UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

ALEXIS D. CORNETT,

Plaintiff,

Civil Action 2:11-cv-00709

v. Judge James L. Graham

Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY,

Defendant.

ORDER

Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking review of an adverse

decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”). This matter is before the

Court for consideration of the July 31, 2012 Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate

Judge. (ECF No. 16.) The Magistrate Judge specifically recommended that the Court affirm the

decision of the Commissioner. On August 6, 2012, Plaintiff filed her Objections to the Report

and Recommendation. (ECF No. 17.) For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s Objections are

OVERRULED and the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED. The decision of the

Commissioner is AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff filed an application for social security disability insurance benefits, alleging

disability since December 9, 2005. The medical record reflects that Plaintiff suffers from

fibromyalgia, headaches, and irritable bowel syndrome (“IBS”).1

 On July 27, 2010, an

1

 The Report and Recommendation provides a detailed overview of the relevant medical records

and the administrative hearing testimony. The Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s recitation of the facts

by reference. (Report & Recommendation 2-11, ECF No. 16.) 

Case: 2:11-cv-00709-JLG-EPD Doc #: 18 Filed: 09/07/12 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") issued a decision, which ultimately became the

Commissioner’s final decision, finding that Plaintiff was not disabled during the relevant period. 

The ALJ concluded that Plaintiff has the severe impairment of disabling headaches. The

ALJ further found that Plaintiff’s fibromyalgia was not a severe impairment. The ALJ’s other

findings included that Plaintiff had the ability to perform a wide range of light work; could not

climb ladders, ropes or scaffolds; could not balance; and could not drive as part of her

employment. The ALJ emphasized the lack of objective findings in the record that would

support Plaintiff’s allegations of disabling symptoms. The ALJ also determined that Plaintiff

was not entirely credible with regard to her allegations of symptoms more severe than the

residual functional capacity (“RFC”) reflected. 

On July 31, 2012, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court affirm the

Commissioner’s decision. Plaintiff’s objections substantially revisit arguments she raised within

her initial Statement of Errors. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the Court reviews Plaintiff’s Objections to the Report

and Recommendation de novo. The Court may accept, reject, or alter the Magistrate Judge’s

recommendation as it sees fit. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within the Social Security context, the

Court reviews whether substantial evidence supports the decisions of the Commissioner and

whether the Commissioner made its decision pursuant to the applicable standards. Ealy v.

Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 594 F.3d 504, 512 (6th Cir. 2010). 

Having performed a de novo review of the Report and Recommendations, the Court

2

Case: 2:11-cv-00709-JLG-EPD Doc #: 18 Filed: 09/07/12 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
agrees with, and adopts, the findings and reasoning of the Magistrate Judge.2

 Specifically, the

Court finds that, although perhaps none of the four credibility factors upon which the ALJ relied,

standing alone, provides substantial support for her credibility determination, the combination of

the four factors suffices to substantiate the ALJ’s ultimate conclusions.3

 

The Court further finds that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination that

Plaintiff’s fibromyalgia was not a severe impairment. Other than Plaintiff’s subjective

complaints, the record provides little if any indication that Plaintiff’s fibromyalgia limits her

ability to work. None of Plaintiff’s physicians issued opinions stating that her fibromyalgia

diagnosis limited her work abilities. The testimony of both Drs. Bolz and Fischer further

supports the ALJ’s severe-impairment conclusion. 

 Finally, the Court finds that even if the ALJ had erred in determining Plaintiff’s

fibromyalgia was not a severe impairment, any such error would not constitute reversible error. 

The ALJ went on to assess Plaintiff’s RFC and in so doing specifically referenced Plaintiff’s

fibromyalgia in her analysis. 

Accordingly, based on the above, as well as the reasoning within the Report and

Recommendation, Plaintiff’s Objections (ECF No. 17) are OVERRULED, and the Report and

Recommendation (ECF No. 16) is ADOPTED. The decision of the Commissioner is

AFFIRMED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

2

 The Magistrate Judge considered the issues Plaintiff raises within her Objections. The Court

finds it unnecessary to repeat the Magistrate Judge’s analysis on these same issues.

3

 In the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge discusses in depth the four factors that

the ALJ relied on in making her credibility determination. (Report & Recommendation 15-19, ECF No.

16.) It is unnecessary to recount that discussion here. 

3

Case: 2:11-cv-00709-JLG-EPD Doc #: 18 Filed: 09/07/12 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
S/ James L. Graham 

James L. Graham

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Date: September 7, 2012

4

Case: 2:11-cv-00709-JLG-EPD Doc #: 18 Filed: 09/07/12 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>