Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Soucie v. Commissioner of Social Security

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

February 24, 2017

JEFFREY SOUCIE, Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.

          Anthony P. Patti Magistrate Judge.

         OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AFFIRMING THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSIONER, AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT

          DAVID M. LAWSON United States District Judge.

         The plaintiff filed the present action on February 17, 2016 seeking review of the Commissioner's decision denying his claim for disability benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(b)(3). Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgement to reverse the decision of the Commissioner and remand the case for further consideration by the administrative law judge. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment requesting affirmance of the decision of the Commissioner. Magistrate Judge Patti filed a report on October 24, 2016 recommending that the defendant's motion for summary judgment be granted, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment be denied, and the decision of the Commissioner be affirmed. The plaintiff filed timely objections, and the defendant filed a response. The matter is now before the Court.

         The filing of timely objections to a report and recommendation requires the court to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667 (1980); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). This de novo review requires the court to re-examine all of the relevant evidence previously reviewed by the magistrate judge in order to determine whether the recommendation should be accepted, rejected, or modified in whole or in part. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

         “The filing of objections provides the district court with the opportunity to consider the specific contentions of the parties and to correct any errors immediately, ” Walters, 638 F.2d at 950, enabling the court “to focus attention on those issues-factual and legal-that are at the heart of the parties' dispute, ” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 147 (1985). As a result, “‘[o]nly those specific objections to the magistrate's report made to the district court will be preserved for appellate review; making some objections but failing to raise others will not preserve all the objections a party may have.'” McClanahan v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 474 F.3d 830, 837 (6th Cir. 2006) (quoting Smith v. Detroit Fed'n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987)).

         The Court has reviewed the file, the report and recommendation, and the plaintiff's objections, and the defendant's response to those objections and has made a de novo review of the administrative record in light of the parties' submissions.

         The plaintiff, who is now 53 years old, filed his application for disability insurance benefits on August 28, 2013, when he was 50. The plaintiff has a limited education, but is able to communicate in English. In the application that is the subject of the present appeal, the plaintiff alleged a disability onset date of August 23, 2013. The plaintiff has been diagnosed with hernia, coronary artery disease (status post six stents between 2000 and 2013), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, high blood pressure, and edema in the legs. The medical records contain information that the plaintiff has a body mass index (BMI) suggesting that he is obese, but other than medical advice to lose weight and stop smoking, no medical source has indicated that the plaintiff's obesity has limited his ability or work or complicated his other medical conditions.

         The plaintiff's application for disability benefits was denied initially on November 22, 2013. The plaintiff timely filed a request for an administrative hearing, and on March 23, 2015, the plaintiff appeared with his attorney before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jerome B. Blum. On May 14, 2015, ALJ Blum issued a written decision in which he found that the plaintiff was not disabled. On December 23, 2015, the Appeals Council denied the plaintiff's request for review of the ALJ's decision. The plaintiff filed his complaint seeking judicial review on February 17, 2016.

         ALJ Blum reached his conclusion that the plaintiff was not disabled by applying the five-step sequential analysis prescribed by the Secretary in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. He found that the plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since August 23, 2013 (step one); the plaintiff suffered from hernia, coronary artery disease status (as a result of which he received six stents between 2000 and 2013), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, high blood pressure, and edema in the legs, impairments which were “severe” within the meaning of the Social Security Act (step two); none of those impairments alone or in combination met or equaled a listing in the regulations (step three); and the plaintiff was unable to perform the duties required for his past relevant work as a circular saw operator, cut-off saw operator, and shipping and receiving supervisor, which were semi-skilled positions requiring medium exertion (step four).

         In applying the fourth step, the ALJ concluded that the plaintiff had the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform sedentary work as defined under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(a), except that he required the option to sit or stand as needed, and he would need to avoid exposure to gases, fumes, and odors. A vocational expert testified that the plaintiff could perform jobs such as order clerk or order filler, and that 74, 000 such jobs are available nationwide, with 1, 600 jobs within the State of Michigan. Based on those findings and using Medical Vocational Rule 202.11 as a framework, the ALJ concluded that the plaintiff was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act.

         In the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, he argued that the ALJ failed to follow the Social Security regulations when making the determination of the plaintiff's RFC and assessing his credibility. As the magistrate judge observed, those arguments are not well developed. And the objections to the report and recommendation in the main are a rehash of the summary judgment brief. The Court believes that the magistrate judge thoroughly reviewed the administrative record, discussed the plaintiff's arguments in detail, and reached the correct conclusion.

         First Objection

         In his first objection, the plaintiff contends that the magistrate judge erred by “inferring” that the ALJ accurately communicated all pertinent parameters of the RFC in the hypothetical posed to the vocational expert (VE). The plaintiff asserts that the decision does not indicate that the hypothetical specified that the option to sit or stand must be “at will, ” and that the response to that deficient hypothetical therefore cannot constitute ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.