UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

TOYANNE L. HALL,

Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 15-12729

 Honorable John Corbett O’Meara

v. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford

 

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, 

Acting Commissioner of 

Social Security,

 

Defendant. 

_____________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR REMAND [R. 18] AND 

TO GRANT IN PART AND DENY IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [R. 16], MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON 

THE PLEADINGS [R. 17], AND MOTION TO SET ASIDE [R. 19]

Pro se plaintiff Toyanne L. Hall appeals a final decision of defendant 

Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying her application 

for disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) under the Social Security Act (the 

“Act”). Conceding that the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) erred below, the 

Commissioner moves the Court to reverse the ALJ’s decision and remand 

the case for further administrative proceedings. [R. 18]. In three separate 

motions, Hall opposes the Commissioner’s motion to remand and argues 

that the Court should reverse the ALJ’s decision for an immediate award of 

benefits. [R. 16; R. 17; R. 19]. For the reasons set forth below, the Court 

5:15-cv-12729-JCO-EAS Doc # 20 Filed 04/12/16 Pg 1 of 10 Pg ID 933
2

RECOMMENDS that:

• the Commissioner’s motion for remand [R. 18] be GRANTED;

• Hall’s motion for summary judgment [R. 16], motion for 

judgment on the pleadings [R. 17] and motion to set aside [R. 

19] be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The 

motions should be granted to the extent they seek reversal of 

the Commissioner’s decision but denied in all other respects, 

including their request to remand for an award of benefits; and

• the Commissioner’s decision be REVERSED and this case 

REMANDED for further administrative proceedings, pursuant 

to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

I. BACKGROUND

Hall filed an application for DIB alleging disability based on legal 

blindness and chronic fatigue, with an alleged disability onset date of 

August 22, 2007. [R. 14-6, Tr. 307]. In a decision dated November 23, 

2010, an ALJ found that from August 22, 2007 to August 2, 2010 Hall had 

severe impairments of refractive amblyopia of her right eye and blindness 

of her left eye, but was not disabled. [R. 14-3, Tr. 91]. The ALJ further 

found that beginning on August 3, 2010, Hall suffered from seizures and 

5:15-cv-12729-JCO-EAS Doc # 20 Filed 04/12/16 Pg 2 of 10 Pg ID 934
3

had the additional severe impairment of narcolepsy, the combination of 

which made her disabled under the Act. [Id., Tr. 91, 93].

The Appeals Council reviewed the ALJ’s decision per Hall’s request, 

and on July 26, 2012, it entered an order vacating the decision and 

remanding the case to the ALJ for further proceedings based upon finding 

that: (1) the medical evidence did not support that Hall suffered from 

seizures; (2) the extent of Hall’s limitations due to narcolepsy was unclear; 

(3) Hall did not suffer from blindness in the left eye, as her corrected visual 

acuity in the left eye was 20/20; and (4) the ALJ did not explain how Hall’s 

visual impairments would produce exertional limitations of her to light work. 

[R. 14-3, Tr. 101-03]. 

On remand, the ALJ found that Hall had severe impairments of 

history of narcolepsy, obstructive sleep apnea, and right eye vision loss; 

that Hall had the residual functional capacity to perform medium work, but 

that she could not read very fine print, and she had to avoid hazards such 

as unprotected heights, moving machinery and motor vehicle operation; 

and that Hall could perform past relevant work and was not disabled. [R. 

14-2, Tr. 11-17]. The Appeals Council denied review, making the ALJ’s 

decision the final decision of the Commissioner, and Hall timely filed for 

5:15-cv-12729-JCO-EAS Doc # 20 Filed 04/12/16 Pg 3 of 10 Pg ID 935
4

judicial review. [Id., Tr. 1-3; R. 1]. 

