United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
CORBETT O'MEARA, DISTRICT JUDGE
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON
CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOCS. 14, 15)
PATRICIA T. MORRIS, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
light of the entire record in this case, I suggest that
substantial evidence supports the Commissioner's
determination that Plaintiff is not disabled. Accordingly,
IT IS RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's
Motion for Summary Judgment, (Doc. 14), be
DENIED, that the Commissioner's Motion,
(Doc. 15), be GRANTED, and that this case be
Introduction and Procedural History
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(b)(3),
and by Notice of Reference, this case was referred to the
undersigned Magistrate Judge for the purpose of reviewing a
final decision by the Commissioner of Social Security
(“Commissioner”) denying Plaintiff Lisa
Hutcherson's claim for Supplemental Security Income
benefits (“SSI”). (Doc. 4). The matter is
currently before the Court on cross-motions for summary
judgment. (Docs. 14, 15).
September 25, 2013, Plaintiff filed the instant application
for SSI, alleging a disability onset date of September 17,
2013, later amended to June 12, 2015. (Tr. 35, 200-05). The
Commissioner denied her claim. (Tr. 65-72). Plaintiff then
requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge
(“ALJ”), which occurred on November 2, 2015
before ALJ Henry Perez, Jr. (Tr. 33-58). The ALJ issued a
decision on March 15, 2016, finding Plaintiff not disabled.
(Tr. 16-32). On June 6, 2017, the Appeals Council denied
review, (Tr. 1-6), and Plaintiff filed for judicial review of
that final decision on July 25, 2017. (Doc. 1).
Standard of Review
district court has jurisdiction to review the
Commissioner's final administrative decision pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The district court's review is
restricted solely to determining whether the
“Commissioner has failed to apply the correct legal
standard or has made findings of fact unsupported by
substantial evidence in the record.” Sullivan v.
Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 595 F. App'x. 502, 506 (6th
Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). Substantial
evidence is “more than a scintilla of evidence but less
than a preponderance; it is such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.” Rogers v. Comm'r of Soc.
Sec., 486 F.3d 234, 241 (6th Cir. 2007) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
Court must examine the administrative record as a whole, and
may consider any evidence in the record, regardless of
whether it has been cited by the ALJ. See Walker v.
Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 884 F.2d 241,
245 (6th Cir. 1989). The Court will not “try the case
de novo, nor resolve conflicts in the evidence, nor decide
questions of credibility.” Cutlip v. Sec'y of
Health & Human Servs., 25 F.3d 284, 286 (6th Cir.
1994). If the Commissioner's decision is supported by
substantial evidence, “it must be affirmed even if the
reviewing court would decide the matter differently and even
if substantial evidence also supports the opposite
conclusion.” Id. at 286 (internal citations
Framework for Disability Determinations
the Act, “DIB and SSI are available only for those who
have a ‘disability.'” Colvin v.
Barnhart, 475 F.3d 727, 730 (6th Cir. 2007).
“Disability” means the inability
to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of
any medically determinable physical or mental impairment
which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted
or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not
less than [twelve] months.
42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(A) (DIB); 20
C.F.R. § 416.905(a) (SSI). The Commissioner's
regulations provide that disability is to be determined
through the application of a five-step sequential analysis:
(i) At the first step, we consider your work activity, if
any. If you are doing substantial gainful activity, we will
find that you are not disabled.
(ii) At the second step, we consider the medical severity of
your impairment(s). If you do not have a severe medically
determinable physical or mental impairment that meets the
duration requirement . . . or a combination of impairments
that is severe and meets the duration requirement, we will
find that you are not disabled.
(iii) At the third step, we also consider the medical
severity of your impairment(s). If you have an impairment(s)
that meets or equals one of our listings in appendix 1 of
this subpart and meets the duration requirement, we will find
that you are disabled.
(iv) At the fourth step, we consider our assessment of your
residual functional capacity and your past relevant work. If
you can still do your past relevant work, we will find that
you are not disabled.
(v) At the fifth and last step, we consider our assessment of
your residual functional capacity and your age, education,
and work experience to see if you can make an adjustment to
other work. If you can make an adjustment to other work, we
will find that you are not disabled. If you cannot make an
adjustment to other work, we will find that you are disabled.
20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920; see also Heston
v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 245 F.3d 528, 534 (6th Cir.
2001). “Through step four, the claimant bears the
burden of proving the existence and severity of limitations
caused by [his or] her impairments and the fact that she is
precluded from performing [his or] her past relevant
work.” Jones v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 336
F.3d 469, 474 (6th Cir. 2003). The burden transfers to the
Commissioner if the analysis reaches the fifth step without a
finding that the claimant is not disabled. Combs v.
Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 459 F.3d 640, 643 (6th Cir.
2006). At the fifth step, the Commissioner is required to
show that “other jobs in significant numbers exist in
the national economy that [the claimant] could ...