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.

Bombard v. Commissioner of Social Security

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

November 14, 2017

JONATHAN SCOTT BOMBARD, Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.

          Stephen J. Murphy, III Magistrate District Judge.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          MONA K. MAJZOUB UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Plaintiff Jonathan Scott Bombard seeks judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of Defendant Commissioner of Social Security's determination that he is not entitled to disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act. (Docket no. 1.) Before the Court are Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (docket no. 10) and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (docket no. 11). The motions have been referred to the undersigned for a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). (Docket no. 2.) Having reviewed the pleadings, the Court dispenses with a hearing pursuant to Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(f)(2) and issues this Report and Recommendation.

         I. RECOMMENDATION

         For the reasons stated herein, the court should DENY Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (docket no. 10) and GRANT Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (docket no. 11).

         II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         On June 17, 2013, Plaintiff protectively applied for disability insurance benefits, alleging that he has been disabled since March 19, 2013. (TR 39, 177-78.) The Social Security Administration initially denied Plaintiff's claims on October 7, 2013. (TR 39.) On December 19, 2014, Plaintiff appeared with a representative and testified at a hearing before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Michael R. Dunn. (TR 52.) On March 27, 2015, the ALJ issued an unfavorable decision on Plaintiff's claims. (TR 36-48.) Plaintiff requested a review of the ALJ's decision with the Appeals Council, which was denied on November 7, 2016. (TR 1.) On December 20, 2016, Plaintiff commenced this action for judicial review, and the parties filed dispositive motions, which are currently before the Court.

         III. HEARING TESTIMONY AND MEDICAL EVIDENCE

         Plaintiff sets forth a brief summary of his medical issues and hearing testimony. (Docket no. 10, pp. 2-6.) In addition, the ALJ summarized Plaintiff's medical record (TR 42-46), and Defendant deferred to the ALJ's summary (docket no. 11, p. 2). Having reviewed Plaintiff's medical records and the hearing transcript, the undersigned finds that there are no material inconsistencies among these recitations of the record. Therefore, in lieu of re-summarizing this information, the undersigned will incorporate the above-cited factual recitations by reference and refer to the record as necessary to address the parties' arguments throughout this Report and Recommendation.

         IV. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S DETERMINATION

         The ALJ found that Plaintiff last met the insured status requirements of the Social Security Act on December 31, 2013 (the “date last insured”). (TR 41). The ALJ further determined that Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since March 19, 2013, the alleged onset date. (Id.) In addition, the ALJ found that, through his date last insured, Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: “degenerative disc disease status post lumbar fusion with pseudo-arthrosis and hardware failure resulting in repeat lumbar fusion, degenerative joint disease of the right shoulder with possible neuropathy, and osteoporosis of the lumbar spine.” (TR 42.) Nevertheless, the ALJ found that Plaintiff did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled the severity of one of the listed impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. (Id.) The ALJ determined that Plaintiff has the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform sedentary work as defined by 20 CFR 404.1567(a), but with the following additional limitations:

• Requires a sit/stand option every thirty minutes;
• Cannot do any overhead reaching with his right upper extremity;
• Limited to lifting and carrying three pounds with his right upper extremity;
• Cannot climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds, but can occasionally climb ramps or stairs;
• Can occasionally stoop, crouch, or crawl, and can frequently kneel;
• Limited to unskilled work.

(TR 42-43.) On the basis of this determination, the ALJ posed a hypothetical to the Vocational Expert (“VE”), who testified that jobs exist in significant numbers in the national economy that a person with the above RFC could perform. (TR 81-84.) Consequently, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff was not under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, at any time from March 19, 2013, the alleged onset date, through December 31, 2013, the date last insured. (TR 48.)

         V. ...


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.