Leaphart v. Social Security, Commissioner of

Filing 18

ORDER Overruling Objection 17 ; Adopting Report and Recommendation 16 ; Granting 15 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Social Security, Commissioner of; and Denying 10 Motion for Summary Judgment, Motion to Remand filed by Kirk Leaphart. Signed by District Judge Stephen J. Murphy, III. (CCoh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

KIRK LEAPHART,
Case No. 11-cv-10910
Plaintiff,
HONORABLE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
/
ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTION (docket no. 17), ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION (docket no. 16), DENYING LEAPHART’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (docket no. 10), AND GRANTING
THE GOVERNMENT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (docket no. 15)
The Social Security Administration ("SSA") denied disability benefits under Title II of
the Social Security Act to Evan Leaphart in a decision issued by an administrative law
judge ("ALJ") on February 26, 2009. The Appeals Council affirmed. Leaphart appealed the
SSA's ruling by filing a lawsuit in this Court, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The Court
referred the matter to a magistrate judge, and the parties filed cross-motions for summary
judgment. In a Report and Recommendation ("Report") issued on November 16, 2011, the
magistrate judge recommended denying Leaphart's motion and granting the motion filed
by the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner").
Leaphart, who is representing himself in this matter, filed an objection to the Report.
He argues that the magistrate judge's conclusion that Leaphart does not qualify for
disability benefits was erroneous. The Court finds this objection lacks merit. Accordingly,
it will adopt the Report, enter judgment in favor of the Commissioner, and dismiss this case.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
Recommendations on dispositive motions given by a magistrate judge are reviewed
pursuant to Civil Rule 72(b). The district judge who referred the motion is only required to
perform a de novo review of the magistrate judge’s findings if the parties "serve and file
specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations." Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(2). In this case, Monville objected to four specific findings made by the magistrate
judge. Those findings will be reviewed de novo by the Court.
In an application for disability benefits, the burden lies with the applicant to establish
an entitlement to benefits. Wyatt v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 974 F.2d 680, 683
(6th Cir. 1992). The Court only reviews the ALJ's determination to see if it is supported by
"substantial evidence" and based on the proper legal standards. Brainard v. Sec'y of Health
& Human Servs., 889 F.2d 679 (6th Cir. 1989). This standard gives great deference to the
ALJ's conclusions. It is not the Court's role to displace the ALJ's weighing of the facts with
its own view of the evidence unless the ALJ's view is completely unfounded. See id. ("We
do not review the evidence de novo, make credibility determinations nor weigh the
evidence.").
DISCUSSION
The SSA denied Leaphart disability benefits at "Step 1" of the canonical five-step
benefits-determination process because it determined he did not have "disability insured
status," as required by statute. 20 C.F.R. § 404.130(a).1 To obtain "disability insured
status," an individual must work for a legally-prescribed period of time at a certain income

1

The SSA also found that Leaphart did not meet the other requirement for disability
benefits of being "fully insured," because he had not reached the age of twenty-one when
he alleged his disability began. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.110; A.R. 4. The Court agrees, but
because the Report focuses on "disability insured status," and resolution of that issue is
sufficient to grant the Commissioner's motion, the Court will not discuss this issue further.
2

level so he can "pay into" the Social Security system through a tax on their income. The
SSA measures an applicant's contribution by the quarterly credit, or "QC," method, which
awards a maximum of four credits per year based on annual income. The SSA has four
different rules for determining whether an applicant has earned enough QCs to obtain
"disability insured status." Only two are relevant here,2 and the Court will review them
briefly to show that the ALJ and magistrate judge properly denied benefits to Leaphart.
Under Rule I, also known as the "20/40 Rule," an applicant qualifies for benefits if he
has at least twenty QCs in the forty-quarter (or ten-year) period ending with the quarter in
which he became disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.130(b). Leaphart became disabled in 1978.
He earned one QC in 1972, 1973, and 1974, and three QCs in 1976. See A.R. 3, 41. This
is not sufficient to reach the twenty QCs required, so Rule I is inapplicable.
Rule II applies to individuals like Leaphart who became disabled before the age of
thirty-one. It makes an individual eligible for benefits if he qualified for a QC in one-half of
the calendar quarters between his twenty-first and thirty-first birthdays. 20 C.F.R. §
404.130(c). But Leaphart became disabled prior to his twenty-first birthday. He turned
twenty-one in 1979, but alleges a disability-onset date of 1978. A.R. 3. The early onset of
Leaphart's disability therefore precludes him from claiming insured status pursuant to this
rule.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
The Court finds that the Report's reasoning and conclusions are sound. Accordingly,
it will grant the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment, deny Leaphart's motion, and
dismiss this case.

2

Rule III covers individuals who had a "closed" period of disability prior to age 31, and
then became disabled again at a later date. 20 C.F.R. § 404.130(d). Rule IV covers
statutorily blind individuals. Id. § 404.130(e).
3

WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that Leaphart's objection (docket no. 17) is
OVERRULED and the Report (docket no. 16) is ADOPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment
(docket no. 15) is GRANTED, and Leaphart's motion for summary judgment (docket no.
10) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.

s/Stephen J. Murphy, III
STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III
United States District Judge
Dated: December 19, 2011
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or
counsel of record on December 19, 2011, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
Carol Cohron
Case Manager

4