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.

Anthony v. Commissioner of Social Security

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

June 18, 2019

MARK A. ANTHONY, Plaintiff
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.

          HONORABLE DAVID M. LAWSON JUDGE

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [ECF. NOS. 18, 22]

          ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff Mark A. Anthony appeals the final decision of defendant Commissioner of Social Security, which denied his application for supplemental security income (SSI) under the Social Security Act. Both parties have filed summary judgment motions, referred to this Court for a report and recommendation under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). After review of the record, the Court RECOMMENDS that:

• Anthony's motion [ECF No. 18] be GRANTED;
• the Commissioner's motion [ECF No. 22] be DENIED; and
• the ALJ's decision be REMANDED under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

         I. BACKGROUND

         A. Anthony's Background and Disability Application

         Born December 30, 1966, Anthony was 48 years old on the application date, March 23, 2015. [ECF No. 14-3, Tr. 59, 67]. He has past relevant work as a painter. [Id., Tr. 67]. Anthony claims disability from lower back pain, left shoulder pain and learning disorders. [ECF No. 14-6, Tr. 170].

         After a hearing during which Anthony and a vocational expert (VE) testified, the ALJ found that Anthony was not disabled. [ECF No. 14-2, Tr. 15-38; ECF No. 14-3, Tr. 57-68]. The Appeals Council denied review, making the ALJ's decision the final decision of the Commissioner. [ECF No. 14-2, Tr. 1-6]. Anthony timely filed for judicial review. [ECF No. 1].

         B. The ALJ's Application of the Disability Framework Analysis

         A “disability” is 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. § 1382c(a)(3)(A).

         The Commissioner determines whether an applicant is disabled by analyzing five sequential steps. First, if the applicant is “doing substantial gainful activity, ” he or she will be found not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4). Second, if the claimant has not had a severe impairment or a combination of such impairments for a continuous period of at least 12 months, no disability will be found. Id. Third, if the claimant's severe impairments meet or equal the criteria of an impairment set forth in the Commissioner's Listing of Impairments, the claimant will be found disabled. Id. If the fourth step is reached, the Commissioner considers its assessment of the claimant's residual functional capacity (RFC), and will find the claimant not disabled if he or she can still do past relevant work. Id. At the final step, the Commissioner reviews the claimant's RFC, age, education and work experiences, and determines whether the claimant could adjust to other work. Id. The claimant bears the burden of proof throughout the first four steps, but the burden shifts to the Commissioner if the fifth step is reached. Preslar v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 14 F.3d 1107, 1110 (6th Cir. 1994).

         Applying this framework, the ALJ concluded that Anthony was not disabled. At the first step, she found that Anthony had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the application date, March 23, 2015.

         [ECF No. 14-3, Tr. 59]. At the second step, she found that Anthony had the severe impairments of “learning disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), depression, osteoarthritis of the left shoulder, and degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine.” [Id.]. Next, the ALJ concluded that none of his impairments, either alone or in combination, met or medically equaled the severity of a listed impairment. [Id., Tr. 59-61]. Between the third and fourth steps, the ALJ found that Anthony had the RFC to perform light work, except that he could “never climb ladders, ropes or scaffolds, and only occasionally climb ramps or stairs, ” only occasionally stoop, kneel, crouch and crawl, and only “occasionally perform overhead reaching with his left upper extremity.” He was also “limited to only simple, routine and repetitive tasks performed in a low stress environment, which is defined as involving only simple work-related decisions; and with little to no changes in work setting or routine.” He also “requires the option to alternate between sitting and standing, spending no more than 20 minutes in each position.” [Id., Tr. 61]. At step four, the ALJ found that Anthony could not do his past relevant work as a painter. [Id., Tr. 67]. At the final step, after considering Anthony's age, education, work experience, RFC and the testimony of the VE, the ALJ determined that there were jobs in significant numbers that Anthony could perform, including positions as packager, machine tender and line attendant. [Id., Tr. 68].

         II. ...


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.