Source: http://tn.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180327_0000238.MTN.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 13:12:59+00:00

Document:
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Deputy Commissioner of Operations of the Social Security Administration,  Defendant.
ALETA A. TRAUGER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Plaintiff Michael Netherton brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner's denial of his application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act.
On February 20, 2018, the magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. No. 34), recommending that the decision of the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) be affirmed. The plaintiff has filed timely Objections (Doc. No. 35), to which the SSA has responded (Doc. No. 36). For the reasons discussed herein, the court will overrule the Objections, accept the R&R, and dismiss this action.
When a magistrate judge issues a report and recommendation regarding a dispositive pretrial matter, the district court must review de novo any portion of the report and recommendation to which a proper objection is made. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(1)(C); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); United States v. Curtis, 237 F.3d 598, 603 (6th Cir. 2001); Massey v. City of Ferndale, 7 F.3d 506, 510 (6th Cir. 1993). Objections must be specific; a general objection to the R&R is not sufficient and may result in waiver of further review. Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995). In conducting its review of the objections, the district court “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3).
In Social Security cases under Title II or Title XIV, the Commissioner determines whether a claimant is disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act and, as such, entitled to benefits. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1383(c), 405(h). The court's review of the decision of an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) is limited to a determination of whether the ALJ applied the correct legal standards and whether the findings of the ALJ are supported by substantial evidence. Miller v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 811 F.3d 825, 833 (6th Cir. 2016) (quoting Blakley v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 581 F.3d 399, 405 (6th Cir. 2009)); see 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g) (2012) (“The findings of the Commissioner of Social Security as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive.”). The substantial evidence standard is met if a “reasonable mind might accept the relevant evidence as adequate to support a conclusion.” Warner v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 375 F.3d 387, 390 (6th Cir. 2004) (internal citations omitted). “The substantial evidence standard . . . presupposes that there is a zone of choice within which the decision makers can go either way, without interference by the courts.” Blakley v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 581 F.3d 399, 406 (6th Cir. 2009) (quoting Mullen v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 535, 545 (6th Cir. 1986)). “Therefore, if substantial evidence supports an ALJ's decision, the court defers to that finding, ‘even if there is substantial evidence in the record that would have supported an opposite conclusion.'” Id. (quoting Key v. Callahan, 109 F.3d 270, 273 (6th Cir. 1997)).
Posterior neck pain (no tenderness, spasm) with slow neck flexion 45°, extension 45°, lateral flexion 45°, rotation 50° and slow bilateral shoulder abduction & forward raising 120°; normal elbow, wrist, finger motions with reduced grip - 3-4/5 without atrophy, swelling; low back pain, tenderness with slow position changes, thoracolumbar flexion 50°/extension - 20°/lateral motion - 20°, hip flexion -90°/abduction 30°, straight leg raising - 50° supine/70° seated; normal knee flexion - 130° extension -0°, incomplete squatting; . . . slow (pain, unsteady) gait and gait maneuvers (heel, toe, & tandem) across exam room without assistance.

References: § 405
 § 636
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 405
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.