United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division
LORA B. MARRERO, Plaintiff,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.
L. Litkovitz Magistrate Judge.
DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING THE REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (DOC.
19) AND TERMINATING THIS CASE IN THIS COURT
Timothy S. Black United States District Judge.
case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General
Reference to United States Magistrate Judge Karen L.
Litkovitz. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge
reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court and, on June 19,
2019, submitted a Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”), recommending that the non-disability
finding by the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”)
be affirmed. (Doc. 19). Plaintiff filed objections (Doc. 22)
and the Commissioner filed a response in support of the
R&R (Doc. 24).
conducted a de novo review, the Court finds that
Plaintiff's objections are not well-taken.
argues that the Magistrate Judge failed to adequately
consider evidence of Plaintiff's disability and, instead,
relied upon information dating prior to Plaintiff's
alleged onset date. As an initial matter, the Court disagrees
and notes that the Magistrate Judge's citation to records
from earlier appointments does not undermine the thorough and
appropriate consideration given to the entirety of
Plaintiff's medical history, beginning from the date of
alleged disability (November 2014). Moreover, the Court's
own independent review of the record, beginning from November
2014 onward, evidences ample support for the ALJ's
non-disability determination. In comparison, the instances
Plaintiff references in her objections, as well as other
similar evidence in the record, is sparse and often offset by
context (e.g., situational triggers or changes in
further argues that the Magistrate Judge, like the ALJ,
relied solely on evidence of Plaintiff's “good
days” to affirm a non-disability finding, while failing
to consider that “the objective record proves that
Plaintiff had as many bad days as good….” (Doc.
22 at 3). Again, the Court disagrees. As previously noted,
this Court's independent review of the record indicates
substantial evidence in support of the ALJ's
non-disability determination. Plaintiff's daily
activities, as well as her responsiveness and progress with
medication and therapy, are thoroughly documented in the
medical records. And while the record also evidences
Plaintiff's psychiatric diagnosis (which was considered
by the ALJ and the Magistrate Judge), there is limited
objective evidence to corroborate the severity of the
resulting symptoms and impairment as Plaintiff alleges.
Moreover, while there are consistent notes regarding
Plaintiff's difficulties with coping and communication
skills, there is no reference to these difficulties causing
the severe impairment that Plaintiff asserts.
short, Plaintiff's continuing assertions that the record
is replete with substantial evidence of her disability and
that the ALJ failed to consider said evidence, is simply not
borne by the record.
required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b),
the Court has reviewed the comprehensive findings of the
Magistrate Judge and considered de novo all of the
filings in this case. Upon consideration of the foregoing,
the Court finds that the Report and Recommendation should be
and is hereby adopted in its entirety. Accordingly:
Report and Recommendation (Doc. 19) is
Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED, as
the decision is supported by substantial evidence; and
Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly, whereupon this case
is TERMINATED on the docket of this Court.
IS SO ORDERED.