United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
DENISE
PAGE HOOD DISTRICT JUDGE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
MONA
K. MAJZOUB UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Plaintiff
Gena Myers 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. 12). This matter has been
referred to the undersigned for a Report and Recommendation
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). (Docket no. 3.)
The Court 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. 12) be GRANTED.
II.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff
protectively filed an application for supplemental security
income on October 21, 2015, alleging that she has been
disabled since February 1, 2015, due to epicondylitis in both
arms, an inability to lift with her right arm/shoulder, a
limited range of motion in her right arm, reconstructive
surgery on her right shoulder, osteoarthritis, degenerative
disc disease, a mesenteric mass, spinal stenosis in her
cervical/lumbar spine, nerve damage in her lumbar spine,
radiating pain down both legs, fibromyalgia, depression,
anxiety with panic attacks, syncope, and chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease. (TR 15, 82, 163-68, 196.) The Social
Security Administration denied Plaintiff's claims on May
18, 2016, and Plaintiff requested a de novo hearing.
(TR 63-82, 102-04.) On September 18, 2017, Plaintiff appeared
with a representative and testified at the hearing before
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) B. Lloyd Blair. (TR 35-62.)
The ALJ issued an unfavorable decision on November 20, 2017,
and the Appeals Council declined to review the decision. (TR
1-6, 15-28.) 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 5-11) and the ALJ (TR 17-27) have set forth
factual summaries of Plaintiff's medical record and the
hearing testimony. Defendant adopts the ALJ's recitation
of the facts. (Docket no. 12 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 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 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 application date of October 21, 2015, and
that Plaintiff suffered from the following severe
impairments: status post lumbar interbody fusion (February
2017), degenerative disc disease of the cervical spine,
degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine, cervicalgia,
right shoulder tendinosis, left shoulder rotator cuff
tendinosis, bilateral epicondylitis, and fibromyalgia. (TR
17.) The ALJ also found that Plaintiff's interstitial
cystitis, hypersomnia, major depressive disorder, generalized
anxiety disorder, and posttraumatic stress disorder were
non-severe impairments and that she did not have a medically
determinable respiratory impairment. (TR 17-20.)
Additionally, the ALJ found 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 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 416.967(b), except: the
claimant cannot use ladders, scaffolds, or ropes. She can
occasionally stoop, kneel, crouch, crawl, and climb ramps or
stairs. The claimant must avoid walking on uneven surfaces.
She cannot use torque, pneumatic, or power tools. The
claimant can frequently, but not constantly, handle and
finger. She can only occasionally bend, twist, and turn at
the waist or neck.
(TR 20-26.) 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 26-27.) Therefore, the ALJ
found that Plaintiff was not disabled under the Social
Security Act at any time since October 21, 2015, the date the
application was filed. (TR 15, 27.)
V.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
A.
Standard of Review
Pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), this Court has jurisdiction to
review the Commissioner's final decisions. Judicial
review of the Commissioner's decisions is limited to
determining whether his findings are supported by substantial
evidence and whether he employed the proper legal standards.
See Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971);
Walters v. Comm'r, 127 F.3d 525, 528 (6th Cir.
1997). Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla but less
than a preponderance; it is “‘such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion.'” Richardson, 402
U.S. at 401 (quoting Consolidated Edison Co. v.
NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)); Walters, 127
F.3d at 528. It is not the function of this Court to try
cases de novo, ...