Franklin v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 3:2012cv00074 - Document 14 (S.D. Ohio 2013)
Court Description: DECISION AND ENTRY: (1) ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 12 ) IN ITS ENTIRETY; (2) OVERRULING THE COMMISSIONERS OBJECTIONS (Doc. 13 ); (3) REVERSING THE COMMISSIONERS DECISION THAT PLAINTIFF WAS NOT DISABLED; AND (4) REMANDING THIS CASE TO THE FOR PAYMENT OF BENEFITS. Signed by Judge Timothy S. Black on 1/13/2013. (mr1)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION JAY FRANKLIN, : : Plaintiff, : : vs. : : MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER : OF SOCIAL SECURITY, : : Defendant. : Case No. 3:12-cv-74 Judge Timothy S. Black Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz DECISION AND ENTRY: (1) ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 12) IN ITS ENTIRETY; (2) OVERRULING THE COMMISSIONER S OBJECTIONS (Doc. 13); (3) REVERSING THE COMMISSIONER S DECISION THAT PLAINTIFF WAS NOT DISABLED; AND (4) REMANDING THIS CASE TO THE FOR PAYMENT OF BENEFITS Plaintiff Jay Franklin commenced this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ยง 405(g) for judicial review of the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying his applications for Social Security Disability ( SSD ) and Supplemental Security Income ( SSI ). On November 29, 2012, Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz entered a Report and Recommendations (Doc. 12) recommending that the Commissioner s non-disability determination be reversed and the case remanded for payment of benefits. The Commissioner filed objections to the Report and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 13). Plaintiff did not respond to the Objections and the time for doing so has expired. The Commissioner s Objections are now ripe for ruling by the Court. This Court s function is to determine whether the record as a whole contains substantial evidence to support the ALJ s decision. Bowen v. Comm r of Soc. Sec., 478 F.3d 742, 745-46 (6th Cir. 2007). This Court must also determine whether the ALJ applied the correct legal criteria. Id. Regarding the substantial evidence requirement, the ALJ 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 Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)). Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla, but only so much as would be required to prevent a judgment as a matter of law if this case were being tried to a jury. Foster v. Bowen, 853 F.2d 483, 486 (6th Cir. 1988) (citing NLRB v. Columbian Enameling & Stamping Co., 306 U.S. 292, 300 (1939)). The second judicial inquiry, reviewing the ALJ s legal criteria, may result in reversal even if the record contains substantial evidence supporting the ALJ s factual findings. Bowen, 478 F.3d at 746. A reversal based on the ALJ s legal criteria may occur, for example, when the ALJ has failed to follow the Commissioner s own regulations and where that error prejudices a claimant on the merits or deprives the claimant of a substantial right. Id. (citing in part Wilson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 378 F.3d 541, 546-47 (6th Cir. 2004)). -2- Upon de novo review of the issues, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 12) in its entirety, OVERRULES Defendant s Objections (Doc. 13), REVERSES the ALJ s non-disability finding and REMANDS this case to the Social Security Administration for the immediate award of benefits. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Timothy S. Black Timothy S. Black United States District Judge Date: 1/11/13 -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.
