Source: http://mi.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180329_0001090.EMI.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 04:09:30+00:00

Document:
Mag. Mona K. Majzoub Judge.
Plaintiff Amanda L. Thrushman (Plaintiff) applied for disability benefits on May 13, 2014 alleging disabilities beginning March 1, 2012. Her application was initially denied on September 4, 2014. Plaintiff requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). The hearing was held on December 3, 2015, after which the ALJ determined that Plaintiff was not disabled. The Appeals Council denied review. Plaintiff sought review in this Court on January 30, 2017. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub. The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. Judge Majzoub issued a report recommending that the Court grant Defendant's motion and deny Plaintiff's motion. Plaintiff filed timely objections to Judge Majzoub's report and recommendation.
Judge Majzoub reviewed Plaintiff's factual summary (ECF No. 18 at 6-12) as well as the ALJ's factual summary (TR. at 18-20, 21). She determined that both summaries were consistent with the evidentiary record and therefore incorporated both by reference. Rep. & Rec. at 2. As neither party has objected to those factual summaries, they will be incorporated by reference herein as well. Notably, the ALJ found that Plaintiff met the insured status requirements of the Social Security Act and that Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the alleged onset of the disability. TR. at 15. The ALJ found that Plaintiff suffered from the following severe impairments: degenerative disc disease of the cervical spine, fibromyalgia, Grave's disease/hyperthyroidism, and migraine headaches. Id. The ALJ ultimately determined that Plaintiff was unable to perform past relevant work under 20 CFR 404.1565, but that she had the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b). Id. at 17-20.
When reviewing a case under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the 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.” Walters v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 127 F.3d 525, 528 (6th Cir. 1997) (citations omitted). Substantial evidence is “such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. (citation omitted).
Under the Social Security Act (“The Act”), a claimant is entitled to disability benefits if he can demonstrate that he is in fact disabled. Colvin v. Barnhart, 475 F.3d 727, 730 (6th Cir. 2007). Disability is defined by the Act as an “inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1505, 416.05. A plaintiff carries the burden of establishing that he meets this definition. 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(5)(A); see also Dragon v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 470 F. App'x 454, 459 (6th Cir. 2012).
First, the claimant must demonstrate that he has not engaged in substantial gainful activity during the period of disability. Second, the claimant must show that he suffers from a severe medically determinable physical or mental impairment. Third, if the claimant shows that his impairment meets or medically equals one of the impairments listed in 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, he is deemed disabled. Fourth, the ALJ determines whether, based on the claimant's residual functional capacity, the claimant can perform his past relevant work, in which case the claimant is not disabled. Fifth, the ALJ determines whether, based on the claimant's residual functional capacity, as well as his age, education, and work experience, the claimant can make an adjustment to other work, in which case the claimant is not disabled.
Courter v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 479 F. App'x 713, 719 (6th Cir. 2012) (quoting Wilson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 378 F.3d 541, 548 (6th Cir. 2004)). Through Step Four, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving the existence and severity of limitations caused by his impairments and the fact that he is precluded from performing his past relevant work. At Step Five, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to identify a significant number of jobs in the economy that accommodate the claimant's residual functional capacity (determined at step four) and vocational profile. See Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146 n. 5 (1987).

References: § 405
 v. 
 v. 
 § 423
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.