United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Victoria A. Roberts District Judge
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
MONA
K. MAJZOUB UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff
Douglas Meade 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. 13)
and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (docket no.
15). 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. 15) be GRANTED,
and that the case be dismissed in its entirety.
II.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff
applied for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”)
on January 26, 2015, alleging that he has been disabled since
June 1, 2008. (TR 307-312.) The Social Security
Administration initially denied Plaintiff's claims on
July 10, 2015. (TR 177-192.) On July 27, 2016, Plaintiff
appeared with counsel and testified at a hearing before
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Paul Sher. (TR
84-152.) Plaintiff appeared for a supplemental hearing before
the ALJ on June 21, 2017. (TR 38-81.)
On
September 5, 2017, the ALJ issued an unfavorable decision on
Plaintiff's claims. (TR 15-31.) Plaintiff requested
review by the Appeals Council, which was denied on March 16,
2018. (TR 1-3.) On May 1, 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. 15.)
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. 13, pp.
3-5.) In addition, the ALJ summarized Plaintiff's medical
record (TR 18-29), and Defendant provided its own recitation
of the facts (docket no. 15, pp. 4- 5). 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 application date. (TR 18.) In
addition, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had the following
severe impairments: “degenerative disc disease,
diabetes mellitus, hypertension, polyneuropathy, obesity,
major depressive disorder, panic disorder, left shoulder
tear, generalized anxiety disorder, and cocaine use
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 19.) 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 only occasionally stoop, kneel, crouch,
and crawl.
■ Plaintiff can occasionally reach overhead with his
left ...