United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
KIMBERLY A. CHIODO, Plaintiff.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION AND ORDER
C. NUGENT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court upon the Report and
Recommendation of Magistrate Judge David A. Ruiz (ECF #14).
The Report and Recommendation (ECF #14), submitted on April
19, 2017, is hereby ADOPTED by this Court. Plaintiff,
Kimberly A. Chiodo, applied for Disability Insurance Benefits
("DIB") for a disability arising on June 1, 2013.
The application was denied, and then Plaintiff requested a
hearing in front of an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). On
December 2, 2014. the ALJ denied DIB to Plaintiff finding
that she was not disabled. Plaintiff sought review of the
Commissioner's decision denying her claim for DIB. This
matter is before the Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§405(g). The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation (ECF #14) recommending that the
Commissioner's final decision be affirmed. Specifically,
the Magistrate Judge determined that the Commissioner applied
the correct legal standards and found the Commissioner's
decision denying Plaintiffs application for DIB to be
supported by the evidence. Plaintiff has filed an objection
to the Report and Recommendation.
of Review for Magistrates Report and Recommendation
applicable standard of review of a magistrate 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 must determine de novo any part of the
magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly
objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify
the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or
return matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.
this Court will review the Report and Recommendation, to
which timely objections have been filed, de novo. See
Ivy. v. Sec V of Health and Human Servs., 976
F.2d 288, 289-90 (6th Cir. 1992).
important to note that 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 that decision is
supported by substantial evidence. See Smith v. Sec'y
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.
Sec'y of Health and Human Servs.. 987 F.2d
1230, l233(6th Cir. 1993).
Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation of this case
de novo and has considered all of the pleadings,
transcripts, affidavits, motions, and filings of the parties.
Further this Court has reviewed the ALJ"s finding in
Plaintiffs administrative proceedings under the substantial
evidence standard. After careful evaluation of the record,
the Report and Recommendation, and Plaintiffs objections,
this Court adopts the findings of facts and conclusions of
law of the Magistrate Judge as its own.
asserts two objections to the Report and Recommendation (ECF
#14). First, Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ's decision
should be reversed because his determination of Mental
Residual Functional Capacity was not supported by substantial
evidence. Specifically. Plaintiff contends that the ALJ
improperly excluded specific limitations assessed by
appropriate medical sources.
Magistrate Judge did not err in finding that there was
substantial evidence to support the Mental Residual
Functional Capacity of the Plaintiff. As Magistrate Ruiz
noted, the Commissioner's determination must stand if
supported by substantial evidence, regardless if substantial
evidence also supports the opposite conclusion or this Court
would have resolved the issue differently. Bass. v.
McMahon, 499 F.3d 506, 509 (6th Cir. 2007). This Court
is allowed to examine all evidence in record when evaluating
this decision, regardless if the Commissioner cited the
reasoning in his final decision. See Walker v. Sec'y
of Health & Human Servs., 884 F.2d 241, 245 (6th
Cir. 1989). It is proper for the ALJ to use medical
assessments as well as Plaintiffs testimony to determine
Plaintiffs personal and physical limitations. The Magistrate
Judge carefully and correctly determined that there was
substantial evidence to support the ALJ's decision.
second objection asserts that the Administrative Decision
should be reversed because it violated Social Security Ruling
06-3P by giving little weight to the opinion of the
Plaintiffs Nurse Practitioner who is not classified as an
"appropriate medical source" under Social Security
Ruling 06-3P. Defendant correctly notes that an opinion that
comes from a source which is not an acceptable medical source
may be given less weight than an opinion from an acceptable
medical source under Social Security Ruling 06-3P. Since a
Nurse Practitioner is not considered an "acceptable
medical source" the ALJ was justified in giving the
opinion less weight. The Magistrate Judge correctly decided
that the ALJ gave appropriate reasons for not crediting the
opinion of the Nurse Practitioner. The Magistrate Judge
thoroughly and exhaustively reviewed this case, applied the
proper legal standards and analysis, and correctly determined
the ALJ's decision should be affirmed.
foregoing reasons, the Report and Recommendation of
Magistrate Judge David A. ...