United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
PAUL
D. BORMAN MAGISTRATE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
MONA
K. MAJZOUB, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff
Tammy Nidiffer 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. 15). Plaintiff has also
filed a reply brief in support of her Motion for Summary
Judgment. (Docket no. 16.) 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
undersigned 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. 15) be GRANTED.
II.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff
protectively filed applications for a period of disability,
disability insurance benefits, and supplemental security
income in November 2015, alleging that she has been disabled
since May 8, 2015, due to multiple sclerosis; fibromyalgia;
migraine headaches; pain in her lumbar spine, legs, hips, and
cervical spine; lumbar and cervical spine impairments;
pinched nerves in her cervical spine; radiating pain and
numbness in her arms and hands; depression; anxiety; and a
thyroid condition. (TR 15, 82-83, 206-19, 238.) The Social
Security Administration denied Plaintiff's claims on
April 6, 2016, and Plaintiff requested a de novo
hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). (TR 82-113,
150-51.) On August 9, 2017, Plaintiff appeared with a
representative and testified at a hearing before ALJ B. Lloyd
Blair; she also amended her alleged onset date to May 21,
2015. (TR 32-53, 233.) The ALJ subsequently issued an
unfavorable decision on November 3, 2017, and the Appeals
Council declined to review the ALJ's decision. (TR 1-6,
15-26.) Plaintiff then commenced this action for judicial
review, and the parties filed cross motions for summary
judgment, which are currently before the court.
III.
HEARING TESTIMONY AND MEDICAL EVIDENCE
Plaintiff
(docket no. 11 at 5-10) and the ALJ (TR 19-25) have set forth
detailed, factual summaries of Plaintiff's medical record
and the hearing testimony. Defendant relies on the facts as
summarized in the ALJ's decision. (Docket no. 15 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 between
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 had not engaged in substantial gainful
activity since the original alleged onset date of May 8,
2015, and that Plaintiff suffered from the following severe
impairments: paresthesia on the skin upper extremities,
fibromyalgia, lumbar spondylosis, migraine headaches,
acquired hypothyroidism, depression, and anxiety. (TR 18.)
Additionally, the ALJ determined 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 19-20.) The ALJ then found that Plaintiff had
the following residual functional capacity (RFC):
[C]laimant has the residual functional capacity to perform
light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) and 416.967(b)
except she should do no standing or walking more than 2 hours
per day; should have work that can be performed sitting or
standing and jobs allowing a change in position every 30
minutes; she should never use ladders, scaffolds, or ropes;
can occasionally use ramps, stairs, stoop, kneel, crouch,
crawl, or balance; should avoid concentrated exposure to
vibrations; can frequently but not constantly handle and
finger; should avoid exposure including dangerous and
unprotected machinery or heights; occasionally bend, twist,
and turn at the waist or neck; she should do no commercial
driving; never use foot controls; have only simple unskilled
work with only occasional contact with co-workers,
supervisors, and the public; no fast paced work or work where
the pace is set by another.
(TR 20-24.) Subsequently, in reliance on a 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 24-25.) Therefore, the ALJ
found that Plaintiff was not disabled under the Social
Security Act at any time from May 8, 2015, through the date
of the decision. (TR 16, 25-26.)
V.
...