Ridge v. Barnhart

• Decision Date: 10 September 2002
• Docket Number: No. 1:01 CV 1659.,1:01 CV 1659.
• Citation: 232 F.Supp.2d 775
• Parties: Eddie RIDGE, Plaintiff, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio

232 F.Supp.2d 775

Eddie RIDGE, Plaintiff, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

No. 1:01 CV 1659.

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division.

September 10, 2002.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Eva I. Guerra, West Bloomfiels, MI, for Plaintiff.

Michael A. Johnson, Office of the United States Attorney, Northern District of Ohio, Cleveland, OH, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

NUGENT, District Judge.

Plaintiff filed this action seeking review of the decision of the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") denying his claim for disability insurance benefits. The matter is now before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge George J. Limbert (ECF Docket # 20). The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court find that substantial evidence exists to support the ALJ's determination that Plaintiff's impairments do not meet Listing 1.09(C). However, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court remand this action to the ALJ to reconsider whether Plaintiff's combination of impairments medically equal Listing 1.09(C), to fully explain and analyze, preferably with the aid of a medical expert, Plaintiff's allegations of disabling pain in accordance with federal regulation and rules, and to determine or further explain his finding that Plaintiff could performing the full range of sedentary work considering all of Plaintiff's impairments. The Magistrate Judge further recommends that the ALJ review the evidence and determine in consultation with a vocational expert whether work exists in significant numbers in the national economy for a person with Plaintiff's impairments. No objections to the Report and Recommendation were filed.

Standard of Review for a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation

The applicable standard of review for a magistrate judge's report and recommendation depends upon whether objections were made to that report. When objections are made to a report and recommendation of a magistrate judge, the district court reviews the case de novo. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b) states:

The district judge to whom the case is assigned shall make a de novo determination upon the record, or after additional evidence, of any portion of the magistrate judge's disposition to which specific written objection has been made in accordance with this rule. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended decision, receive further evidence, or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.

The text of Rule 72(b) does not indicate the appropriate standard of review for reports to which no objections have been made. The Advisory Committee on Civil Rules commented on district court review of unopposed reports. In regard to subsection (b) of Rule 72, the advisory committee stated: "When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation." Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's notes (citation omitted).

The standard of review for a magistrate judge's report and recommendation is distinct from the standard of review for the Commissioner of Social Security's decision regarding benefits. Judicial review of the Commissioner's decision, as reflected in the decision of the ALJ, is limited to whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence. See Smith v. Secretary of Health and Human Servs., 893 F.2d 106, 108 (6th Cir.1989). "Substantial evidence exists when a reasonable mind could accept the evidence as adequate to support the challenged conclusion, even if that evidence could support a decision the other way." Casey v. Secretary of Health and Human Servs., 987 F.2d 1230, 1233 (6th Cir.1993) (citation omitted).

Decision

This Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and has considered all of the pleadings, transcripts, affidavits, motions, and filings of the parties in this matter. After careful evaluation of the record, the Court adopts the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge as its own. The Court finds the Report and Recommendation to be thorough and well-reasoned and agrees with the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge.

Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Limbert (ECF Docket # 20) is hereby ADOPTED by the Court. This matter is hereby remanded to the ALJ for proceedings consistent with Magistrate Judge Limbert's report and recommendation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

LIMBERT, United States Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff Eddie Ridge (Plaintiff) filed this action against Defendant Kenneth S. Apfel, the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration¹ (Defendant) on July 9, 2001. See ECF Dkt. # 1. Plaintiff seeks judicial review of the Administrative Law Judge's decision pursuant to § 205(g) of the Social Security Act, as amended in 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), denying his claim for disability insurance benefits (DIB) under Title II of the Social Security Act (Act). See 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-433. Plaintiff asserts that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) committed numerous errors in his February 17, 1999 decision denying his application under Title II of the Act for DIB, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-433. See ECF Dkt. 1, 18.

