United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division, Dayton
ALLEN D. BOYD, Plaintiff,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.
AND RECOMMENDATION  THAT: (1) THE ALJ'S
NON-DISABILITY FINDING BE FOUND UNSUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE, AND REVERSED; (2) THIS MATTER BE REMANDED TO THE
COMMISSIONER UNDER THE FOURTH SENTENCE OF 42 U.S.C. §
405(G) FOR PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION; AND (3)
THIS CASE BE CLOSED
Michael J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge
a Social Security disability benefits appeal. At issue is
whether the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”)
erred in finding Plaintiff not “disabled” and
therefore unentitled to Supplemental Security Income
(“SSI”). This case is before the Court upon
Plaintiff's Statement of Errors (doc. 17), the
Commissioner's memorandum in opposition (doc. 18),
Plaintiff's reply (doc. 19), the administrative record
(docs. 15),  and the record as a whole.
filed for SSI on September 11, 2017 (PageID 251) claiming
disability as a result of a number of alleged impairments
including, inter alia, cervical disc protrusion,
arthritis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
(“COPD”), and coronary artery disease. PageID
an initial denial of his application, Plaintiff received a
hearing before ALJ Elizabeth A. Motta on March 21, 2016.
PageID 271-304. The ALJ issued a written decision on June 22,
2016 finding Plaintiff not disabled. PageID 251-65.
Specifically, the ALJ found at Step 5 that, based upon
Plaintiff's residual functional capacity
(“RFC”) to perform a reduced range of light work,
“there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in
the national economy that [Plaintiff] can perform[.]”
Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review,
making the ALJ's non-disability finding the final
administrative decision of the Commissioner. PageID 185-88.
See Casey v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs.,
987 F.2d 1230, 1233 (6th Cir. 1993). Plaintiff then filed
this timely appeal. Cook v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.,
480 F.3d 432, 435 (6th Cir. 2007).
Evidence of Record
evidence of record is adequately summarized in ALJ's
decision (PageID 251-65), Plaintiff's Statement of Errors
(doc. 17), the Commissioner's memorandum in opposition
(doc. 18), and Plaintiff's reply (doc. 19). The
undersigned incorporates all of the foregoing and sets forth
the facts relevant to this appeal herein.
Standard of Review
Court's inquiry on a Social Security appeal is to
determine (1) whether the ALJ's non-disability finding is
supported by substantial evidence, and (2) whether the ALJ
employed the correct legal criteria. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g);
Bowen v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 478 F.3d 742, 745-
46 (6th Cir. 2007). In performing this review, the Court must
consider the record as a whole. Hephner v. Mathews,
574 F.2d 359, 362 (6th Cir. 1978).
evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”
Richardson v. Perales,402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971).
When substantial evidence supports the ALJ's denial of
benefits, that finding must be affirmed, even if substantial
evidence also exists in the record upon which the ALJ could
have found Plaintiff disabled. Buxton v. Halter, 246
F.3d 762, 772 (6th Cir. 2001). Thus, the ALJ has a