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.

Yee v. Commissioner of Social Security

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

January 31, 2018

VERONICA L. YEE, Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.

          DISTRICT JUDGE MARK A. GOLDSMITH

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          MONA K. MAJZOUB, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff Veronica L. Yee seeks judicial review of Defendant Commissioner of Social Security's determination that she is not entitled to social security benefits for her physical and mental impairments under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Docket no. 1.) Before the Court are Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (docket no. 11) and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (docket no. 14). Plaintiff replied to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, and with leave of court, Defendant responded to Plaintiff's Reply. (Docket nos. 15, 17.) 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. 3.) The Court has reviewed the pleadings, 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 that follow, it is recommended that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (docket no. 11) be DENIED and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (docket no. 14) be GRANTED.

         II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         Plaintiff protectively filed an application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits on May 2, 2014, alleging that she has been disabled since December 31, 2001, due to depression, bipolar disorder, anxiety, migraines, and a thyroid disorder. (TR 66, 103-05, 123.) The Social Security Administration denied Plaintiff's claims on August 6, 2014, and Plaintiff requested a de novo hearing. (TR 59-66, 73-74.) On November 4, 2015, Plaintiff appeared with a representative and testified at the hearing before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Kari Deming. (TR 29-58.) In a November 30, 2015 decision, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform a full range of work at all exertional levels subject to some non-exertional limitations and that she was not entitled to benefits because she was capable of performing a significant number of jobs in the national economy. (TR 15-25.) 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 before the Court.

         III. HEARING TESTIMONY AND MEDICAL EVIDENCE

         Plaintiff (docket no. 11 at 8-12) and the ALJ (TR 18-20, 21-23, 24) have set forth detailed, factual summaries of Plaintiff's medical record and the hearing testimony. Defendant incorporates the ALJ's recitation of the facts into her brief. (Docket no. 14 at 4.) Having conducted an independent review of Plaintiff's medical record 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 will also make references and citations 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 did not engage in substantial gainful activity during the period from the alleged onset date of December 31, 2001 through the date last insured of December 31, 2006. (TR 17.) Next, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff suffered from the following severe impairments: dysthymic disorder, bipolar disorder, and major depressive disorder. (TR 17.) Additionally, 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 17-20.) The ALJ then found that, through the date last insured, Plaintiff had the following RFC:

Claimant had the residual functional capacity to perform a full range of work at all exertional levels limited to work permitting the Claimant to perform simple, routine tasks, defined as those generally mastered within 30 days; goal-oriented rather than production-rate work; routine and predictable work, defined as no more than occasional changes in the work to be performed or to the work setting; work requiring only occasional, simple, work-related decisions; work involving occasional interaction, defined as up to one-third of the day, with coworkers and supervisors, but only rare interaction defined as less than one-third of the day, with the public. The claimant must also be permitted to be absent from work one day per month.

(TR 20-23.) Subsequently, in reliance on the vocational expert's (VE's) testimony, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff was capable of performing a significant number of jobs in the national economy. (TR 24.) Therefore, the ALJ found that Plaintiff was not disabled under the Social Security Act at any time from December 31, 2001, through the date last insured of December 31, 2006. (TR 15, 25.)

         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.