Parrish v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 1:2016cv01880 - Document 16 (N.D. Ohio 2017)

Court Description: Memorandum of Opinion and Order For the reasons set forth herein, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, ECF No. 15 , is hereby adopted. The decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is affirmed. Judgment will be entered in favor of Defendant. Judge Benita Y. Pearson on 6/23/2017. (JLG)
Download PDF
Parrish v. Commissioner of Social Security Doc. 16 PEARSON, J. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION NATASHA S PARRISH, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 1:16CV1880 JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER An Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) denied Plaintiff Natasha S. Parrish’s applications for a Period of Disability (“POD”), Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”), and Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) after a hearing in the above-captioned case. That decision became the final determination of the Commissioner of Social Security when the Appeals Council denied the request to review the ALJ’s decision. The claimant sought judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision, and the Court referred the case to Magistrate Judge David A. Ruiz for preparation of a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Rule 72.2(b)(1). The magistrate judge submitted a Report (ECF No. 15) recommending that the decision of the Commissioner be affirmed. Specifically, the magistrate judge recommends that the Court find: (1) the ALJ did not err in relying on the opinions of non-treating medical sources and plainly considered evidence post-dating the opinions (ECF No. 15 at PageID #: 970-73); (2) the Dockets.Justia.com (1:16CV1880) ALJ did not err in making an RFC determination because the RFC is an issue reserved to the Commissioner for final determination (ECF No. 15 at PageID #: 973-74); and (3) the ALJ did not err in relying on the VE’s uncontested affirmation that the testimony provided comported with the DOT (ECF No. 15 at PageID #: 978-80). In addition, the magistrate judge recommends that the Court find the ALJ did not err in posing a hypothetical question to the VE that omitted Plaintiff’s need for a cane because Plaintiff’s own hearing testimony does not qualify as medical documentation and Plaintiff’s medical records did not establish that the cane was medically required or describe the circumstances for which a cane is needed or required (ECF No. 15 at PageID #: 974-78). The magistrate judge also recommends that the Court find that Plaintiff’s fourth assignment of error (ECF No. 11 at PageID #: 926) is deemed waived because it is insufficiently developed (ECF No. 15 at PageID #: 980-82). Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) provides that objections to a Report and Recommendation must be filed within 14 days after service. Objections to the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation were, therefore, due on June 22, 2017. Neither party has filed objections, evidencing satisfaction with the magistrate judge’s recommendations. Any further review by this Court would be a duplicative and inefficient use of the Court’s limited resources. Thomas v. Arn, 728 F.2d 813 (6th Cir. 1984), aff’d, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Howard v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981). (1:16CV1880) Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge is hereby adopted. The decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is affirmed. Judgment will be entered in favor of Defendant. IT IS SO ORDERED. June 23, 2017 Date /s/ Benita Y. Pearson Benita Y. Pearson United States District Judge