Source: http://mi.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180226_0000995.EMI.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 03:52:49+00:00

Document:
For the reasons that follow, it is RECOMMENDED that the Court DENY Plaintiff's motion for remand pursuant to Sentence Four (DE 15), GRANT Defendant's motion for summary judgment (DE 17), and AFFIRM the Commissioner's decision.
Plaintiff, Robert Hoon, Jr., brings this action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3) for review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying his applications for disability insurance (DI) and supplemental security income (SSI) benefits. This matter is before the United States Magistrate Judge for a Report and Recommendation on Plaintiff's motion for remand pursuant to Sentence Four (DE 15), the Commissioner's cross-motion for summary judgment (DE 17), Plaintiff's reply (DE 18) and the administrative record (DE 10).
Plaintiff requested a hearing by an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). (R. at 118-121.) ALJ Stephen Marchioro held a hearing, and, on January 13, 2016, determined that Plaintiff was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. (R. at 22-86.) On January 24, 2017, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review. (R. at 1-7, 21.) Thus, ALJ Marchioro's decision became the Commissioner's final decision.
The administrative record contains approximately 412 pages of medical records, of which Exhibits 1F through 17F were available to the ALJ at the time of his January 13, 2016 decision. (R. at 38, 257-668.) These records will be discussed in detail, as necessary, below.
. . . to perform sedentary work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(a) and 416.967(a) except he can operate foot controls bilaterally occasionally [exertional limitations]. The claimant is never able to climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds, but he is able to climb ramps and stairs frequently. The claimant is able to balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, and crawl occasionally [postural limitations]. He must avoid all exposure to excessive vibration, the use of unguarded moving machinery, and all exposure to unprotected heights [environmental limitations].
The District Court has jurisdiction to review the Commissioner's final administrative decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). When reviewing a case under the Social Security Act, the Court “must affirm the Commissioner's decision if it ‘is supported by substantial evidence and was made pursuant to proper legal standards.'” Rabbers v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 582 F.3d 647, 651 (6th Cir. at 2009) (quoting Rogers v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 486 F.3d 234, 241 (6th Cir. at 2007)); see also 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (“[t]he findings of the Commissioner of Social Security as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive . . . .”). Under this standard, “substantial evidence is defined as ‘more than a scintilla of evidence but less than a preponderance; it is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.'” Rogers, 486 F.3d at 241 (quoting Cutlip v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 25 F.3d 284, 286 (6th Cir. 1994)). In deciding whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ's decision, the court does “not try the case de novo, resolve conflicts in evidence or decide questions of credibility.” Bass v. McMahon, 499 F.3d 506, 509 (6th Cir. 2007); Rogers, 486 F.3d at 247 (“It is of course for the ALJ, and not the reviewing court, to evaluate the credibility of witnesses, including that of the claimant.”).
Although the substantial evidence standard is deferential, it is not trivial. The Court must “‘take into account whatever in the record fairly detracts from [the] weight'” of the Commissioner's decision. TNS, Inc. v. NLRB, 296 F.3d 384, 395 (6th Cir. 2002) (quoting Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 487 (1951)). Nevertheless, “if substantial evidence supports the ALJ's decision, this Court defers to that finding ‘even if there is substantial evidence in the record that would have supported an opposite conclusion.'” Blakley v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 581 F.3d 399, 406 (quoting Key v. Callahan, 109 F.3d 270, 273 (6th Cir. 1997)). Finally, even if the ALJ's decision meets the substantial evidence standard, “‘a decision of the Commissioner will not be upheld where the SSA fails to follow its own regulations and where that error prejudices a claimant on the merits or deprives the claimant of a substantial right.'” Rabbers, 582 F.3d at 651 (quoting Bowen v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 478 F.3d 742, 746 (6th Cir. 2007)).

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