Source: http://mi.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180214_0001000.EMI.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 04:14:11+00:00

Document:
MONA K. MAJZOUB, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Plaintiff Frank Pitts seeks judicial review of Defendant Commissioner of Social Security's determination that he is not entitled to social security benefits for his 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. 14) and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (docket no. 17). Plaintiff has also filed a reply brief in support of his Motion for Summary Judgment. (Docket no. 18.) 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. 4.) 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.
For the reasons that follow, it is recommended that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (docket no. 14) be DENIED and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (docket no. 17) be GRANTED.
Plaintiff protectively filed applications for a period of disability, disability insurance benefits, and supplemental security income on April 11, 2012 and May 3, 2012, respectively, alleging that he has been disabled since September 2, 2005, due to a learning disability, vision problems, stomach ulcers, and pain in his knees. (TR 114-15, 250-58, 295.) The Social Security Administration denied Plaintiff's claims on July 26, 2012, and Plaintiff requested a de novo hearing. (TR 87-115, 156-57.) On July 10, 2013, Plaintiff appeared with a representative and testified at the hearing before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jerome B. Blum. (TR 60-86.) The ALJ issued an unfavorable decision on September 21, 2013, but the Appeals Council remanded the matter for further consideration of Plaintiff's maximum residual functional capacity (RFC) and of whether drug addiction and alcoholism are contributing factors to the finding of disability. (TR 116-44.) On remand, Plaintiff appeared with a representative and testified at another hearing before the ALJ on August 20, 2015, at which Plaintiff amended his alleged onset date to July 1, 2014. (TR 36-59.) The ALJ then issued another unfavorable decision on September 18, 2015, which the Appeals Council declined to review. (TR 1-6, 15-29.) Plaintiff subsequently commenced this action for judicial review, and the parties filed cross motions for summary judgment, which are currently before the Court.
Plaintiff (docket no. 14 at 5-9), Defendant (docket no. 17 at 5-7), and the ALJ (TR 19-20, 21-22, 23-27, 28) have set forth detailed, factual summaries of Plaintiff's medical record and the hearing testimony. Defendant also incorporates the ALJ's recitation of the facts into her brief. (Docket no. 17 at 7.) Having conducted an independent review of Plaintiff's medical record and the hearing transcript, the undersigned finds that there are no material inconsistencies between 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.
[C]laimant has the residual functional capacity to perform sedentary work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(a) and 416.967(a), except such work must be unskilled in nature and allow for a sit/stand option exercisable at the claimant's discretion.
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, resolve conflicts in the evidence, or decide questions of credibility. See Brainard v. Sec'y of Health and Human Servs., 889 F.2d 679, 681 (6th Cir. 1989); Garner v. Heckler, 745 F.2d 383, 387 (6th Cir. 1984).

References: § 405
 § 636
 § 405
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.