United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division, Dayton
DARREL D. DAVIS, Plaintiff,
COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant.
H. Rice District Judge
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 
L. Ovington United States Magistrate Judge
Darrel D. Davis brings this case challenging the Social
Security Administration's denial of his applications for
Social Security benefits. He applied for period of
disability, Disability Insurance Benefits, and Supplemental
Security Income in December 2013, asserting that he could no
longer work due to a learning disorder, anger issues, lack of
patience, problems with his right ankle, high blood pressure,
and a double hernia. The Social Security Administration
denied Plaintiff's claims initially and upon
reconsideration. At Plaintiff's request, Administrative
Law Judge (ALJ) Eric Anschuetz conducted a hearing where both
Plaintiff and a vocational expert testified. Shortly
thereafter, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff was not eligible
for benefits because he is not under a
“disability” as defined in the Social Security
seeks a remand of this case for payment of benefits or, at a
minimum, for further proceedings. The Commissioner asks the
Court to affirm ALJ Anschuetz's non-disability decision.
case is presently before the Court upon Plaintiff's
Statement of Errors (Doc. #8), the Commissioner's
Memorandum in Opposition (Doc. #10), Plaintiff's Reply
(Doc. #11), the administrative record (Doc. #7), and the
record as a whole.
asserts that he has been under a “disability”
since June 30, 2013. He was forty-one years old at that time
and was therefore considered a “younger person”
under Social Security Regulations. See 20 C.F.R.
§§ 404.1563(c), 416.963(c). He has a limited
education. See Id. §§ 404.1564(b)(3),
administrative hearing before ALJ Anschuetz, Plaintiff
testified that he only went to school through the ninth grade
because he “just kept having problems and just [gave]
up on it.” (Doc. #7, PageID #90). He was
“always in trouble” and “was always getting
into stuff, fights and getting suspended ….”
Id. He was in special education classes and has been
“made fun of all my life about being in the little
short classes and riding the bus.” Id. at 108,
111. He never obtained a GED. Id. at 90.
Plaintiff lives in a house by himself, he explained that he
has never really lived independently because people are
always checking in on him. Id. at 102, 109-10. His
girlfriend, sister, and brother each give him money and his
girlfriend pays his bills. Id. at 101, 109. During a
typical day, Plaintiff gets up and eats a sandwich and
watches television. Id. at 98. He
“sometimes” does laundry but does not do dishes.
Id. at 99. He uses his girlfriend's computer to
play games and he has a cell phone to call family.
Id. at 96-97. His girlfriend signed him up for a
Facebook account and he “sometimes” uses it.
Id. at 97.
has a driver's license and drives “[e]veryday if I
have to.” Id. at 106-07. He drives to the
store or his girlfriend's house. Id. at 107. He
struggled to obtain a driver's license. He needed to take
the oral exam four times before passing. Id. at 108.
past work is varied. He worked as tow-truck operator for a
few companies. Id. at 91-92. He also worked for a
parts store and mowed grass for the City of Dayton.
Id. at 92-93. He was terminated from most or all of
them for absenteeism and/or poor performance. Id. at
92. Specifically, he was unable to keep up with the work
demands and did not work or learn fast enough. Id.
The ALJ's Decision
noted previously, it fell to ALJ Anschuetz to evaluate the
evidence connected to Plaintiff's applications for
benefits. He did so by considering each of the sequential
steps set forth in the Social Security Regulations.
See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. He reached the
following main conclusions:
Step 1: Plaintiff has not engaged in substantial gainful
employment since January 1, 2019.
Step 2: He has the severe impairments of status post open
reduction and internal fixation of a right ankle fracture in
2000; anxiety disorder; borderline intellectual functioning,
Step 3: He does not have an impairment or combination of
impairments that meets or equals the severity of one in the
Commissioner's Listing of Impairments, 20 C.F.R. Part
404, Subpart P, Appendix 1.
Step 4: His residual functional capacity, or the most he
could do despite his impairments, see Howard v.
Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 276 F.3d 235, 239 (6th Cir.
2002), consists of “less for the full range of medium
work …. Specifically, [Plaintiff] can lift and carry
up to 50 pounds occasionally and up to 25 pounds frequently.
He can stand and/or walk a total of six hours during an
eight-hour workday. He can sit for six hours during the
workday. He can only use his right lower extremity for
occasional pushing and pulling. However, he has no problem
driving a motor vehicle. He can occasionally climb ladders,
ropes, and scaffolds, but he can frequently climb ramps and
stairs. His ability to balance and stoop is unlimited. He can
frequently kneel, crouch, and crawl. He is limited to
performing simple, routine, repetitive tasks, but not at a
production rate pace. He can have frequent interaction with
Step 4: He is unable to perform any of his past relevant
Step 5: He could perform a significant number of jobs that
exist in the national economy.
(Doc. #7, PageID #s 63-74). These main findings led
the ALJ to ultimately conclude that Plaintiff was not under a
benefits-qualifying disability. Id. at 74.