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.

Aguilar v. Commissioner of Social Security

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

June 4, 2019

JOANNA LIN AGUILAR, Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.

          GERSHWIN A. DRAIN DISTRICT JUDGE

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          MONA K. MAJZOUB UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff Joanna Lin Aguilar seeks judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of Defendant Commissioner of Social Security's determination that she 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. 13) and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (docket no. 14). 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. 13) be DENIED, that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (docket no. 14) be GRANTED, and that the case be dismissed in its entirety.

         II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         Plaintiff applied for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) on March 5, 2015, alleging that she has been disabled since January 27, 2014. (TR 158-59.) The Social Security Administration initially denied Plaintiff's claims on March 4, 2015. (TR 93-96.) On November 9, 2016, Plaintiff appeared with counsel and testified at a hearing before Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Michael R. Dunn. (TR 34-75.)

         On May 1, 2017, the ALJ issued an unfavorable decision on Plaintiff's claims. (TR 15- 29.) Plaintiff requested review by the Appeals Council, which was denied on February 6, 2018. (TR 1-3.) On April 3, 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. 13; docket no. 14.)

         III. HEARING TESTIMONY AND MEDICAL EVIDENCE

         Plaintiff sets forth a brief procedural history of this matter as well as a short summary of her medical issues. (Docket no. 13, pp. 3-14.) In addition, the ALJ summarized Plaintiff's medical record (TR 17-27), and Defendant adopted the ALJ's recitation of the facts (docket no. 14, 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 met the insured status requirements of the Social Security Act through June 30, 2019 and did not engage in substantial gainful activity since January 27, 2014, the alleged onset date. (TR 17.) In addition, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: “degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine with spondylolisthesis, degenerative joint disease of the bilateral knees, morbid obesity, fibromyalgia, and affective disorder.” (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.) The ALJ determined that Plaintiff had the Residual Functional Capacity (“RFC”) to perform sedentary work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(a), subject to the following non-exertional limitations:

• Plaintiff can never climb ladders and scaffolds.
• Plaintiff can occasionally climb ramps and stairs up to one flight with the use of a handrail.
• Plaintiff can occasionally stoop, kneel, crouch, and crawl.
• Plaintiff requires a sit/stand option, defined as there is work that can be done in both the sitting and standing positions, such that the change in position will not cause the worker to go off task. After sitting for 30 minutes, Plaintiff should have the option to stand for up to 30 minutes; after standing for 30 minutes, Plaintiff should have the option to sit for up to 30 minutes.
• Plaintiff is limited to work involving simple, routine, and repetitive unskilled tasks performed at Specific Vocational Preparation (SVP) levels 1 or 2 as defined in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT), free of fast-paced ...

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.