United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
RICKY A. LOCKWOOD, Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.
Sean
F. Cox District Judge.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
MONA
K. MAJZOUB UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff
Ricky A. Lockwood 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. 14) 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. 14) be
GRANTED, that Defendant's Motion for
Summary Judgment (docket no. 15) be DENIED,
and that the case be remanded to the Commissioner under
sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
II.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On May
1, 2015, Plaintiff applied for Disability Insurance Benefits
(“DIB”) and Supplemental Security Income
(“SSI”), alleging that he has been disabled since
October 3, 2014. (TR 179-92.) The Social Security
Administration initially denied Plaintiff's claims on
October 1, 2015. (TR 93-108.) On June 22, 2017, Plaintiff
appeared with counsel and testified at a hearing before
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) John Loughlin.
(TR 34-68.) During the hearing, Plaintiff amended his alleged
onset date to September 12, 2015. (TR 38.)
On
October 17, 2017, the ALJ issued an unfavorable decision on
Plaintiff's claims. (TR 10-23.) Plaintiff requested
review by the Appeals Council, which was denied on July 17,
2018. (TR 1-3.) On August 20, 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. 14; 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. 14, pp.
7-16.) In addition, the ALJ summarized Plaintiff's
medical record (TR 12-21), and Defendant provided its own
summary of the facts (docket no. 15, pp. 4- 11). 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 meets the insured status
requirements of the Social Security Act through December 31,
2019 and that he had not performed substantial gainful
activity since September 12, 2015, the amended alleged onset
date. (TR 12.) In addition, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had
the following severe impairments: “lumbar degenerative
disc disease, scoliosis, lumbosacral facet joint arthropathy
with laminectomy, cervical degenerative disc disease with
fusion, left shoulder arthritis, cataract, presbyopia,
vestibular system dysfunction/benign positional vertigo,
seizure/pseudo-seizure disorder, major depressive disorder,
and anxiety.” (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. (TR 13.) The ALJ determined that
Plaintiff had the Residual Functional Capacity
(“RFC”) to perform light work as defined in 20
C.F.R. 404.1567(b), subject to the following non-exertional
limitations:
■ Plaintiff can frequently reach overhead with the left
and light ...