United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
DILLON B. PIERCE, Plaintiff,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
WILLIAM H. BAUGHMAN, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
is an action by Dillon B. Pierce under 42 U.S.C. §
405(g) for judicial review of the final decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security denying his applications for
childhood disability insurance benefits and supplemental
security income.Because the ALJ's no disability finding
lacks the support of substantial evidence, this matter is
reversed and remanded for further administrative proceedings
consistent with this opinion.
case presents the following issue for review:
. State agency reviewing sources gave
residual functional capacity (“RFC”) opinions
that included several limitations. Despite giving these
opinions great weight, the ALJ only incorporated a portion of
the limitations opined by the state agency reviewing sources.
The ALJ does not explain why certain of the opined
limitations were omitted from the RFC. Does the RFC decision
lack the support of substantial evidence for want of an
explanation as to why these limitations were omitted from the
Sixth Circuit in Buxton v. Halter reemphasized the
standard of review applicable to decisions of the ALJs in
Congress has provided for federal court review of Social
Security administrative decisions. However, the scope of
review is limited under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g): “The
findings of the Secretary as to any fact, if supported by
substantial evidence, shall be conclusive. . . .” In
other words, on review of the Commissioner's decision
that claimant is not totally disabled within the meaning of
the Social Security Act, the only issue reviewable by this
court is whether the decision is supported by substantial
evidence. Substantial evidence is “‘more than a
mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
The findings of the Commissioner are not subject to reversal
merely because there exists in the record substantial
evidence to support a different conclusion. This is so
because there is a “zone of choice” within which
the Commissioner can act, without the fear of court
in the context of a jury trial, all that is necessary to
affirm is that reasonable minds could reach different
conclusions on the evidence. If such is the case, the
Commissioner survives “a directed verdict” and
wins. The court may not disturb the
Commissioner's findings, even if the preponderance of the
evidence favors the claimant.
review the findings of the ALJ at issue here consistent with
that deferential standard.
has a mental impairment, somewhat vaguely characterized by
the ALJ as a learning disorder.
state agency reviewing sources opined as to Pierce's RFC.
Dr. Denise Rabold, Ph.D., on initial consideration, opined
the following limitations:
. Capable of understanding and remembering
2-3 step ...