United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
L.V. GRUBBS, JR., Plaintiff,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.
DECISION AFFIRMING DENIAL OF BENEFITS
Cohn UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
a Social Security case. Plaintiff L.V. Grubbs, Jr. (Grubbs)
appeals a decision of the Commissioner of Social Security
(Commissioner) denying his application for disability
insurance and other benefits. Grubbs asserts impairments
including knee arthrosis, hand dysfunction, asthma and
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
is suing under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking reversal of
the Commissioner's decision. Grubbs has filed a motion
for summary judgment, (Doc. 13). The Commissioner has filed a
cross motion for summary judgment, (Doc. 14). The motions
were referred to a magistrate judge who reported and
recommended, (Doc. 15), that the Court deny Grubbs's
motion, grant the Commissioner's motion, and affirm the
denial of benefits. Grubbs has raised various objections,
Court has considered the report and recommendation (R&R)
and Grubbs's objections to it, and conducted a de
novo review of the record pertaining to the objections.
The Court agrees with the magistrate judge's conclusions
objections to the R&R, (Doc. 16), are OVERRULED, the
R&R, (Doc. 15), is ADOPTED, Grubbs's motion for
summary judgment, (Doc. 13), is DENIED, the
Commissioner's motion for summary judgment, (Doc. 14), is
GRANTED, and the Commissioner's denial of benefits is
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
does not object to the R&R's recitation of the facts
and procedural history. (Docs. 15, 16). The Court adopts and
incorporates it. (See Doc. 15).
seeks review of the agency's determination of his
residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform light work with
restrictions. However, instead of arguing the substance of
the RFC, he seeks relief on various technical and procedural
grounds. They are the administrative law judge (ALJ)'s:
(1) failure to comply with prior remand orders to address
additional medical records submitted, (2) decision to accord
“great weight” to a consultant physician's
RFC assessment pre-dating these records, (3) failure to
undergo a “function-by-function” analysis in
determining RFC, and (4) failure to obtain an updated RFC
report given the additional medical records.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Court must review de novo parts of an R&R to
which a party objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). “A
judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or
in part, the findings or ...