United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Honorable Victoria A. Roberts Judge
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT [ECF. NOS. 10, 11]
ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Perry Cameron 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 finds that the administrative
law judge's (ALJ) decision is supported by substantial
evidence and thus RECOMMENDS that:
• Cameron's motion [ECF No. 10] be
• the Commissioner's motion [ECF No. 11] be
• the ALJ's decision be AFFIRMED
under to sentence four and sentence six of 42 U.S.C. §
Cameron's Background and Disability Application
November 30, 1970, Cameron was 44 years old on the
application date, October 24, 2015. [ECF No. 8-2, Tr. 17,
23]. He has past relevant work as a cab driver, flower
delivery man and security driver. [Id., Tr. 22].
Cameron claims disability from neck, shoulder and lower back
pain, knee replacement, cardiac condition, arthritis, ulcer,
and depression. [ECF No. 8-3, Tr. 81].
hearing during which Cameron and a vocational expert (VE)
testified, the ALJ found that Cameron was not disabled. [ECF
No. 8-2, Tr. 15-24, 32-62]. The Appeals Council denied
review, making the ALJ's decision the final decision of
the Commissioner. [ECF No. 8-2, Tr. 1-6]. Cameron timely
filed for judicial review. [ECF No. 1].
The ALJ's Application of the Disability Framework
“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).
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).
this framework, the ALJ concluded that Cameron was not
disabled. At the first step, she found that Cameron had not
engaged in substantial gainful activity since the application
date, October 24, 2015. [ECF No. 8-2, Tr. 17]. At ...