United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
LUKE W. GORBY, Plaintiff,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.
Michael H. Watson
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
KFMBERLY A. JOLSON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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.
A. Procedural History
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).
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).
Relevant Hearing Testimony
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).
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).
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
(Tr. 304-305, PAGEID #: 347-48).
Relevant Medical Background