefore, not entitled to benefits under the Social Security Act was not supported by substantial evidence. Plaintiff s Objections to said judicial filing (Doc. #13) are sustained in part and overruled in part. Judgment will be ordered entered in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant Commissioner, reversing the decision of the Defendant Commissioner that Plaintiff was not disabled and, therefore, not entitled to benefits under the Social Security Act, and remanding the captioned cause to the Defendant Commissioner, pursuant to the Fourth Sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), for further administrative proceedings, including, inter alia, the taking of any and all necessary testimony and/or the referral of Plaintiff for any consultive examinations, as to his depression and his severe residuals of left, nondominant hand injury, both separately and in combination with each other. -6- The captioned cause is hereby ordered terminated upon the docket records of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, at Dayton. September 25, 2009 /s/ Walter Herbert Rice WALTER HERBERT RICE, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Copies to: Marilyn R. Donoff, Esq. John J. Stark, Esq. Todd Duclos, Esq. -7-
]]>
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.
