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.

Shannon v. Commissioner of Social Security

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

September 25, 2017

Gregory Tyrone Shannon, Plaintiff,
v.
Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

          Mona K. Majzoub U.S. Magistrate Judge

          ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [18]; OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION [19]; DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [11]; AND GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [17]

          Arthur J. Tarnow Senior United States District Judge.

         Plaintiff Gregory Tyrone Shannon seeks judicial review of the decision of an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) denying his application for disability benefits. Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. 11] on February 3, 2017. Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment [17] on May 3, 2017.

         On August 23, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) [18] recommending that the Court grant Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and deny Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff filed an Objection [19] to the Magistrate Judge's R&R on September 6, 2017. Defendant responded on September 20, 2017 [20].

         For the reasons discussed below, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation [18]. Plaintiff's Objection to the Report and Recommendation [19] is OVERRULED. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [11] is DENIED. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [17] is GRANTED.

         Factual Background

         Plaintiff, who is 54 years-old, has the equivalent of a high school education, and previously worked as a lift operator, cook, and a cleaner. Dr. Don Harrison, the vocational expert, described the work as medium, as usually performed, and ranging between skilled and unskilled (see Ex. 13E and testimony). Dr. Harrison added that the claimant actually did the cooking job at the heavy level of exertion. Plaintiff states that he is disabled due to shortness of breath, chest pain, and fatigue.

         The R&R summarized the remainder of the record as follows:

         I. Procedural History

         Plaintiff protectively filed applications for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits on July 25, 2013, alleging that he has been disabled since March 6, 2013, due to heart failure, epileptic seizures, pancreatitis, leg problems, high blood pressure, shortness of breath, and chronic fatigue. (TR 22, 93.) The Social Security Administration denied Plaintiff's claims on September 24, 2013, and Plaintiff requested a de novo hearing. (TR 92, 100-101, 114-15.) On January 21, 2015, Plaintiff appeared with a representative and testified at the hearing before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Patrick J. MacLean. (TR 35-82.) In an April 20, 2015 decision, the ALJ found that Plaintiff was not entitled to benefits because he was capable of performing a significant number of jobs in the national economy. (TR 29-30.) The Appeals Council declined to review the ALJ's decision (TR 1-6), and Plaintiff commenced this action for judicial review. The parties then filed cross motions for summary judgment, which are currently pending before the Court.

         II. Administrative Law Judge's Determination

         The ALJ found that Plaintiff met the insured status requirements of the Social Security Act through September 30, 2018; that Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since March 6, 2013; and that Plaintiff suffered from the following severe impairments: chronic heart failure, emphysema, hypertension, a history of pancreatitis, a history of occasional seizures, and alcohol abuse. (TR 24.) The ALJ also found that Plaintiff had a non-severe arthritic impairment. (Id.) Next, the ALJ found that Plaintiff's impairments did not meet or medically equal the severity of an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. (TR 25-26.) The ALJ then found that Plaintiff had the following RFC [residual functional capacity]:

[T]he claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform light work as defined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(b), but he can only occasionally stoop, balance, kneel, crouch, crawl, and climb ramps, stairs, ladders, ropes, and scaffolds, and cannot be exposed to moving machinery or unprotected heights, and is limited to simple, routine, repetitive tasks.

(TR 26.) Subsequently, in reliance on the testimony of the Vocational Expert (VE), the ALJ determined that Plaintiff was capable of performing a significant number of jobs in the national economy. (TR 29-30.) Therefore, the ALJ found that Plaintiff was not disabled under the Social Security Act at any ...


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.