United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division, Dayton
JASMAINE N. HAGOOD, Plaintiff,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.
H. Rice District Judge.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION  THAT: (1)
THE ALJ'S NON-DISABILITY FINDING BE FOUND SUPPORTED BY
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND AFFIRMED; AND (2) THIS CASE BE
TERMINATED ON THE COURT'S DOCKET
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 disabled adult child benefits
(“DAC”). This case is before the Court upon
Plaintiff's Statement of Errors (doc. 9), the
Commissioner's memorandum in opposition (doc. 15), the
administrative record,  and the record as a whole.
filed for DAC alleging a disability onset date of January 3,
2014. Tr. 303-16. Plaintiff claims disability as
a result of a number of alleged impairments including,
inter alia, bipolar disorder and anxiety disorder.
an initial denial of her application, Plaintiff received a
hearing before ALJ Benjamin Chaykin on May 12, 2016. Tr.
871-94. The ALJ issued a decision on July 22, 2016 finding
Plaintiff not disabled. Tr. 33-42. Specifically, the ALJ
found at Step Five that, based upon Plaintiff's residual
functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform a reduced
range of medium work, “there are jobs in that exist in
significant numbers in the national economy that [she] can
perform[.]” Tr. 38-42.
the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for
review, making the ALJ's non-disability finding the final
administrative decision of the Commissioner. Tr. 9-11.
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 the ALJ's
decision (Tr. 33-42), Plaintiff's Statement of Errors
(doc. 9) and the Commissioner's memorandum in opposition
(doc. 15). 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