Humphries v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

          Gershwin A. Drain United States District Court Judge

          OPINION AND ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION [#14], ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [#13], GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [#12], AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [#11]

          Hon. Gershwin A. Drain United States District Court Judge

         I. Introduction

         This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff and Defendant's Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment. The Court referred this matter to Magistrate Judge Stephanie Dawkins Davis, who issued a Report and Recommendation on June 25, 2019 Granting Defendant's Motion and Denying Plaintiff's Motion. Dkt. No. 13. Plaintiff has filed a timely Objection to that Report and Recommendation. Dkt. No. 14.

         Present before the Court is Plaintiff's Objection to Magistrate Judge Davis' Report and Recommendation. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will OVERRULE Plaintiff's Objection [#14], ACCEPT and ADOPT the Report and Recommendation [#13], GRANT Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [#12], and DENY Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [#11].

         II. Background

         Magistrate Judge Davis' Report and Recommendation sets forth the relevant background in this case. The Court will adopt those findings here:

Humphries filed an application for a period of disability, disability insurance benefits, and supplemental security income on November 10, 2014, alleging disability beginning on April 1, 2007. The claims were initially disapproved by the Commissioner on February 19, 2016. Humphries requested a hearing and on June 27, 2017, he appeared with counsel before Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) J. William Callahan, who considered the case de novo. In a decision dated November 20, 2017, the ALJ found that plaintiff was not disabled. The ALJ's decision became the final decision of the Commissioner when the Appeals Council, on May 31, 2018, denied plaintiff's request for review.

Dkt. No. 13, p. 2 (Pg. ID 775) (internal citations omitted).

         Magistrate Judge Davis then went on to summarize the ALJ's findings as follows:

Humphries, born July 7, 1982, was 24 years old on the alleged disability onset date. His date last insured is December 31, 2007. He attended school through 11th grade and has past relevant work as a machine feeder, groundskeeper, child monitor/babysitter, and odd job worker. Humphries was injured in a car accident in April 2006, which resulted in hip replacement surgery. He was involved in a second car accident in 2009.

The ALJ applied the five-step disability analysis and found at step one that Humphries had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since April 1, 2007, the alleged onset date. At step two, the ALJ found that Humphries' left acetabular fracture status post open reduction internal fixation, history of L5 plexopathy, morbid obesity, history of traumatic brain injury with loss of consciousness, diabetes mellitus type II, and generalized anxiety disorder were “severe” within the meaning of the second sequential step. However, at step three, the ALJ found no evidence that plaintiff's impairments singly or in combination met or medically equaled one of the listings in the regulations.

         Thereafter, the ALJ assessed plaintiff's residual functional capacity (“RFC”) as follows:

After careful consideration of the entire record, the undersigned finds that the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform sedentary work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(a) and 416.967(a) except maximum lifting and carrying of 5 pounds in one hand; maximum standing of 15 minutes at a time; not able to climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; not able to climb ramps or stairs; only occasionally able to balance or stoop; not capable of kneeling or crawling; only incidentally being able to crouch, meaning one time per hour for one minute; no manipulative, visual or communication limitations; must avoid and cannot be exposed to hazards such as unprotected heights, fast moving, sharp surfaces or objects or fast moving, heavy machinery; capable of occasional driving; he is limited to unskilled work with ...