United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division
GILBERT W. MOORE, Plaintiff,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.
DECISION AND ENTRY: (1) REVERSING THE ALJ'S
NON-DISABILITY FINDING AS UNSUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE; (2) REMANDING THIS CASE UNDER THE FOURTH SENTENCE
OF 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS; AND (3)
TERMINATING THIS CASE ON THE COURT'S DOCKET
Michael J. Newman Magistrate Judge
a Social Security disability benefits appeal for which the
parties have consented to entry of final judgment. At issue
is whether the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”)
erred in finding Plaintiff not “disabled” and
therefore unentitled to Disability Insurance Benefits
(“DIB”) and/or Supplemental Security Income
(“SSI”). This case is before the Court on
Plaintiff's Statement of Errors (doc. 13), the
Commissioner's memorandum in opposition (doc. 18),
Plaintiff's reply (doc. 19), the administrative record
(doc. 7),  and the record as a whole.
filed for DIB and SSI alleging a disability onset date of
December 9, 2014. PageID 63. Plaintiff claims disability as a
result of a number of alleged impairments including,
inter alia, a lumbar spine strain, degenerative
disease of the right knee, a depressive/schizoaffective
disorder, and an anxiety disorder. PageID 67.
an initial denial of his application, Plaintiff received a
hearing before ALJ Gregory G. Kenyon on March 8, 2017. PageID
90-129. The ALJ issued a written decision on August 18, 2017
finding Plaintiff not disabled. PageID 63-78. 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 that exist
in significant numbers in the national economy that
[Plaintiff] can perform[.]” PageID 71-78.
the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for
review, making the ALJ's non-disability finding the final
administrative decision of the Commissioner. PageID 48-50.
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 (PageID 63-78), Plaintiff's Statement of Errors
(doc. 13), 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
“‘zone of choice' within which he [or she]
can act without the fear of court interference.”
Id. at 773.
second judicial inquiry -- reviewing the correctness of the
ALJ's legal analysis -- may result in reversal even if
the ALJ's decision is supported by substantial evidence
in the record. Rabbers v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.,
582 F.3d 647, 651 (6th Cir. 2009). “[A] decision of the
Commissioner will not be upheld where the [Social Security
Administration] fails to follow its own regulations and where