Balsley v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 2:2020cv05620 - Document 20 (S.D. Ohio 2021)

Court Description: OPINION and ORDER adopting 18 the Report and Recommendation. Signed by Judge Michael H. Watson on 10/15/2021. (jk)

Download PDF

Balsley v. Commissioner of Social Security Doc. 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Kendra M. Balsley, Plaintiff. Case No. 2:20-cv-5620 V. Judge Michael H. Watson Commissioner of Social Security, Magistrate Judge Jolson Defendant. OPINION AND ORDER Magistrate Judge Jolson, to whom this case was referred, issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R")recommending the Court overrule Kendra M. Balsley's ("Plaintiff') Statement of Specific Errors and affirm the Commissioner of Social Security's("Commissioner") decision denying Plaintiffs appiications for Disability Insurance Benefits and Suppiemental Security Income. R&R, ECF No. 18. Plaintiff has timely objected. Obj., ECF No. 19. For the following reasons, the Court OVERRULES Piaintiffs objections. I. STANDARD OF REVIEW Because the R&R was issued pursuant to Federai Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the Undersigned must determine de novo any part of the Magistrate Judge's disposition that has been properly objected to. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The Undersigned may accept, reject, or modify the R&R, receive further evidence, or return the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. Id. Dockets.Justia.com II. ANALYSIS Plaintiff argued in her Statement of Specific Errors that the administrative law judge ("ALJ")failed to identify PlaintifPs narcolepsy as a medically determinable impairment(either severe or non-severe) and, as such, failed altogether to consider the narcolepsy as part of the Residual Functional Capacity ("RFC")analysis. See generally, Stmt. Specific Errors, ECF No. 13. The Magistrate Judge concluded that, although the ALJ did not explicitly label Plaintiffs narcolepsy as a severe medically determinable impairment, a non-severe medicaliy determinable impairment, or a non-medically determinable impairment, the ALJ did consider Plaintiffs narcolepsy when conducting his RFC analysis. R&R 7, ECF No. 18. Thus, the Magistrate Judge concluded, Plaintiff failed to demonstrate any reversible error. Id. at 8-9. On objection. Plaintiff argues that an ALJ has no legal duty to consider non-medically determinable impairments when conducting an RFC analysis. Obj. 3-4, ECF No. 19. She further argues that the ALJ did not label her narcolepsy as a medically determinable impairment; thus, the ALJ must not have considered the narcolepsy when conducting his RFC analysis. Id. She asserts that the ALJ's mere reference to Piaintiffs narcolepsy throughout his decision does not show that he considered it when conducting the RFC analysis. Id. at 4. On de novo review. Plaintiffs objection is overruled. Plaintiffs objection is premised on fallacious logic: that because an ALJ is not legaily required to consider non-medically determinable impairments in an RFC analysis, an ALJ Case No. 2:20-cv-5620 Page 2 of 3 necessarily does not consider them In such analyses. In addition to her logic being faulty, her argument Is simply Incorrect In this case. The ALU's decision demonstrates that he considered Plaintiffs narcolepsy as an Impairment when conducting Plaintiffs RFC analysis. See ALU Decision at 4-5(discussing whether Plaintiffs mental "Impairments," Including narcolepsy, meet or medically equal a listing); id. at 6-8(thoroughly discussing the limitations caused by Plaintiffs narcolepsy In the RFC analysis). Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to show any reversible error. See Smith v. Comm'rofSoc. Sec., No. 2:20-cv-1511, 2021 WL 972444, R&R adopted 202^ WL 1516173("[R]egardless of whether the ALU explicitly designated her neuropathy as a medically determlnable ... Impairment, the ALU considered these Impairments when assessing the medical evidence and deciding how her Impairments Impacted her ability to work. Plaintiff has failed to show reversible error as a result."(citation omitted)). I. CONCLUSION For the above reasons, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs objections, ADOPTS the R&R, OVERRULES Plaintiffs Statement of Specific Errors, and AFFIRMS the Commissioner's decision. The Clerk shall enter judgment for Defendant and terminate this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/Michael H. Watson MICHAEL H. WATSON,JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Case No. 2:20-cv-5620 Page 3 of 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.