United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division, Dayton
DECISION AND ENTRY: (1) AFFIRMING THE ALJ'S
NON-DISABILITY FINDING AS SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE;
AND (2) TERMINATING THIS CASE ON THE COURT'S
MICHAEL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Social Security disability benefits appeal is before the
undersigned for disposition based upon the parties'
consent. Doc. 11. 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. 12), the
Commissioner's memorandum in opposition (doc. 14),
Plaintiff's reply (doc. 15), the administrative record
(doc. 6),  and the record as a whole.
A. Procedural History
filed for DIB and SSI alleging a disability onset date of
August 17, 2012. PageID 2368. Plaintiff claims disability as
a result of a number of alleged impairments including,
inter alia, Crohn's Disease, depressive
disorder, and an anxiety disorder. PageID 63.
an initial denial of her application, Plaintiff received a
hearing before ALJ Elizabeth A. Motta on September 25, 2017.
PageID 97-124. The ALJ issued a written decision on December
26, 2017 finding Plaintiff not disabled. PageID 59-80.
Specifically, the ALJ found at Step Five that, based upon
Plaintiff's Residual Functional Capacity
(“RFC”) to perform a reduced range of light work,
“there are jobs that exist in
significant numbers in the national economy that [Plaintiff]
can perform[.]” PageID 71-79.
the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request to review
the ALJ's decision, making her non-disability finding the
final administrative decision of the Commissioner. PageID
45-47. 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 59-80), Plaintiff's Statement of Errors
(doc. 12), the Commissioner's memorandum in opposition
(doc. 14), and Plaintiff's reply (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
“‘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
that error prejudices a claimant on the merits or deprives
the claimant of a substantial right.” Bowen,
478 F.3d at 746.