UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

LOLETTA L. McGOWEN,

Plaintiff,

 Case No. 2:12-cv-520

v. JUDGE GREGORY L. FROST

 Magistrate Judge Mark R. Abel

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,

Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant.

ORDER

 This is an action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3) in which Plaintiff, Loletta L.

McGowan, seeks review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security

(“Commissioner”) that denied her application for social security disability insurance benefits. 

The matter is before the Court for consideration of the Magistrate Judge’s June 26, 2013 Report

and Recommendation (ECF No. 17) and Plaintiff’s Objections (ECF No. 19). 

When a party objects within the allotted time to a report and recommendation, the Court

“shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed

findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed.

R. Civ. P. 72(b). Upon review, the Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the

findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

This Court’s review “is limited to determining whether the Commissioner’s decision ‘is

supported by substantial evidence and was made pursuant to proper legal standards.’ ” Ealy v.

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

486 F.3d 234, 241 (6th Cir. 2007)); see also 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (“The findings of the

1

Case: 2:12-cv-00520-GLF-MRA Doc #: 21 Filed: 08/08/13 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Commissioner of Social Security as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be

conclusive.”). A decision supported by substantial evidence is therefore not subject to reversal,

even if the reviewing court might arrive at a different conclusion. Mullen v. Bowen, 800 F.2d

535, 545 (6th Cir. 1986). 

 Substantial evidence exists when “ a ‘reasonable mind might accept the relevant

evidence as adequate to support a conclusion,’ ” and this standard “ ‘presupposes that there is a

zone of choice within which the decisionmakers can go either way, without interference by the

courts.’ ” Blakley v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 581 F.3d 399, 406 (6th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted). 

Even if supported by substantial evidence, however, “ ‘a decision of the Commissioner will not

be upheld where the [Commissioner] fails to follow its own regulations and where that error

prejudices a claimant on the merits or deprives the claimant of a substantial right.’ ” Rabbers v.

Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 582 F.3d 647, 651 (6th Cir. 2009) (quoting Bowen v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.,

478 F.3d 742, 746 (6th Cir. 2007)).

Cognizant of the foregoing analytic framework, the Court has considered the Report and

Recommendation and Plaintiff’s objection in light of the record. In the Report and

Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge concluded that substantial evidence existed to support

the administrative law judge’s determination that Plaintiff had failed to meet Listing 1.04A and

qualify for benefits. The Magistrate Judge therefore recommended that the Court affirm the

decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. Plaintiff objects to the Report and

Recommendation on the grounds that both the administrative law judge and the Magistrate Judge

failed to afford the findings of Dr. W. Scott Bolz sufficient weight in order to meet the objectives

of the Social Security Act. She states that “since in the absence of contradiction, this treating

2

Case: 2:12-cv-00520-GLF-MRA Doc #: 21 Filed: 08/08/13 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
source’s finding would have been entitled to controlling weight, it would certainly seem as

though greater weight should have been given to it that to which the [administrative law judge]

applied.” (ECF No. 19, at Page ID # 111.)

Plaintiff’s reasoning asks this Court to assign dispositive weight to one doctor’s

conclusions despite the fact that, as even Plaintiff acknowledges, there is debate among the

numerous doctors involved in Plaintiff’s case as to whether Bolz’s conclusions regarding

Plaintiff’s purported condition are correct. In light of the substantial evidence that undercuts

Bolz’s diagnosis, this Court cannot conclude that either the administrative law judge or the

Magistrate Judge erred. Both recognized Bolz’s conclusions but weighed them within the

context of a notably conflicted record that contained much evidence casting those conclusions

into doubt. Accordingly, the Court disagrees with Plaintiff that either the administrative law

judge or the Magistrate Judge disregarded the purpose of the Social Security Act. Substantial

evidence supports the administrative law judge’s findings and ultimate determination that

Plaintiff is not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. 

Having conducted a de novo review and after consideration of the Report and

Recommendation and the objections, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s Objections (ECF No.

19) and ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 17). This

Court therefore AFFIRMS the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. The Clerk shall

enter judgment accordingly and terminate this case on the docket records of the United States

District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. 

3

Case: 2:12-cv-00520-GLF-MRA Doc #: 21 Filed: 08/08/13 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ Gregory L. Frost 

GREGORY L. FROST

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4

Case: 2:12-cv-00520-GLF-MRA Doc #: 21 Filed: 08/08/13 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>