UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Shakaira L. Davis,

Plaintiff,

V. Case No. 2:18-cv-475

Commissioner of Social Security, Judge Michael H. Watson

Defendant. Magistrate Judge Jolson

OPINION AND ORDER

On May 1, 2019, Magistrate Judge Jolson Issued a Report and

Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that the Court overrule Shakaira

Davls's ("Plaintiff") Statement of Errors and affirm the decision of the

Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner"). R&R, ECF No. 18. Plaintiff

timely objected. Obj., ECF No. 19.

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 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).

In her objection to the R&R, Plaintiff asserts that the Magistrate Judge

erred In concluding that the ALJ gave good reasons for affording greater weight
to one treating source's opinion over another. The Social Security "regulations

require the ALJ to 'always give good reasons in the notice of determination or

decision for the weight' given to the claimant's treating source's opinion." Blakely

V. Comm'rofSoc. Sec., 581 F.3d 399, 406 (6th Cir. 2009) (quoting 20 C.F.R.

§ 404.1527(d)(2)) (alteration removed). The ALJ's "good reasons" must be

supported by substantial evidence in the record. Id. at 406-07 (quoting Soc.

Sec. Rui. 96-2p, 1996 WL 374188, at *5).

Here, as the Magistrate Judge explained, the ALJ found that the treating

source opinions of Dr. Ratliff were entitled to lesser weight because: (1) one of

them was based on assumptions that PlaintifTs work environment would be

characterized by"strong fumes, poor ventilation, heavy lifting, or chronic lifting

and bending": (2)the opinions rendered for Franklin County Job and Family

Services ("FCJFS") were "limited examinations, each based on one physical

examination"; (3) the same FCJFS opinions determined that Plaintiff is

"disabled," even though that is an area reserved to the Commissioner; and

(4) the opinion of Dr. Kaeding, Plaintiffs other orthopedic specialist, is more

consistent with the record evidence. ALJ Op., ECF No. 10-9, PagelD ## 882-88.

After a de novo review of the record, the Undersigned agrees that these reasons

are supported by substantial evidence and are a correct application of the law.

Blakely, 581 F.3d at 406.

Case No. 18-cv-475 Page 2 of 3
Accordingly, PlaintifFs objection is OVERRULED.^ The Court ADOPTS

the R&R and AFFIRMS the Commissioner's decision. The Cierk is DIRECTED

to enter judgment for Defendant and terminate this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

MICHAEL H. WATSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

In her Statement ofSpecific Errors, Plaintiff also argued that the ALJ did not give good

reasons for rejecting Dr. RatlifTs opinion regarding Plaintiffs mental health condition.

Statement of Specific Errors 15-17, ECF No. 13. The Magistrate rejected that

argument, concluding that the ALJ was entitled to give that opinion less weight because

Dr. Ratliff is not a mental health professional. R&R 10-11, ECF No. 18. Plaintiff

abandons that argument on objection and the Court therefore does not address it.

Case No. 18-CV-475 Page 3 of 3