United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Stephen J. Murphy, III Magistrate District Judge.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
K. MAJZOUB UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
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
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).
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.
HEARING TESTIMONY AND MEDICAL EVIDENCE
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.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S DETERMINATION
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
â¢ Requires a sit/stand option every thirty minutes;
â¢ Cannot do any overhead reaching with his right upper
â¢ Limited to lifting and carrying three pounds with his right
â¢ Cannot climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds, but can
occasionally climb ramps or stairs;
â¢ Can occasionally stoop, crouch, or crawl, and can
â¢ 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.)