United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
R. Grand Judge
OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
, GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
, AND DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
J. MICHELSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Rheanna Dean applied for social security disability benefits
based on a number of medical conditions. An Administrative
Law Judge (ALJ), acting on behalf of the Commissioner of
Social Security, decided that Dean was not disabled for
purposes of receiving benefits. Dean then filed this suit
challenging the ALJ's determination that she is not
disabled under the Social Security Act.
Court referred all pretrial proceedings to Magistrate Judge
David R. Grand, who issued a Report and Recommendation to
grant Dean's motion for summary judgment and to deny the
Commissioner's. (ECF No. 21.) The Commissioner objects.
The Court will adopt the recommendation of the magistrate
judge and remand the case for further adjudication for the
reasons explained below.
a young woman who suffers from various medical conditions,
including bipolar disorder, autism spectrum disorder,
posttraumatic stress disorder, panic disorder without
agoraphobia, anxiety disorder, attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder, and an organic mental disorder. (ECF
No. 9-2, PageID.40.) Dean alleges that her disability began
on September 1, 2001, when she was five years old. (ECF No.
9-6, PageID.209.) She graduated from high school and has
briefly worked at two different jobs. (ECF No. 9-2,
PageID.61-62.) Dean quit both jobs, including one at
Arby's, “because the tasks were too complicated,
and the pace was too quick.” (ECF No. 22, PageID.792
(citing ECF No. 9-2, PageID.62.)) Dean has also struggled
with “everyday tasks like following simple
directions” (ECF No. 9-2, PageID.62-63) and
“getting along with people” (ECF No. 9-2,
support of her application for benefits, Dean submitted
records from several medical providers, six of whom are at
issue here. The first report is from Dr. Andrew Maltz, a
licensed psychologist who evaluated Dean for special
education services during her senior year of high school.
(See ECF No. 9-9, PageID.386.) Between 2015 and 2017
Dean was treated by three psychiatrists, Dr. Bardia Gholami,
Dr. Manuel Dumlao, and Dr. Ali Ibrahim. (See ECF,
No. 9-10; ECF No. 9-11; ECF No. 9-12.) Between 2016 and 2017
Dean also attended therapy with social workers Caryn Schutte
and Jennifer Gavrila. (See ECF No. 9-11; ECF No.
9-12.) Both Schutte and Gavrila completed medical source
statements evaluating Dean's impairments. (ECF No. 9-11,
PageID.569; ECF No. 9-12, PageID.676.)
submitted her application for disability benefits on October
21, 2015. (ECF No. 9-6, PageID.209.) After her initial claim
was denied, Dean appeared at a hearing before an
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) on July 11, 2017. The ALJ
issued an unfavorable decision the following month. On March
10, 2018, the Appeals Council denied review and Dean filed
this action on May 14, 2018.
Court performs a de novo review of those portions of
the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation to which
the parties have objected. See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b). The Court need not and does not perform a de
novo review of the report's unobjected-to findings.
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985);
Garrison v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, No. 10-13990,
2012 WL 1278044, at *8 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 16, 2012).
Court must affirm the Commissioner's conclusions absent a
determination that the Commissioner has failed to apply the
correct legal standards or has made findings of fact
unsupported by substantial evidence in the record.”
Warner v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 375 F.3d 387, 390
(6th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). “The substantial
evidence standard is met if a reasonable mind might accept
the relevant evidence as adequate to support a
conclusion.” Longworth v. Comm'r of Soc.
Sec., 402 F.3d 591, 595 (6th Cir. 2005) (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted). Supporting a conclusion
means there is more than a “scintilla” of
evidence but it need not amount to a preponderance. See
Rogers v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 486 F.3d 234, 241
(6th Cir. 2007).
number of reasons, the Magistrate Judge determined that the
ALJ's “conclusion that Dean was not disabled under
the Act is not supported by substantial evidence.” (ECF
No. 22, PageID.790.) The ...