Hull v. Commissioner of Social Security

Full title: PENELOPE A. HULL, Plaintiff v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant

Court: United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division

Date published: Mar 10, 2010

C-1-08-804 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 10, 2010)

Opinion

C-1-08-804.

March 10, 2010

HERMAN WEBER, District Judge

This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (doc. no. 11), plaintiff's objections thereto (doc. no. 13) and defendant's response (doc. no. 14). Plaintiff, a Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) claimant, brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying plaintiff's application for DIB and SSI benefits. The Magistrate Judge concluded that there is substantial evidence to support the Commissioner's findings and recommended that the final decision of the Commissioner that plaintiff is not entitled to benefits be affirmed.

I.

Plaintiff filed applications for DIB and SSI on December 16, 2002. Those applications were denied at the state agency levels. Pursuant to plaintiff's request, a de novo hearing was held before the ALJ on March 15, 2005. Plaintiff was represented by counsel and testified at the hearing. Vocational Expert, Kenneth Manges, was also present and testified. The ALJ entered his decision finding the plaintiff not disabled on August 16, 2005 and on August 24, 2005, plaintiff appealed the ALJ's decision to the Appeals Council. On October 28, 2005, following the ALJ's first denial, plaintiff filed a new application for SSI and DIB.

On February 25, 2006, plaintiff was granted benefits on the newly filed claim with an onset date of August 16, 2005. On August 11, 2006, the Appeals Council remanded the first claim so the ALJ could obtain additional information, including evidence from a medial expert. The ALJ's denial of the first claim and the favorable determination on the second claim occurred with 12 months of one another. Therefore, the Appeals Council reopened the determination on the second claim, allowing the ALJ to resolve the difference in the determinations.

The ALJ issued another unfavorable decision on January 18, 2007, determining that the second application was incorrect. The ALJ concluded that plaintiff was not under any disability at any time from December, 2002 to the date of this denial as defined by the Social Security Regulations and therefore, not entitled to SSI or DIB.

II.

Plaintiff's specific objections to the Report and Recommendation are: 1) the ALJ erred in not giving greater weight to the testimony of the treating physician; 2) the ALJ erred in finding the claimant was not credible; 3) the ALJ erred in not considering plaintiff's carpal tunnel impairments and limitations; and 4) the ALJ erred in not considering the psychological effects on the job base.

III.

Judicial review of the Commissioner's decision is limited in scope by 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The Court's sole function under the statute is to determine whether there is substantial evidence to support the Commissioner's findings of no disability. The Commissioner's findings should stand if, after a review of the record in its entirety, the Court finds that the decision is supported by "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Richardson v. Perates, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971); Mullen v. Sec. of HHS, 800 F.2d 535 (6th Cir. 1986); Kirk v. Sec. of HHS, 667 F.2d 524 (6th Cir. 1981), cert. denied 461 U.S. 957 (1983).

Upon a de novo review of the record, especially in light of plaintiff's objections, the Court finds that plaintiff's contentions have either been adequately addressed and properly disposed of by the Judge or present no particularized arguments that warrant specific responses by this Court. The Court finds that the Judge has accurately set forth the controlling principles of law and properly applied them to the particular facts of this case and agrees with the Judge that the Commissioner `s decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS AND INCORPORATES BY REFERENCE HEREIN the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. The decision of the Commissioner, that plaintiff is not entitled to supplemental security income and disability income benefits, is supported by substantial evidence and is AFFIRMED.

This case is TERMINATED on the docket of this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.