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.

Mercier v. Commissioner of Social Security

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

May 28, 2019

JOSEPH MERCIER, Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.

          David M. Lawson District Judge

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          MONA K. MAJZOUB UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff Joseph Mercier seeks judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of Defendant Commissioner of Social Security's determination that he is not entitled to benefits under the Social Security Act. (Docket no. 1.) Before the Court are Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (docket no. 12) and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (docket no. 13). This matter has been referred to the undersigned for determination of all non-dispositive motions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and issuance of a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C). (Docket no. 3.) 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 that follow, it is recommended that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (docket no. 12) be GRANTED, that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (docket no. 13) be DENIED, and that the case be remanded to the Commissioner under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

         II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         Plaintiff applied for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) on December 31, 2015, alleging that he has been disabled since October 2, 2010. (TR 183-190.) The Social Security Administration initially denied Plaintiff's claims on March 22, 2016. (TR 107-110.) On April 17, 2017, Plaintiff appeared with counsel and testified at a hearing before Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Allison Dietz. (TR 31-87.) At the hearing, Plaintiff amended his alleged onset date from October 2, 2010 to November 19, 2013. (TR 35.)

         On June 28, 2017, the ALJ issued an unfavorable decision on Plaintiff's claims. (TR 15- 26.) Plaintiff requested review by the Appeals Council, which was denied on January 30, 2018. (TR 1-3.) On March 28, 2018, Plaintiff commenced this action for judicial review. (Docket no. 1.) The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment, which are currently before the Court. (Docket no. 12; docket no. 13.)

         III. HEARING TESTIMONY AND MEDICAL EVIDENCE

         Plaintiff sets forth a brief procedural history of this matter as well as a short summary of his medical issues. (Docket no. 12, pp. 5-12.) In addition, the ALJ summarized Plaintiff's medical record (TR 17-24), and Defendant adopted the ALJ's recitation of the facts (docket no. 13, p. 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 refer to the record as necessary to address the parties' arguments throughout this Report and Recommendation.

         IV. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S DETERMINATION

         The ALJ determined that Plaintiff did not engage in substantial gainful activity since the alleged onset date. (TR 17.) In addition, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: “lumbar and cervical disorders of the spine with radiculopathy; bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome; diabetes mellitus with neuropathy; obesity; depression; and anxiety.” (Id.) Nevertheless, the ALJ concluded 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. (TR 18-19.) The ALJ determined that Plaintiff had the Residual Functional Capacity (“RFC”) to perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b), subject to the following non-exertional limitations:

■ Plaintiff can only occasionally climb ramps or stairs and can never climb ladders, ...

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.