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.

Herron v. Commissioner of Social Security

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

August 6, 2019

EVAN J. HERRON, Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.

          Sean F. Cox, District Judge

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          MONA K. MAJZOUB, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff Evan J. Herron 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. 17). 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. 17) be GRANTED, and that the case be dismissed in its entirety.

         II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         Plaintiff applied for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) on August 16, 2016, alleging that he has been disabled since August 1, 2015. (TR 151-56.) The Social Security Administration initially denied Plaintiff's claims on September 28, 2016. (TR 89-92.) On January 8, 2018, Plaintiff appeared with counsel and testified at a hearing before Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Dennis M. Matulewicz. (TR 28-52.)

         On February 15, 2018, the ALJ issued an unfavorable decision on Plaintiff's claims. (TR 11-24.) Plaintiff requested review by the Appeals Council, which was denied on May 23, 2018. (TR 1-3.) On July 11, 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. 17.)

         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. 4-8.) In addition, the ALJ summarized Plaintiff's medical record (TR 16-23), and Defendant adopted the ALJ's recitation of the facts (docket no. 17, p. 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 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 had not performed substantial gainful activity since the application date. (TR 16.) In addition, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: “morbid obesity, major depressive disorder, left eye blindness (from 2000 gunshot wound), chronic pain syndrome, mild intermittent asthma, left foot early arthritic changes, generalized anxiety disorder, and affective 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 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. (Id.) The ALJ determined that Plaintiff had the Residual Functional Capacity (“RFC”) to perform sedentary work as defined in 20 C.F.R. 404.1567(a), subject to the following non-exertional limitations:

■ Plaintiff can lift up to five pounds frequently and up to ten pounds occasionally.
■ Plaintiff can sit for six hours of an eight-hour workday and stand/walk for two hours of an eight-hour workday.
■ Plaintiff cannot climb ladders or scaffolds.
■ Plaintiff can only occasionally stoop, crouch, and climb ramps or stairs.
■ Plaintiff cannot kneel or crawl.
■ Plaintiff should avoid walking on uneven surfaces.
■ Plaintiff must avoid concentrated exposure to extreme heat, extreme cold, wetness, humidity, vibrations, fumes, odors, ...

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.