II. ANALYSIS

The fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) gives a district court 

“power to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a 

judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the 

Commissioner of Social Security, with or without remanding the cause for a 

rehearing.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Where, as here, the Commissioner 

concedes that the ALJ’s decision contains legal errors and cannot stand, 

the Court must decide whether to reverse the decision and remand for 

further proceedings or reverse the decision for an immediate award of 

benefits. 

Reversing the Commissioner’s decision for an immediate award of 

benefits is appropriate only where “‘all essential factual issues have been 

resolved and the record adequately establishes a plaintiff’s entitlement to 

benefits[.]’” See Krupa v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 366 F.Supp.2d 513, 518 

(6th Cir. 2005) (quoting Faucher v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 17 

F.3d 171, 176 (6th Cir. 1994)). A judicial award of benefits is proper only if

the proof of entitlement to benefits is overwhelming, or the proof of 

entitlement is strong and evidence to the contrary is lacking. Faucher, 17 

5:15-cv-12729-JCO-EAS Doc # 20 Filed 04/12/16 Pg 4 of 10 Pg ID 936
5

F.3d at 176; Mowery v. Heckler, 771 F.2d 966, 973 (6th Cir. 1985). 

Otherwise, the Court must remand for additional explanation and resolution 

of all essential factual issues. See Newkirk v. Shalala, 25 F.3d 316, 318 

(6th Cir. 1994).

Hall argues that there are no outstanding issues to be resolved and 

that the record demonstrates that she is disabled and entitled to benefits. 

The Commissioner contends that remand is warranted so that the Appeals 

Council can instruct the ALJ to, among other things, evaluate the opinion of 

Hall’s treating physician, Stephen Swetech, D.O., and explain the weight 

given to his opinion. The Court agrees with the Commissioner.

Here, the evidence in the record does not overwhelmingly establish 

that Hall is entitled to benefits. While Dr. Swetech opined that Hall’s 

narcolepsy, obesity, fatigue, vision impairment, and other impairments 

restricted her to never lifting more than 10 pounds, only occasionally lifting 

10 pounds or less and only standing, walking and sitting for two hours each 

in one day [R. 14-8, Tr. 583-85], two consulting physicians who reviewed 

the record opined that Hall’s impairments did not result in functional 

limitations or restrictions that are equivalent to a person who is disabled [R. 

14-7, Tr. 538-57].

5:15-cv-12729-JCO-EAS Doc # 20 Filed 04/12/16 Pg 5 of 10 Pg ID 937
6

After reviewing the medical evidence, Francis B. Buda, M.D. 

prepared a medical interrogatory concluding that Hall had the impairments 

of unilateral visual impairment and history of narcolepsy and obstructive 

sleep apnea. [R. 14-7, Tr. 538]. Dr. Buda opined that Hall’s visual 

impairment was non-severe based on the fact that she drives and surfs the 

internet. [Id., Tr. 539, citing R. 14-6, Tr. 327]. Additionally, Dr. Buda stated 

that he could not determine the severity of Hall’s narcolepsy to analyze it 

under a specific listing because she was not receiving the requisite ongoing 

treatment and was not taking any medication, and that the medical records 

did not support a diagnosis of seizures. [Id., Tr. 539-40]. In a medical 

source statement regarding the ability to do work-related activities, Dr. 

Buda opined that Hall had no functional limitations other than that she 

could never climb ladders or scaffolds, never operate a motor vehicle, and 

never be exposed to unprotected heights or moving mechanical parts. [Id., 

Tr. 542-47]. 

The second consulting physician, Jeffrey A. Horwitz, M.D., only 

evaluated Hall’s visual impairment. He found that Hall had severely 

reduced vision in her right eye but that her visual acuity in her left eye was 

between 20/20 and 20/40. [R. 14-7, Tr. 548-50]. Based on her visual 

5:15-cv-12729-JCO-EAS Doc # 20 Filed 04/12/16 Pg 6 of 10 Pg ID 938
7

impairment, Dr. Horwitz similarly opined that Hall should not be exposed to 

unprotected heights, moving mechanical parts or operating a motor vehicle, 

and that while she can read ordinary newspaper or book print, she would 

have trouble with very fine print. [Id., Tr. 550, 554-55]. 

