Crumbley v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, No. 1:2017cv02096 - Document 22 (N.D. Ohio 2018)
Court Description: Opinion & Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 9/13/18. The Court, for the reasons set forth in this order, adopts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and affirms the Administrative Law Judge's decision. (Related Docs. 1 and 21 ) (D,MA)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Crumbley v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration Doc. 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO ----------------------------------------------------------------------DORIS CRUMBLEY, Plaintiff, vs. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. : : : : : : : : : : : Case No. 1:17-cv-2096 OPINION & ORDER [Resolving Doc. 1] ----------------------------------------------------------------------JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE: On August 16, 2013, Plaintiff Doris Crumbley filed an application for disability insurance benefits w“th the Soc“al Secur“ty Adm“n“strat“on (the SSA ).1 And, on September 27, 2013, she filed an application for supplemental security income with the SSA.2 In both applications, Plaintiff alleged that she became disabled on January 19, 2013.3 On September 30, 2013, the SSA denied both applications.4 The SSA then den“ed Pla“nt“ff’s request for reconsideration on January 9, 2014.5 Plaintiff Crumbley then requested an ALJ hearing, 6 which occurred on June 22, 2015.7 Shortly thereafter, the ALJ issued a partially favorable decision, concluding that Plaintiff was disabled, but that her disability began on September 4, 2014, rather than January 13, 2013, as Plaintiff had claimed.8 Plaintiff Crumbley sought review of that decision by the Social Security Appeals Council. The Appeals Council denied her request.9 Plaintiff then brought this suit, requesting review of the ALJ’s decision.10 Specifically, Plaintiff claims that: (i) the ALJ failed to consider her back pa“n and mental problems as severe “mpa“rments 1 Doc. 13 at 220-26. Id. at 227-32. 3 Id. at 220, 227. 4 Id. at 88-113. 5 Id. at 116-43. 6 Id. at 171-72. 7 Id. at 43-83. 8 Id. at 14-42. 9 Id. at 1-13. 10 Doc. 1. 2 Dockets.Justia.com Case No. 1:17-cv-2096 Gwin, J. and (ii) the ALJ incorrectly concluded that Plaintiff was capable of performing work that existed in significant numbers in the national economy in the time before September 4, 2014.11 Magistrate Judge Greenberg has cons“dered Pla“nt“ff’s case and recommends that the Court aff“rm the ALJ’s decision.12 Neither Plaintiff nor Defendant have objected to that recommendation. If a party had ob”ected to the Mag“strate Judge’s recommendat“on, the Court would cons“der the objected-to portions of the recommendation de novo.13 Because neither party has objected, the Court may adopt the Report and Recommendation without review.14 Moreover, the Court has conducted its own review of the briefing and record and agrees with the conclusions in the Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Mag“strate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and AFFIRMS the ALJ’s dec“s“on. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Dated: September 13, 2018 James S. Gwin JAMES S. GWIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 Id. 12 Doc. 21. 13 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 14 Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). -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.
