IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

ROBERTA L. BAILEY, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. Civil Action 2:11-CV-1137 

 Judge Marbley 

 Magistrate Judge King 

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner 

of Social Security, 

 Defendant. 

OPINION AND ORDER 

This action seeks review of the administrative decision denying 

plaintiff’s application for disability insurance benefits and 

supplemental security income. On January 28, 2013, the United States 

Magistrate Judge recommended that the decision of the Commissioner of 

Social Security be affirmed and that the action be dismissed. Report 

and Recommendation, Doc. No. 18. This matter is now before the Court 

on plaintiff’s objections to that recommendation. Objections to 

Report and Recommendation, Doc. No. 19. The Court will consider the 

matter de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). 

The administrative law judge found that plaintiff’s severe 

impairments consist of a seizure disorder, a hypercoaguable state with 

remote lower left extremity deep vein thrombosis and thromboses, and 

migraine headaches. PAGEID 68. The administrative law judge also 

Case: 2:11-cv-01137-ALM-NMK Doc #: 20 Filed: 03/04/13 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2 

found that plaintiff’s impairments neither meet nor equal a listed 

impairment. PAGEID 69. The administrative law judge went on to find 

that plaintiff has the residual functional capacity to perform a full 

range of work at all exertional levels but with the following 

nonexertional limitations: she can occasionally climb ramps and 

stairs, cannot climb ladders, ropes and scaffolding. She should avoid 

all exposure to workplace hazards such as dangerous machinery and 

unprotected heights, as well as sharp objects. PAGEID 70. Although 

this residual functional capacity precluded plaintiff’s past relevant 

work, the administrative law judge relied on the testimony of the 

vocational expert to find that plaintiff is able to perform a 

significant number of jobs in the national economy. PAGEID 76-77. 

Accordingly, the administrative law judge concluded that plaintiff was 

not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act from June 

18, 2009, through the date of the administrative law judge’s decision. 

PAGEID 77. 

In the Statement of Errors considered by the Magistrate Judge, 

plaintiff challenged (1) the Commissioner’s determination that 

plaintiff’s subjective complaints were not credible to the extent that 

they are inconsistent with the residual functional capacity assessment 

found by the administrative law judge and (2) the Commissioner’s 

failure to include depression among plaintiff’s severe impairments. 

The Magistrate Judge rejected both challenges. 

Case: 2:11-cv-01137-ALM-NMK Doc #: 20 Filed: 03/04/13 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
3 

Specifically, the Magistrate Judge concluded that “the 

administrative law judge carefully considered the plaintiff’s 

subjective complaints in light of the objective evidence, noted and 

applied all appropriate standards and clearly articulated the bases of 

his credibility determination.” Report and Recommendation, p. 16. 

The Magistrate Judge accordingly determined that the administrative 

law judge’s credibility determination enjoyed substantial support in 

the record. Id. The Magistrate Judge also rejected plaintiff’s 

challenge to the administrative law judge’s exclusion of depression 

from plaintiff’s severe impairments. Plaintiff argued in her 

Statement of Errors that Dr. Virgil’s GAF score of 50 and Dr. Moore’s 

GAF score of 60 and treatment notes establish that plaintiff’s 

depression is a severe impairment. Statement of Errors, pp. 12-14. 

The Magistrate Judge specifically determined that “Dr. Virgil’s 

clinical evaluation and narrative assessment of plaintiff’s mental 

impairment, in which he noted either no or only mild limitation of 

function, is entirely inconsistent with the GAF score assigned by 

him.” Report and Recommendation, p. 17. The Magistrate Judge also 

found that “Dr. Moore’s few treatment notes articulated no limitation 

of function by reason of plaintiff’s depression.” Id. “Under these 

circumstances, and considering that the state agency psychologist 

opined that plaintiff has no severe mental impairment,” the Magistrate 

Judge concluded that the administrative law judge’s failure to include 

Case: 2:11-cv-01137-ALM-NMK Doc #: 20 Filed: 03/04/13 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
4 

depression among plaintiff’s severe impairments was supported by 

substantial evidence. Id. at pp. 17-18. 

Plaintiff’s objections raise the same arguments presented in her 

Statement of Errors and considered by the Magistrate Judge. The Court 

has carefully considered those objections, as well as the entire 

record in this action. For the reasons articulated in the Report and 

Recommendation, the Court concludes that those objections are without 

merit. 

Plaintiff’s Objections to Report and Recommendation, Doc. No. 19, 

are OVERRULED. The Report and Recommendation, Doc. No. 18, is ADOPTED 

AND AFFIRMED. The decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is 

AFFIRMED. This action is hereby DISMISSED. 

The Clerk shall enter FINAL JUDGMENT pursuant to Sentence 4 of 42 

U.S.C. § 405(g). 

 s/Algenon L. Marbley 

 Algenon L. Marbley 

 United States District Judge 

Case: 2:11-cv-01137-ALM-NMK Doc #: 20 Filed: 03/04/13 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>