Although Dr. Swetech’s records and opinion may support a finding 

that Hall is disabled, this is not a case where proof of entitlement to benefits 

is overwhelming or proof of entitlement to benefits is strong and evidence 

to the contrary is lacking. In addition to the contradictory opinions of Dr. 

Buda and Dr. Horwitz, Hall’s own statements support a finding that proof of 

entitlement to benefits is not overwhelming. In her function report, Hall 

stated that, among other activities, she spent three to five hours several 

days per week making her own meals; she did housework two times per 

week for the entire day; she shopped three to five times a month for eight 

to ten hours; she “surfs” on her computer and walks often; and she goes to 

bible study twice a week for four hours total and volunteers twice a week 

for one to two hours. [R. 14-6, Tr. 323-30]. 

Because essential factual issues have not been resolved and the 

record does not adequately establish Hall’s entitlement to benefits, a 

judicial award of benefits is not appropriate. See Faucher, 17 F.3d at 176. 

5:15-cv-12729-JCO-EAS Doc # 20 Filed 04/12/16 Pg 7 of 10 Pg ID 939
8

Rather, as the Commissioner suggests, this case should be “remanded to 

the Appeals Council, which will instruct the [ALJ] to: 1) evaluate Dr. 

Swetech’s opinion, and provide an explanation for the weight given; 2) 

further consider Plaintiff’s maximum residual functional capacity, with 

specific reference to the evidence of record; and 3) if warranted, obtain 

supplemental evidence from a vocational expert.” [See R. 18, PgID 915].

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court RECOMMENDS that the 

Commissioner’s motion for remand [R. 18] be GRANTED; Hall’s motions 

[R. 16; R. 17; R. 19] be GRANTED to the extent they seek reversal of the 

Commissioner’s decision but DENIED in all other respects, including to the 

extent they seek an immediate award of benefits; and the Commissioner’s 

decision be REVERSED and this matter REMANDED for further 

proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

s/Elizabeth A. Stafford

ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD

United States Magistrate Judge

Dated: April 12, 2016

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES REGARDING OBJECTIONS

Either party to this action may object to and seek review of this 

Report and Recommendation, but must act within fourteen days of service 

5:15-cv-12729-JCO-EAS Doc # 20 Filed 04/12/16 Pg 8 of 10 Pg ID 940
9

of a copy hereof as provided for in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 72(b)(2). Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any 

further right of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Howard v. 

Secretary of HHS, 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991); United States v. Walters, 

638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). Filing objections which raise some issues but 

fail to raise others with specificity will not preserve all objections that party 

might have to this Report and Recommendation. Willis v. Secretary of 

HHS, 931 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed'n of Teachers 

Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). A copy of any objection 

must be served upon this Magistrate Judge. E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2).

Each objection must be labeled as “Objection #1,” “Objection #2,” 

etc., and must specify precisely the provision of this Report and 

Recommendation to which it pertains. Not later than fourteen days after 

service of objections, the non-objecting party must file a response to 

the objections, specifically addressing each issue raised in the objections in 

the same order and labeled as “Response to Objection #1,” “Response to 

Objection #2,” etc. The response must be concise and proportionate in 

length and complexity to the objections, but there is otherwise no page 

5:15-cv-12729-JCO-EAS Doc # 20 Filed 04/12/16 Pg 9 of 10 Pg ID 941
10

limitation. If the Court determines that any objections are without merit, it 

may rule without awaiting the response.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served 

upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF 

System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses 

disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on April 12, 2016.

s/Marlena Williams

MARLENA WILLIAMS

Case Manager

5:15-cv-12729-JCO-EAS Doc # 20 Filed 04/12/16 Pg 10 of 10 Pg ID 942