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.

Oslin v. Commissioner of Social Security

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

March 6, 2017

Lisa Oslin, Plaintiff,
v.
Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

          Patricia T. Morris Magistrate Judge.

          ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          Sean F. Cox United States District Judge.

         Plaintiff Lisa Oslin (“Plaintiff”) brought this action seeking judicial review of Defendant Commissioner of Social Security's (“Defendant”) determination that she is not entitled to Social Security Income Benefits and Disability Insurance Benefits. (Doc. # 1).

         All proceedings in this case were subsequently referred to Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). (Doc. # 3). Sometime thereafter, Plaintiff and Defendant filed cross-motions for summary judgment. (Doc. # 14; Doc. # 17).

         On January 24, 2017, Magistrate Judge Morris issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), wherein she recommended that the Court DENY Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, GRANT Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, and REMAND this case to the Commissioner under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (R&R at 30). Defendant filed timely objections to the January 24, 2017 R&R on February 7, 2017. (Doc. # 21, Def.'s Objs.). Plaintiff timely responded to Defendant's objections on February 21, 2017. (Doc. # 23, Pl.'s Resp.).

         The Court finds Defendant's objections to be improper and without merit. The Court shall therefore ACCEPT AND ADOPT the R&R, GRANT Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #14), and DENY Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 17).

         STANDARD OF REVIEW

         Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), a party objecting to the recommended disposition of a matter by a Magistrate Judge must file objections to the R&R within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the R&R. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). Objections must “(A) specify the part of the order, proposed findings, recommendations, or report to which a person objects; and (B) state the basis for the objection.” E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d).

         Objections are not “a second opportunity to present the argument already considered by the Magistrate Judge.” Betancourt v. Ace Ins. Co. of Puerto Rico, 313 F.Supp.2d 32, 34 (D.P.R. 2004). Moreover, the district court should not consider arguments that have not first been presented to the magistrate judge. See Stonecrest Partners, LLC v. Bank of Hampton Roads, 770 F.Supp.2d 778, 785 (E.D. N.C. 2011).

         “The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge 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).

         ANALYSIS

         In her R&R, Magistrate Judge Morris determined that the Administrative Law Judge's (“ALJ”) Step Three analysis-whether Plaintiff met or equaled Social Security Listing 1.04-was defective because the ALJ failed to consider the medical examination records of Plaintiff's neurosurgeon, Dr. Palavali. (R&R at 21-25). The Magistrate Judge further found “that because the ALJ failed to consider the entire record, substantial evidence does not support her RFC findings.” (R&R at 29-30). Defendant lodges three objections to the Magistrate Judge's R&R.

         Objection # 1. In her first objection, Defendant improperly reasserts arguments already advanced before Magistrate Judge Morris: (1) the State agency physician reviewed the evidence of record and explicitly considered Listing 1.04, finding that Plaintiff was not disabled because she did not meet or equal that Listing; (2) the record is “filled with evidence that Plaintiff did not meet or equal Listing 1.04;” (3) the statement in the Palavali note that Plaintiff had “nerve root compromise” appears to be a scrivener's error; and (4) the fact that the ALJ did not address the Palavali notes does not indicate that the ALJ did not consider them. (Def.'s Objs. at 3-4).

         Magistrate Judge Morris's R&R properly rejects these arguments. Specifically, ...


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.