IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

KATHRYN A. BENNETT, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. Civil Action 2:12-CV-07 

 Judge Frost 

 Magistrate Judge King 

 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 

 Defendant. 

OPINION AND ORDER 

This action seeks review of the administrative decision denying 

plaintiff’s application for disability insurance benefits. On 

February 4, 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. 15. 

This matter is now before the Court on plaintiff’s objections to that 

recommendation. Plaintiff’s Objections to Magistrate Judge King’s 

Report and Recommendation (“Plaintiff’s Objections”), Doc. No. 16. 

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 chronic fatigue syndrome, posttraumatic stress 

disorder, a history of migraine headaches, and poly-substance abuse in 

partial remission. PAGEID 126. The administrative law judge also 

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

impairment. PAGEID 127. Specifically, the administrative law judge 

Case: 2:12-cv-00007-GLF-NMK Doc #: 17 Filed: 02/22/13 Page: 1 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2 

found that plaintiff’s “mental impairments, considered singly and in 

combination, do not meet or medically equal the criteria of listings 

12.04 and 12.06.” Id. The administrative law judge considered, inter 

alia, plaintiff’s activities of daily living, social functioning, and 

episodes of decompensation and concluded that plaintiff did not meet 

the “paragraph B” or “paragraph C” criteria of the Listings. PAGEID 

127-28. 

 The administrative law judge also found that plaintiff had the 

residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform light work, except 

that she is limited to lifting/carrying 10 pounds frequently and/or 20 

pounds occasionally and she cannot perform work that requires 

standing, sitting, and/or walking for more than 6 hours in an eighthour workday. PAGEID 128. She can kneel, crouch, crawl, and/or use 

stairs frequently, but may use ladders only occasionally. Id. 

Plaintiff is also limited to work that is not fast-paced and is 

without strict, time-related tasks; the work must not require more 

than superficial contact with coworkers and must not entail change in 

setting or assignment more than occasionally. Id. Although this RFC 

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 132-33. Accordingly, the administrative law 

judge concluded that plaintiff was not disabled within the meaning of 

the Social Security Act. PAGEID 133. 

 In the Statement of Errors considered by the Magistrate Judge, 

plaintiff argued, inter alia, that the administrative law judge failed 

Case: 2:12-cv-00007-GLF-NMK Doc #: 17 Filed: 02/22/13 Page: 2 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>
3 

to evaluate the combination of plaintiff’s impairments pursuant to 20 

C.F.R. § 404.1523. Statement of Errors, Doc. No. 12, pp. 9-10. In 

rejecting this argument, the Magistrate Judge found that “[t]he 

administrative law judge expressly referred to the ‘combination of 

[plaintiff’s] impairments,’ Page ID 126, and therefore met his 

obligation in this regard.” Report and Recommendation, pp. 11-12 

(quoting Loy v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 901 F.2d 1306 (6th 

Cir. 1990)). 

 Plaintiff’s objections “reassert[] the [same] objections raised 

in her statement of errors.” Plaintiff’s Objections, p. 2. Plaintiff 

also argues that the administrative law judge erred by “merely 

referring” to plaintiff’s combined impairments and not fully 

developing the record with “the clarity and specification required for 

[p]laintiff to understand the reasoning behind the decision.” See id. 

at pp. 2-3. 

Plaintiff’s objections are without merit. The administrative law 

judge thoroughly evaluated the medical evidence and found that 

plaintiff’s “mental impairments, considered singly and in combination, 

do not meet or medically equal the criteria of listings 12.04 and 

12.06.” PAGEID 127. The administrative law judge’s statement that he 

considered plaintiff’s combined impairments is sufficient to satisfy 

the requirements of § 404.1523. See Loy, 901 F.2d at 1310 (“An ALJ's 

individual discussion of multiple impairments does not imply that he 

failed to consider the effect of the impairments in combination, where 

the ALJ specifically refers to a ‘combination of impairments’ in 

finding that the plaintiff does not meet the listings.”) (quoting 

Case: 2:12-cv-00007-GLF-NMK Doc #: 17 Filed: 02/22/13 Page: 3 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>
4 

Gooch v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 833 F.2d 589, 592 (6th Cir. 

1987). See also Malone v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 12-3028, 2012 U.S. 

App. LEXIS 24749, at *4-5 (6th Cir. Nov. 29, 2012); Hunt v. Comm’r of 

Soc. Sec., No. 97-1950, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 28292, at *6 (6th Cir. 

Nov. 4, 1998); Hodge v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 94-5814, 

1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 2154, at *3 (6th Cir. Feb. 1, 1995) (“[The 

plaintiff’s] first argument, that the Secretary did not take into 

account all of his impairments in combination and did not consider the 

whole record, is belied by what is plainly stated in the ALJ’s 

decision.”); Schauf v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 93-5658, 

1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 32654, at *3-4 (6th Cir. Dec. 10, 1993); Bollman 

v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., No. 91-3397, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 

26378, at *4 (6th Cir. Oct. 31, 1991). Moreover, a fair reading of 

the administrative law judge’s decision confirm that he considered 

plaintiff’s combined impairments. In considering plaintiff’s RFC, the 

administrative law judge “considered all the symptoms,” including 

pain, he based his credibility determination “on a consideration of 

the entire case record,” he found that plaintiff’s “medically 

determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to cause the 

alleged symptoms,” and, at times, he expressly considered plaintiff’s 

impairments together. See PAGEID 128-30 (“The claimant’s daily 

activities . . . are somewhat restricted by her alleged chronic 

fatigue syndrome, joint pain, insomnia and history of 

migraines.”)(emphasis added). 

 The Court has carefully considered plaintiff’s objections, as 

well as the entire record in this action. For the foregoing reasons 

Case: 2:12-cv-00007-GLF-NMK Doc #: 17 Filed: 02/22/13 Page: 4 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>
5 

and for the reasons articulated in the Report and Recommendation, the 

Court concludes that those objections are without merit; the 

administrative law judge did not err in considering plaintiff’s 

combined impairments. 

Plaintiff’s Objections, Doc. No. 16, are OVERRULED. The Report 

and Recommendation, Doc. No. 15, 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/ Gregory L. Frost 

 Gregory L. Frost 

 United States District Judge 

 

Case: 2:12-cv-00007-GLF-NMK Doc #: 17 Filed: 02/22/13 Page: 5 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>