Ballard v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 5:2018cv01878 - Document 20 (N.D. Ohio 2019)

Court Description: Opinion & Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 8/15/19. The Court, for the reasons set forth in this Order, adopts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, vacates the Administrative Law Judge's decision and remands the case for further proceedings. (Related Doc. 18 ) (D,MA)

Download PDF
Ballard v. Commissioner of Social Security Doc. 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO -----------------------------------------------------------------JACOB SCOTT BALLARD, Plaintiff, vs. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. : : : : : : : : : : : Case No. 5:18-cv-1878 OPINION & ORDER [Resolving Doc. 18] -----------------------------------------------------------------JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE: In early 2016, Plaintiff Jason Scott Ballard applied for Social Security disability benefits.1 The Social Security Administration denied Ballard’s application initially and upon reconsideration.2 After a hearing, an Administrative Law Judge ALJ also denied Ballard’s request.3 The Social Security Appeals Council declined to review,4 making the ALJ’s determination the agency’s final decision. Plaintiff Ballard now challenges this disability benefits denial.5 Magistrate Judge Knepp issued a report and recommendation R&R recommending that the Court remand the case to the ALJ.6 Neither party objects.7 1 Doc. 10 at 205. Id. at 136 (initial denial), 146 (denial upon reconsideration). 3 Id. at 17. 4 Id. at 6. 5 Doc. 1. 6 Doc. 18. 7 Doc. 19. 2 Dockets.Justia.com Case No. 5:18-cv-1878 Gwin, J. The Federal Magistrates Act only requires the Court to review objected-to portions of an R&R.8 When there are no objections, the Court may adopt the R&R without examination. Because neither party objects, the Court adopts the R&R. Also, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Knepp’s reasoning and conclusions. )n determining disability, an ALJ is generally required to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight.9 )f the ALJ discounts the opinion, he must give good reasons for doing so.10 Plaintiff Ballard’s treating physician opined that Ballard’s dizziness and headaches would restrict his ability to lift objects.11 However, the ALJ gave this opinion less than controlling weight, concluding that Ballard’s dizziness lacked documentation and the recommended limitations were undercut by Ballard’s daily activities.12 These reasons are either untrue or unhelpfully unspecific. Ballard’s medical records are—in fact—riddled with reports of dizziness.13 And, as Judge Knepp correctly notes, the ALJ failed to identify which of Ballard’s life activities conflicted with Dr. Peiffer’s opinion.14 The good reasons standard requires more. 8 Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 145 (1985). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 9 E.g., Rogers v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 486 F.3d 234, 242 (6th Cir. 2007). Although the federal regulations regarding the treating physician rule changed in March , , they do not impact Plaintiff’s January claim. 10 Id.; 20 C.F.R § 416.927(c)(2) We will always give good reasons in our notice of determination or decision for the weight we give your treating source’s medical opinion. . 11 Doc. 10 at 1756. 12 Id. at 27. 13 E.g., id. at 723, 742, 916, 1220. 14 Id. at 27. -2- Case No. 5:18-cv-1878 Gwin, J. Thus, the Court ADOPTS the R&R, VACATES the ALJ’s decision, and REMANDS the case to the ALJ for further proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 15, 2019 s/ James S. Gwin JAMES S. GWIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -3-

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.