Opinion
Case No. 3:12-cv-333
02-17-2014
CONNIE BUBECK Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
Judge Thomas M. Rose
Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman
AMENDED ENTRY AND ORDER OVERRULING BUBECK'S
The original Entry and Order is amended because it refers to an incorrect plaintiff.
OBJECTIONS (Doc. #14) TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE
JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. #13) IN ITS
ENTIRETY; AFFIRMING THE COMMISSIONER'S DECISION THAT
BUBECK WAS DISABLED AS OF SEPTEMBER 1, 2010, BUT NOT
BEFORE AND TERMINATING THIS CASE
Connie Bubeck ("Bubeck") brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for judicial review of the decision of the Defendant Commissioner of Social Security (the "Commissioner") that she is not disabled before September 1, 2010, and, therefore, not entitled to Social Security disability benefits. On January 9, 2014, United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman entered a Report and Recommendations (doc. #13) recommending that the Commissioner's decision that Bubeck was disabled as of September 1, 2010, but not before, be affirmed. Bubeck subsequently filed Objections. (Doc. #14.) The time has run and the Commissioner has not responded to Bubeck's Objections. This matter is, therefore, ripe for decision.
Bubeck sought financial assistance from the Social Security Administration by applying for Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB") in May of 2008. Bubeck claimed that she had been disabled since February 16, 2006, due to left eye blindness, kidney disease, flares of gout and chronic low back pain.
The Commissioner denied Bubeck's application initially and on reconsideration. Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") Thomas McNichols ("McNichols") a hearing following which he determined that Bubeck was not disabled. The Appeals Council denied Bubeck's request for review and ALJ McNichol's decision became the Commissioner's final decision. Bubeck then appealed to this Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
As required by 28 U.S.C. §636(b) and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 72(b), the District Judge has made a de novo review of the record in this case. Based upon the reasoning and citations of authority set forth in the Chief Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations (doc. #13) and in Bubeck's Objections (doc. #14), as well as upon a thorough de novo review of this Court's file and a thorough review of the applicable law, this Court adopts the aforesaid Report and Recommendations in its entirety and, in so doing affirms the Commissioner's decision that Bubeck was not disabled.
This Court's function is to determine whether the record as a whole contains substantial evidence to support the ALJ's decision. Bowen v. Commissioner of Social Security, 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 Consolidated Edison Company v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)); Landsaw v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 803 F.2d 211, 213 (6th Cir. 1986). Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Richardson, supra, at 401; Ellis v. Schweicker, 739 F.2d 245, 248 (6th Cir. 1984). Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla, but only so much as would be required to prevent a directed verdict (now judgment as a matter of law) against the ALJ/Commissioner if this case were being tried to a jury. Foster v. Bowen, 853 F.2d 483, 486 (6th Cir. 1988); NLRB v. Columbian Enameling and Stamping Company, 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. See 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." Bowen, 478 F.3d at 746 (citing in part Wilson v. Commissioner of Social Security, 378 F.3d 541, 546-47 (6th Cir. 2004)).
In this case, the ALJ applied the correct legal criteria and the record as a whole contains substantial evidence to support the ALJ's decision. WHEREFORE, Bubeck's Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations are OVERRULED, and this Court adopts the Report and Recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge in its entirety. The Commissioner's decision that Bubeck was disabled as of September 1, 2010, but not before, is affirmed. Finally, the captioned cause is hereby ordered terminated upon the docket records of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, at Dayton.
DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio, this Seventeenth Day of February, 2014.
__________
JUDGE THOMAS M. ROSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record