Source: http://mi.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190612_0002588.EMI.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-06-05 04:16:59
Document Index: 376185554

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 405', '§ 636', 'art, 475', '§ 1382', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 416']

MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (R. 8, 10)
In light of the entire record in this case, I suggest that substantial evidence does not support Defendant Commissioner of Social Security's determination that Plaintiff Howard Balakovich is not disabled. Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, (R. 8), be GRANTED, the Commissioner's Motion, (R. 10), be DENIED, and the case be remanded to the Commissioner under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(b)(3), and by Notice of Reference, this case was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge to review the final decision of the Commissioner denying Plaintiff's claim for Title II Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) and Supplemental Income Security Benefits (SSI). (R. 2.) The case is before the Court upon the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. (R. 8, 10.)
Plaintiff filed applications for DIB and SSI benefits on February 18, 2015, alleging that his disability began on November 14, 2014. (R. 7 at PageID.218, 225.) The Commissioner denied the claim. (Id. at PageID.140, 141.) Plaintiff then requested a hearing before an ALJ, which was held on March 23, 2017. (Id. at PageID.78-114.) The ALJ issued a decision on May 2, 2017, finding Plaintiff not disabled during the relevant period. (Id. at PageID.46-63.) On February 26, 2018, the Appeals Council denied review, (R.7 at PageID.37-39), and Plaintiff filed for judicial review of the final decision on April 25, 2018. (R. 1). He then filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment on July 10, 2018, (R. 8), the Commissioner countered with its own Motion on September 6, 2018, (R. 10), and Plaintiff responded to the Commissioner's motion. (R.11.)
Disability benefits are available only to those with a “disability.” Colvin v. Barnhart, 475 F.3d 727, 730 (6th Cir. 2007). “Disability” means the inability
42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(A). The Commissioner's regulations provide that disability is to be determined through the application of a five-step sequential analysis:
20 C.F.R. § 404.1520; see also Heston v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 245 F.3d 528, 534 (6th Cir. 2001). “Through step four, the claimant bears the burden of proving the existence and severity of limitations caused by [his or] her impairments and the fact that [he or] she is precluded from performing [his or] her past relevant work.” Jones v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 336 F.3d 469, 474 (6th Cir. 2003). The claimant must provide evidence establishing the residual functional capacity, which “is the most [the claimant] can still do despite [his or her] limitations, ” and is measured using “all the relevant evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1).
The burden transfers to the Commissioner if the analysis reaches the fifth step without a finding that the claimant is not disabled. Combs v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 459 F.3d 640, 643 (6th Cir. 2006). At the fifth step, the Commissioner is required to show that “other jobs in significant numbers exist in the national economy that [the claimant] could perform given [his or] her RFC and considering relevant vocational factors.” Rogers, 486 F.3d at 241 (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)(4)(v), (g)).
Following the five-step sequential analysis, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff was not disabled. (R. 7 at PageID.46-68.) At step one, the ALJ found that Plaintiff met the insured status requirements through September 30, 2019, and that he had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since his alleged onset date of November 14, 2014. (Id. at PageID.48.) At step two, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: essential hypertension, peripheral vertigo, cervical disc herniation without myelopathy status post-surgery, right shoulder impingement and mild degenerative change, bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, obesity, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). (Id.) The ALJ also decided, however, that these impairments did not meet or medically equal a listed impairment at step three. (Id. at PageID.50-52.) Next, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform
light work as defined in 20 C.F.R. 404.1567(b) and 416.967(b) except the claimant can frequently handle and finger with the left and right upper extremities and can frequently reach overhead with the right upper extremity. He can occasionally climb ramps and stairs, kneel, crouch, crawl, stoop, and balance but never climb ladders, ropes, and scaffolds. The claimant can never be exposed to vibrations, unprotected heights, and moving machinery parts. He is able to understand, remember, and carry out simple instructions and make simple work-related decisions. He can occasionally ...