Source: http://mi.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180320_0000919.EMI.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 03:54:18+00:00

Document:
Plaintiff Lynn Solack appeals from Defendant Commissioner of Social Security's decision denying her disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Magistrate Judge David R. Grand issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) advising the court to deny Defendant's motion for summary judgment, grant in part Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment to the extent it seeks remand, deny in part the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment to the extent it seeks an award of benefits, and remand the case to the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) for further proceedings consistent with the R&R. (Dkt. #12.) Defendant filed an objection. (Dkt. #14.) The court has determined that a hearing is unnecessary. E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(f)(2). For the reasons stated below and in the well-reasoned R&R, the court will overrule Defendant's objection, adopt the R&R, and remand for further proceedings.
Where a party files timely objections to an R&R, the court is required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667 (1980); Gant v. Genco I, Inc., 274 F. App'x 429, 431- 32 (6th Cir. 2008). The court then re-examines all evidence relevant to the objected-to portion of the R&R and determines whether the recommendation should be accepted, rejected, or modified in whole or in part. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
“The filing of objections provides the district court with the opportunity to consider the specific contentions of the parties and to correct any errors immediately, ” United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 950 (6th Cir. 1981), enabling the court “to focus attention on those issues-factual and legal-that are at the heart of the parties' dispute, ” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 147 (1985). As a result, “‘[o]nly those specific objections to the magistrate's report made to the district court will be preserved for appellate review; making some objections but failing to raise others will not preserve all the objections a party may have.'” Alspaugh v. McConnell, 643 F.3d 162, 166 (6th Cir. 2011) (quoting Willis v. Sullivan, 931 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 1991)).
The court recounts only those portions of this case that are relevant to its opinion.
According to the Commissioner's regulations, “disability” for the purpose of disability insurance benefits is determined through the application of a five-step sequential analysis. Step Three of that analysis asks, in part, whether the claimant has a severe impairment that “meets a listed impairment” in the Commissioner's regulations. Heston v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 245 F.3d 528, 534 (6th Cir. 2001).
In February 2014, a state agency medical consultant opined that Plaintiff did not meet or medically equal Listing 1.02 in the Listing of Impairments. The ALJ, apparently relying on this opinion, found that Plaintiff did not meet or medically equal the specific criteria of any of the listed impairments.
Defendant raises one objection Judge Grand's R&R: that it ignores the ALJ's discretion to determine whether an updated opinion was necessary and disregards the ALJ's credibility findings. The court disagrees and will overrule the objection.
An ALJ “must obtain an updated medical opinion from a medical expert” when “additional medical evidence is received that in the opinion of the administrative law judge . . . may change the State agency medical . . . consultant's finding that the impairment(s) is not equivalent in severity to any impairment in the Listing of Impairments.” SSR 96-6p; Courter v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 479 F. App'x 713, 723 (6th Cir. 2012). The Commissioner has discretion to decide whether an updated decision is warranted. Id. Thus, where a Commissioner explicitly or implicitly decides “that the records would not change the opinions of the experts, ” no updated medical opinion is necessary. Id.

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