Plaintiff asserts four assignments of error in his brief. See ECF Dkt. # 18 at iv-v. First, Plaintiff maintains that the ALJ erred in concluding that Plaintiff's medical problems, either alone or in combination, did not medically meet or equal a listed impairment. See id. at 10. Second, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred in assessing Plaintiff's credibility, especially regarding the severity of Plaintiff's symptoms and limitations. See id. at 15. Third and fourth, Plaintiff avers that the ALJ erred in determining Plaintiff's Residual Functional Capacity (RFC), and concluding that Plaintiff could perform a full range of sedentary work. See id. at 17, 20. For the following reasons, the Court recommends that the instant case be REMANDED for further explanation, fact-finding, and testimony. See ECF Dkt. # 1.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff filed an application for DIB on August 13, 1997, under the Act. See Transcript ("Tr.") at 87-88, and 42 U.S.C. §§ 416(i), 423(d). Plaintiff alleged disability from March 20, 1997 due to impingement syndrome of the right achilles tendon, loss of medial arch with drop foot, plantar fascial strain of the left foot, pain in his right knee, hip, neck, and back, and right wrist fusion. See id. at 35, 39, 87, 100, 121. Plaintiff's applications were denied initially and on reconsideration. See id. at 70-75, 77-79.

On February 17, 1999, after a hearing, an ALJ found that Plaintiff was not disabled because he retained the RFC to perform a full range of sedentary exertion work. See Tr. at 10-18. Shortly after the ALJ's decision, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review. See id. at 4-5. Plaintiff filed a complaint with this Court on July 9, 2001, which seeks judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). See ECF Dkt. # 1. The Commissioner filed an answer on October 5, 2001, wherein she averred that the findings of the then Commissioner of Social Security were supported by substantial evidence, and thus are conclusive. See ECF Dkt. # 12.

Subsequent to the hearing, on August 19, 1998, the ALJ made the following findings:

1. The claimant met the disability insured status requirements of the Act on March 20, 1997, the date the claimant stated he became unable to work, and has acquired sufficient quarters of coverage to remain insured through at least December 31, 2001.

2. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since March 20, 1997.

3. The medical evidence establishes the claimant has a history of right foot drop with medical arch collapse and a foot deformity, impairments which are severe but which do not meet or equal the criteria of any of the impairments listed in Appendix 1, Subpart P, Regulations No. 4.

4. The claimant's statements concerning his impairments and their impact on his ability to work are supported by the medical findings only to the extent he is limited to performing sedentary work.

5. The claimant lacks the residual functional capacity to lift more than ten pounds occasionally or to stand or walk for prolonged periods.

6. The claimant is unable to perform his past relevant work as an automobile assembly worker.

7. The claimant has no significant non-exertional limitations which narrow the full range of sedentary work which he is capable of performing.

8. On March 20, 1997, the claimant was 39 years old, a "younger individual."

9. The claimant has a high school education.

10. Based on an exertional capacity for sedentary work and the claimant's age, educational background and work experience, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1569 in conjunction with Rule 201.27, Table 1, Appendix 2, Subpart P, Regulations No. 4, direct a conclusion of "not disabled." The same result would be reached without regard to the skill level of Mr. Ridge's former work or to the issue of any transferability of work skills.

11. The claimant has not been under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, as amended, at any time through the date of this decision.

Id. at 17-18. On November 4, 1998, Plaintiff filed a timely request for review of the ALJ's decision with the Appeals Council of the Social Security Administration. See id. at 10. On October 5, 1999, the Appeals Council, having considered the brief and additional evidence submitted by Plaintiff, denied his request for review. See id. at 6-7. In turn, the ALJ's decision became the final decision of Defendant. Plaintiff now seeks judicial review pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

II. SUMMARY OF MEDICAL EVIDENCE

Plaintiff relies on a litany of maladies to buttress his claim for DIB benefits. See ECF Dkt. # 1, 18. Plaintiff...