Barton v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, No. 1:2017cv00029 - Document 16 (N.D. Ohio 2018)

Court Description: Memorandum of Opinion and Order For the reasons set forth herein, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 14 ) is hereby adopted. The Court vacates the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security as to the sole i ssue of whether Plaintiff's prescribed cane was medically necessary and remands this case to the Commissioner for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The decision of the Commissioner as to all other findings is affirmed. Judge Benita Y. Pearson on 1/5/2018. (JLG)

Download PDF
Barton v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration Doc. 16 PEARSON, J. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION VALERIE BARTON, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 1:17CV29 JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER An Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) denied Plaintiff Valerie Barton’s application for 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 Thomas M. Parker for preparation of a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Rule 72.2(b)(1). On December 8, 2017, the magistrate judge submitted a Report (ECF No. 14) recommending that the Court vacate the Commissioner’s decision as to the sole issue of whether Plaintiff’s prescribed cane was medically necessary and remand the case to the Commissioner for further proceedings. Furthermore, the magistrate judge recommended that the Commissioner’s handling of all other issues—being the medical opinion evidence of record—is supported by substantial evidence and requires no remand. ECF No. 14 at PageID#: 1343. Dockets.Justia.com (1:17CV29) Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) provides that objections to a report and recommendation must be filed within 14 days after service. On December 15, 2017, the Commissioner filed a Response to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommended Decision (ECF No. 15), stating that the Commissioner will not be filing objections. Plaintiff has not filed any 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). Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge is hereby adopted. The Court vacates the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security as to the sole issue of whether Plaintiff’s prescribed cane was medically necessary and remands this case to the Commissioner for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The decision of the Commissioner as to all other findings is affirmed.1 IT IS SO ORDERED. January 5, 2018 Date /s/ Benita Y. Pearson Benita Y. Pearson United States District Judge 1 As indicated above, in his Report, the magistrate judge recommended that the Commissioner’s handling of the medical opinion evidence of record was supported by substantial evidence and requires no remand. ECF No. 14 at PageID#: 1343. 2

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.