United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Honorable Gershwin A. Drain, Judge
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT [12, 14]
DAVID
R. GRAND UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff
Mary Gant-Holmes (âGant-Holmesâ) brings this action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), challenging the final decision of
Defendant Commissioner of Social Security (âCommissionerâ)
denying her applications for Disability Insurance Benefits
(âDIBâ) and Supplemental Security Income (âSSIâ) under the
Social Security Act (the âActâ). Both parties have filed
summary judgment motions (Docs. #12, #14), which have been
referred to this Court for a Report and Recommendation
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
I.
RECOMMENDATION
For the
reasons set forth below, the Court finds that substantial
evidence supports the Administrative Law Judge's
(“ALJ”) conclusion that Gant-Holmes is not
disabled under the Act. Accordingly, the Court
RECOMMENDS that the Commissioner's
Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #14) be
GRANTED, Gant-Holmes's Motion for
Summary Judgment (Doc. #12) be
DENIED, and that pursuant to sentence four
of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the ALJ's decision be
AFFIRMED.
II.
REPORT
A.
Background
Gant-Holmes
was 59 years old at the time of her alleged onset date of
July 15, 2013, and at 5'6” tall weighed
approximately 196 pounds during the relevant time period.
(Tr. 207). She received her GED in 1990. (Tr. 36, 208). She
reported previous work as a babysitter, cashier, factory
assembler, factory utility worker, and resident care in a
nursing facility. (Tr. 37-39, 209). She now alleges
disability primarily as a result of spinal stenosis with
chronic back pain, uncontrolled type II diabetes, depression,
and hypertension. (Tr. 207).
After
Gant-Holmes's applications for DIB and SSI were denied at
the initial level on November 18, 2015[1] (Tr. 81, 89), she
timely requested an administrative hearing, which was held on
June 2, 2017 before ALJ Thomas L. Walters. (Tr. 32-47).
Gant-Holmes, who was represented by attorney[2] Samuel Earley,
testified at the hearing, as did vocational expert Heather
Benton. (Id.). On August 21, 2017, the ALJ issued a
written decision finding that Gant-Holmes is not disabled
under the Act. (Tr. 15-25). On May 16, 2018, the Appeals
Council denied review. (Tr. 1-3). Gant-Holmes timely filed
for judicial review of the final decision on July 9, 2018.
(Doc. #1).
The
Court has thoroughly reviewed the transcript in this matter,
including Gant-Holmes's medical record, function and
disability Reports, and testimony as to her conditions and
resulting limitations. Instead of summarizing that
information here, the Court will make references and provide
citations to the transcript as necessary in its discussion of
the parties' arguments.
B.
The ALJ's Application of the Disability Framework
Analysis
Under
the Act, DIB and SSI are available only for those who have a
“disability.” See Colvin v.
Barnhart, 475 F.3d 727, 730 (6th Cir. 2007). The Act
defines “disability” as 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
12 months.” 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A),
1382c(a)(3)(A). The Commissioner's regulations provide
that a disability is to be determined through the application
of a five-step sequential analysis:
Step One: If the claimant is currently engaged in substantial
gainful activity, benefits are denied without further
analysis.
Step Two: If the claimant does not have a severe impairment
or combination of impairments that “significantly
limits . . . physical or mental ability to do basic work
activities, ” ...