The captioned cause is hereby ordered terminated upon the docket records of the United

States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, at Dayton.

,
September 24, 2018 Lh. Ww Ge

WALTER H. RICE, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



Judge did, indeed, follow the two-step process required by SSR 16-3p for evaluating Plaintiff's
individual symptoms. As stated by the Magistrate Judge, “the ALJ stated explicitly that Plaintiff's
statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of her symptoms were ‘not
fully consistent’ with the record and listed his reasons for so finding: (1) Plaintiff's description of
her symptoms were inconsistent with medical signs and laboratory findings: (2) the level of
treatment and care was inconsistent with the severity of Plaintiffs allegations: and (3) Plaintiff's
daily activities were inconsistent with the intensity and limiting effects of the alleged symptoms.”
Tr. 39-41.

2. In ruling on an appeal from a finding of non-disability rendered by the
Administrative Law Judge, the Court’s task is not to determine whether the record contains
substantial evidence of Plaintiffs disability; rather, the Court’s inquiry is limited to determining
whether the Administrative Law Judge’s finding of non-disability is supported by substantial

evidence. Here, the record is so supported.

WHEREFORE, based upon the aforesaid, this Court ADOPTS the Report and
Recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. #16) in their entirety, having
concluded that the Commissioner’s decision that Plaintiff was not disabled and, therefore, not
entitled to benefits under the Social Security Act was supported by substantial evidence. Plaintiff's
Objections to said judicial filing (Doc. #18) are OVERRULED. Judgment will be ordered entered
in favor of the Defendant Commissioner and against Plaintiff herein, affirming the decision of the
Defendant Commissioner that Plaintiff was not disabled for the period beginning July 18, 2013,

and, therefore, not entitled to benefits under the Social Security Act.


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION .

JASMAINE N. HAGOOD,
Plaintiff, : Case No. 3:17-cv-273
vs. : JUDGE WALTER H. RICE
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
Acting Commissioner of the
Social Security Administration,

Defendant.

DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (DOC. #16 ) IN THEIR ENTIRETY;
PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO SAID JUDICIAL FILING (DOC. #18)
OVERRULED; JUDGMENT TO BE ENTERED IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT
COMMISSIONER AND AGAINST PLAINTIFF, AFFIRMING COMMISSIONER’S
DECISION THAT PLAINTIFF WAS NOT DISABLED FOR THE PERIOD
BEGINNING JULY 18, 2013, AND, THEREFORE, NOT ENTITLED TO
BENEFITS UNDER THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT; TERMINATION ENTRY

Plaintiff has brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to review a decision of the
Defendant Commissioner denying Plaintiff's application for social security benefits from July 18,
2013. On June 27, 2018, the United States Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendations
(Doc. #16), recommending that the Commissioner's decision that Plaintiff was not disabled for the
period beginning July 18, 2013, and, therefore, not entitled to benefits under the Social Security
Act, be affirmed. Based upon reasoning and citations of authority set forth in the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendations (Doc. #16), as well as upon a thorough de novo review of
this Court’s file, including the Administrative Transcript (Doc. #6), and a thorough review of the

applicable law, this Court ADOPTS the aforesaid Report and Recommendations in their entirety


and, in so doing, orders the entry of judgment in favor of the Defendant Commissioner and against
the Plaintiff, concluding that the Commissioner’s decision that Plaintiff was not disabled and,
therefore, not entitled to benefits under the Social Security Act for the period beginning July 18,
2013, was supported by substantial evidence. The Plaintiff's Objections to said judicial filing
(Doc. #18) are OVERRULED. Accordingly, the decision of the Defendant Commissioner that
Plaintiff was not disabled for the period beginning July 18, 2013, and, therefore, not entitled to
benefits under the Social Security Act, is AFFIRMED.

In reviewing the Commissioner’s decision, the Magistrate Judge’s task is to determine if
that decision is supported by “substantial evidence.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Under 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(C), this Court, upon objections being made to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendations, is required to make a de novo review of those recommendations of the report
to which objection is made. This de novo review, in turn, requires this Court to re-examine all
the relevant evidence, previously reviewed by the Magistrate Judge, to determine whether the
findings “are supported by substantial evidence.” Valley v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 427 F.3d 388,
390 (6th Cir. 2005). This Court’s sole function is to determine whether the record as a whole
contains substantial evidence to support the Commissioner's decision. The Commissioner’s
findings must be affirmed if they are supported by “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401, 91
S.Ct. 1420, 28 L.Ed.2d 842 (1971) (quoting Consol. Edison Co. v. N.L.R.B., 305 U.S. 197, 229, 59
S.Ct. 206, 83 L.Ed.2d 126 (1938). “Substantial evidence means more than a mere scintilla, but
only so much as would be required to prevent a directed verdict.” Foster v. Bowen, 853 F.2d

483, 486 (6th Cir. 1988). To be substantial, the evidence “must do more than create a suspicion


of the existence of the fact to be established. . . . [I]t must be enough to justify, if the trial were to a
jury, a refusal to direct a verdict when the conclusion sought to be drawn from it is one of fact for
the jury.” LeMaster v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 802 F.2d 839, 840 (6th Cir. 1986)
(quoting N.L.R.B. v. Columbian Enameling and Stamping Co., 306 U.S. 292, 300, 59 S.Ct. 501, 83
L.Ed. 660 (1939).

In determining “whether there is substantial evidence in the record . . . we review the
evidence in the record taken as a whole.” Wilcox v. Sullivan, 917 F.2d 272, 276-77 (6th Cir.
1980) (citing Allen. v. Califano, 613 F.2d 139, 145 (6th Cir. 1980)). | However, the Court “may
not try the case de novo[;] nor resolve conflicts in evidence[;] nor decide questions of credibility.”
Jordan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 548 F.3d 417, 422 (6th Cir. 2008) (quoting Garner v. Heckler, 745
F.2d 383, 387 (6th Cir. 1984)). “The findings of the Commissioner are not subject to reversal
merely because there exists in the record substantial evidence to support a different conclusion.”
Buxton v. Halter, 246 F.3d 762, 772 (6th Cir. 2001). Rather, if the Commissioner’s decision “is
supported by substantial evidence, then we must affirm the [Commissioner’s] decision[.] even
though as triers of fact we might have arrived at a different result.” Elkins v. Sec’y of Health and
Human Servs., 658 F.2d 437, 439 (6th Cir. 1981) (citing Moore y., Califano, 633 F.3d 727, 729

(6th Cir. 1980)).

In addition to the foregoing, in ruling as aforesaid, this Court makes the following,

non-exclusive, observations:

I: Contrary to Plaintiff's contention, this Court concludes that the Administrative Law