UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Rachel E. Skaggs,

Plaintiff,

V. Case No. 2:18-cv-396

Commissioner of Social Security, Judge Michael H. Watson

Defendant. Magistrate Judge Jolson

OPINION AND ORDER

On December 18, 2016, Magistrate Judge Jolson Issued a Report and

Recommendation ("R&R") that recommended the Court overrule Rachel E.

Skaggs's ("Plaintiff) Statement of Specific Errors and affirm the Commissioner of

Social Security's decision. R&R, ECF No. 13. Plaintiff objects to the R&R. Obj.,

ECF No. 16.

When a party objects to an R&R within the allotted time, 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 a/so 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). The undersigned has reviewed de

novo the record In this case, the Magistrate Judge's R&R, and Plaintiffs

objection and concludes that the decision of the Administrative Law Judge
("ALJ") applied the correct legal standard and is supported by substantial

evidence. Blakelyv. Comm'rof Soc. Sec., 581 F.3d 399, 406 (6th CIr. 2009).

On March 17, 2017, the ALJ issued an opinion finding that Plaintiff is not

disabled as defined by the Social Security Act, and the Appeals Council

subsequently denied review. The Magistrate Judge recommended affirming the

ALJ's finding. In her objection to the Magistrate Judge's R&R, Plaintiff reiterates

the argument she made in her Statement of Specific Errors: that the ALJ failed to

classify her 06 radiculopathy as a severe or non-severe impairment at step two

of the analysis and therefore failed to adequately consider the functional impact

of the impairment when performing the residual functional capacity ("RFC")

analysis. See Statement of Specific Errors 15-17, EOF No. 11.

But the ALJ did find that some of Plaintiff's impairments are severe. ALJ

Decision, EOF No. 10-2, PAGEID ## 92-93. Once the ALJ determined that

Plaintiff had some severe impairments, he continued to consider all of Plaintiffs

impairments (severe and non-severe) in determining Plaintiffs RFC, as required

by the regulations. See Id. PAGEID ## 102-18; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(e).

Because the ALJ considered the functional impact of all of Plaintiffs impairments,

the failure to classify the C6 radiculopathy as severe or non-severe makes no

difference. Pompa v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 73 F. App'x 801, 803 (6th Cir. 2003)

("Because the ALJ found that [the plaintiff] had a severe impairment at step two

of the analysis, the question of whether the ALJ characterized another alleged

Impairment as severe or not severe is of little consequence."). Moreover,

Case No. 2:18-cv-396 Page 2 of 3
although Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ never substantively discussed her C6

radlculopathy diagnosis in the analysis, the record demonstrates that the ALJ

acknowledged the diagnosis and reviewed all of Plaintiffs medical records

documenting Plaintiff's range or motion, strength, and bilateral abilities before

concluding that Plaintiff was not disabled. ALJ Decision, ECF No. 10-2, PAGEID

## 102-18. In short, the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs objection is OVERRULED. The Court ADOPTS the

R&R and AFFIRMS the Commissioner of Social Security's decision. The Clerk is

DIRECTED to enter judgment for Defendant and terminate this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

MICHAEL H. WATSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case No. 2:18-cv-396 Page 3 of 3