Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Gorby v. Commissioner of Social Security

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

June 7, 2017

LUKE W. GORBY, Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.

          Judge Michael H. Watson

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          KFMBERLY A. JOLSON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff, Luke W. Gorby, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner") denying his application for supplemental security income ("SSI"). For the reasons that follow, it is RECOMMENDED that the Court OVERRULE Plaintiffs Statement of Errors and AFFIRM the Commissioner's decision.

         I. BACKGROUND

          A. Procedural History

         Plaintiff applied for SSI on February 26, 2013, alleging disability beginning December 15, 2012 at the age of twenty three, due to numerous physical and mental impairments. (Tr. 420 at PAGEID #: 466). His application was denied initially on May 13, 2013, and upon reconsideration on June 28, 2013. (Tr. 225, PAGEID #: 298). Administrative Law Judge Irma J. Flottman (the "ALJ") held a hearing on September 16, 2014, after which she denied benefits in a written decision on November 13, 2014. (Id). That decision became final when the Appeals Council denied review on May 9, 2016. (Tr. 1, PAGEID #: 44).

         Plaintiff filed this case on July 6, 2016 (Doc. 1), and the Commissioner filed the administrative record on September 12, 2016 (Doc. 10). Plaintiff filed a Statement of Specific Errors on October 27, 2016. (Doc. 11). The Commissioner responded on December 15, 2016 (Doc. 13), and Plaintiff replied on December 29, 2017 (Doc. 14).

         B. Relevant Hearing Testimony

         At the hearing, Plaintiff testified that he was educated in special education classes and earned a high school degree. (Tr. 284, PAGEID #: 327). Plaintiff obtained a driver's license after having the test read to him. (Tr. 284-85, PAGEID #: 327-28). Plaintiff has prior temporary, part-time work in construction, "hauling boards, putting boards in place, " and "carrying heavy stuff." (Tr. 286, PAGEID #329). He also worked temporarily for a tree service and in a factory. (Tr. 294-95, PAGEID #: 337-38).

         Plaintiff testified that he resides with his parents (Tr. 285, PAGEID #: 328), where he watches television, prepares some meals, mows grass, and cleans dishes and his room. (Tr. 291-92, PAGEID #: 334-35). Plaintiff walks for exercise twice per week, likes to go hunting and fishing, and sometimes bowls or watches a movie. (Tr. 289, 292-93, PAGEID #: 332, 335-36).

         Vocational Expert ("VE") Carl Hartung also testified at the hearing. (Tr. 302, PAGEID #: 345). The examination of the VE is, in relevant part, as follows:

Q. So, I want you to assume a hypothetical individual with the same age, education, work background as the claimant.... Let's start off with work that's limited to simple, routine, repetitive tasks. Just with those limitations, can you identify any work?
A. Yes, judge, that's for all intent purposes, a full range of unskilled, light work.
Q. And can you give me some representative examples?
A. ... All these jobs have been given an SVP of 2, all of them have been classified at the light level of physical demand. Housekeeping cleaner is applicable to the hypothetical, the DOT code is 32, 687-014, in the state there's 4, 202, and nationally there's 133, 887. I also think that injection mold machine tender is applicable to the hypothetical, the DOT code is 556.685-038, in the state there's 496, and nationally there's 5, 684. And I also think usher is applicable to the hypothetical, the DOT code is 344.677-014, in the state there's 105, and nationally there's 4, 803.
Q. Okay. Now, if work is limited to one and two-step task and one and two-step instructions, does that impact your response?
A. No.

(Tr. 304-305, PAGEID #: 347-48).

         C. Relevant Medical Background

         1. Dr. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.