UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

BILLIE OSBORNE,

Plaintiff, Case No. 3:18-cv-261

vs.

COMMISSIONER OF Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman

SOCIAL SECURITY, (Consent Case)

Defendant.

______________________________________________________________________________

DECISION AND ENTRY: (1) AFFIRMING THE ALJ’S NON-DISABILITY FINDING AS 

SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE; AND (2) TERMINATING THIS CASE ON 

THE COURT’S DOCKET

______________________________________________________________________________

This Social Security disability benefits appeal is before the undersigned for disposition based 

upon the parties’ consent. Doc. 11. At issue is whether the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) erred 

in finding Plaintiff not “disabled” and therefore unentitled to Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) 

and/or Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”).

1

 This case is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Statement 

of Errors (doc. 12), the Commissioner’s memorandum in opposition (doc. 14), Plaintiff’s reply (doc. 

15), the administrative record (doc. 6),2 and the record as a whole.

I.

A. Procedural History

Plaintiff filed for DIB and SSI alleging a disability onset date of August 17, 2012. PageID 

2368. Plaintiff claims disability as a result of a number of alleged impairments including, inter alia,

Crohn’s Disease, depressive disorder, and an anxiety disorder. PageID 63. 

 1

 “The Commissioner’s regulations governing the evaluation of disability for DIB and SSI are identical . . . 

and are found at 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520, and 20 C.F.R. § 416.1520 respectively.” Colvin v. Barnhart, 475 F.3d 727, 

730 (6th Cir. 2007). Citations in this Report and Recommendation to DIB regulations are made with full knowledge 

of the corresponding SSI regulations, and vice versa. 2

 Hereafter, citations to the electronically-filed administrative record will refer only to the PageID number. 
2

After an initial denial of her application, Plaintiff received a hearing before ALJ Elizabeth A. 

Motta on September 25, 2017. PageID 97-124. The ALJ issued a written decision on December 26,

2017 finding Plaintiff not disabled. PageID 59-80. Specifically, the ALJ found at Step Five that, based 

upon Plaintiff’s Residual Functional Capacity (“RFC”) to perform a reduced range of light work,

3

“there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that [Plaintiff] can perform[.]” 

PageID 71-79.

Thereafter, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request to review the ALJ’s decision, 

making her non-disability finding the final administrative decision of the Commissioner. PageID 45-

47. See Casey v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 987 F.2d 1230, 1233 (6th Cir. 1993). Plaintiff then 

filed this timely appeal. Cook v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 480 F.3d 432, 435 (6th Cir. 2007).

B. Evidence of Record

The evidence of record is adequately summarized in the ALJ’s decision (PageID 59-80), 

Plaintiff’s Statement of Errors (doc. 12), the Commissioner’s memorandum in opposition (doc. 14), 

and Plaintiff’s reply (doc. 15). The undersigned incorporates all of the foregoing and sets forth the 

facts relevant to this appeal herein.

II.

A. Standard of Review

The Court’s inquiry on a Social Security appeal is to determine (1) whether the ALJ’s nondisability finding is supported by substantial evidence, and (2) whether the ALJ employed the correct 

legal criteria. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Bowen v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 478 F.3d 742, 745-46 (6th Cir. 

 3 Light work “involves lifting no more than 20 pounds at a time with frequent lifting or carrying of objects 

weighing up to 10 pounds” and “requires a good deal of walking or standing, or . . . sitting most of the time with some 

pushing and pulling of arm or leg controls.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(b). An individual who can perform light work is 

presumed also able to perform sedentary work. Id. Sedentary work “involves lifting no more than 10 pounds at a 

time and occasionally lifting or carrying articles like docket files, ledgers, and small tools. Although a sedentary job 

is defined as one which involves sitting, a certain amount of walking and standing is often necessary in carrying out 

job duties.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(a).
3

2007). In performing this review, the Court must consider the record as a whole. Hephner v. Mathews, 

574 F.2d 359, 362 (6th Cir. 1978).

Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate 

to support a conclusion.” Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971). When substantial evidence 

supports the ALJ’s denial of benefits, that finding must be affirmed, even if substantial evidence also 

exists in the record upon which the ALJ could have found Plaintiff disabled. Buxton v. Halter, 246 

F.3d 762, 772 (6th Cir. 2001). Thus, the ALJ has a “‘zone of choice’ within which he [or she] can act 

without the fear of court interference.” Id. at 773.

The second judicial inquiry -- reviewing the correctness of the ALJ’s legal analysis -- may 

result in reversal even if the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record. Rabbers 

v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 582 F.3d 647, 651 (6th Cir. 2009). “[A] decision of the Commissioner will 

not be upheld where the [Social Security Administration] fails to follow its own regulations and where 

that error prejudices a claimant on the merits or deprives the claimant of a substantial right.” Bowen, 

478 F.3d at 746.

B. “Disability” Defined

To be eligible for disability benefits, a claimant must be under a “disability” as defined by the 

Social Security Act. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). Narrowed to its statutory meaning, a “disability” 

includes physical and/or mental impairments that are both “medically determinable” and severe enough 

to prevent a claimant from (1) performing his or her past job and (2) engaging in “substantial gainful 

activity” that is available in the regional or national economies. Id.

Administrative regulations require a five-step sequential evaluation for disability 

determinations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). Although a dispositive finding at any step ends the ALJ’s 

review, see Colvin v. Barnhart, 475 F.3d 727, 730 (6th Cir. 2007), the complete sequential review 

poses five questions:

1. Has the claimant engaged in substantial gainful activity?;
4

2. Does the claimant suffer from one or more severe impairments?;

3. Do the claimant’s severe impairments, alone or in combination, meet or equal 

the criteria of an impairment set forth in the Commissioner’s Listing of 

Impairments (the “Listings”), 20 C.F.R. Subpart P, Appendix 1?; 

4. Considering the claimant’s RFC, can he or she perform his or her past relevant 

work?; and

5. Assuming the claimant can no longer perform his or her past relevant work --

and also considering the claimant’s age, education, past work experience, and 

RFC -- do significant numbers of other jobs exist in the national economy 

which the claimant can perform?

20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4); see also Miller v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 181 F. Supp.2d 816, 818 (S.D. 

Ohio 2001). A claimant bears the ultimate burden of establishing disability under the Social Security 

Act’s definition. Key v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 109 F.3d 270, 274 (6th Cir. 1997).

III.

In her Statement of Errors, Plaintiff argues the ALJ erred in evaluating the medical opinion of 

the state agency’s evaluating physician, Amita Oza, M.D. Doc. 12 at PageID 2373-76.

Having carefully reviewed the administrative record and the parties’ briefs, and also having 

carefully considered the ALJ’s analysis leading to the non-disability finding here at issue, the Court 

finds the ALJ carefully and reasonably developed and reviewed the record; appropriately considered 

all medical evidence (including the report(s) by Dr. Oza); properly weighed opinion evidence based 

upon reasons supported by substantial evidence; reasonably assessed Plaintiff’s credibility; posed 

appropriate hypothetical questions to the VE; accurately determined Plaintiff’s RFC; and appropriately 

concluded, at Step Five (and in reliance on the VE’s sworn testimony), that Plaintiff can perform a 

significant number of jobs in the national economy. See PageID 63-80.

IV.

The Court thus AFFIRMS the ALJ’s non-disability finding as supported by substantial 

evidence, and TERMINATES this case on the Court’s docket.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
5

Date: September 4, 2019 s/ Michael J. Newman 

Michael J. Newman

United States Magistrate Judge