United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
CHAD A. GAMBLE, PLAINTIFF,
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, DEFENDANT.
HONORABLE SARA LIOI, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate
Judge Jonathan D. Greenberg (Doc. No. 19
[“R&R”]) with respect to the request of
plaintiff Chad A. Gamble (“Gamble”) for judicial
review of the Commissioner's denial of his applications
for Period of Disability (“POD”) and Disability
Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) under Title II of the
Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 416(i) & 423,
et seq. The R&R recommends that the
Commissioner's final decision be affirmed. Plaintiff
filed a single objection to the R&R (Doc. No. 20
[“Obj.”]) and the Commissioner filed a response
(Doc. No. 21 [“Resp.”]). Upon de novo
review and for the reasons set forth below, the Court hereby
overrules Gamble's objection and accepts the R&R. The
Commissioner's final decision is affirmed, and this case
is dismissed and closed.
applied for POD and DIB in March 2013, claiming disability
due to depression, diabetes, and cellulitis. (Doc. No. 12,
Transcript [“Tr.”] 269, 276.) The applications
were denied initially (id. 161-69) and upon
reconsideration (id. 171-77), and Gamble requested a
hearing before an administrative law judge
(“ALJ”) (id. 178).
February 11, 2015, the ALJ conducted a hearing, where Gamble
appeared and testified, represented by counsel. An impartial
vocational expert (“VE”) also testified.
(Id. 828-72.) A supplemental hearing was conducted
on June 12, 2015, during which Gamble (represented by
different counsel), an impartial VE, and a medical expert
(“ME”) testified. (Id. 102-28.) On
September 4, 2015, the ALJ issued a written decision,
determining that Gamble was not disabled. (Id.
80-101.) On September 28, 2016, the Appeals Council declined
further review, rendering the ALJ's decision final.
November 25, 2016, Gamble filed this lawsuit. In his brief on
the merits, Gamble assigned two errors:
(1) The ALJ's decision should be reversed because the ALJ
failed to consider all of the opinion evidence.
(2) The ALJ's decision should be reversed because he
improperly characterized Mr. Gamble's anxiety as not a
medically determinable impairment.
(R&R at 945, citing Doc. No. 14.)
the R&R concluded that there was no error in either
respect, Gamble now challenges only the conclusion as to the
first issue. He has not challenged the outcome with respect
to the second assignment of error and, therefore, has waived
review of that issue.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Court's review of the Magistrate Judge's R&R is
governed by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), which requires a de
novo decision as to those portions of the R&R to
which objection is made. Judicial review is limited to a
determination of whether the ALJ applied the correct legal
standards and whether there is “substantial
evidence” in the record as a whole to support the
decision. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Longworth v.
Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 402 F.3d 591, 595 (6th
Cir. 2005). Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla but
less than a preponderance. Rogers v. Comm'r of Soc.
Sec., 486 F.3d 234, 241 (6th Cir. 2007) (citation
omitted). It is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”
Jones v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 336 F.3d 469, 475
(6th Cir. 2003) (quotation marks and citation omitted). If
there is substantial evidence to support the defendant's
decision, it must be affirmed even if the reviewing court
might have resolved any issues of fact differently and even
if the record could also support a decision in
plaintiff's favor. Crisp v. Sec'y of Health &
Human Servs., 790 F.2d 450, 453 n.4 (6th Cir. 1986).
original brief on the merits argued for remand because
“the ALJ failed to mention, consider, or even
acknowledge” one of the three medical opinions of his
treating psychiatrist, Dr. Roy Vellanki, regarding
Gamble's mental functioning. ...