Kapla v. Social Security, Commissioner of
OPINION AND ORDER granting 11 Motion for Summary Judgment; adopting 18 Report and Recommendation 11 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Patrick J. Duggan. (MOre)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Case No. 12-11010
Honorable Patrick J. Duggan
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
OPINION AND ORDER
On March 6, 2012, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit challenging a final decision of the
Commissioner denying Plaintiff’s application for disability and disability insurance
benefits. The following day, this Court referred the lawsuit to Magistrate Judge Mona K.
Majzoub for all pretrial proceedings, including a hearing and determination of all
non-dispositive matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and/or a report and
recommendation (“R&R”) on all dispositive matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B). (ECF No. 3.) The parties subsequently filed cross-motions for summary
judgment. On January 25, 2013, Magistrate Judge Majzoub issued an R&R
recommending that this Court grant Plaintiff’s motion, deny Defendant’s motion, and as
requested by Plaintiff, remand the matter to the Commissioner for further proceedings
pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (ECF No. 18.)
In her R&R, Magistrate Judge Majzoub concludes that the Administrative Law
Judge failed to properly evaluate the opinion of Plaintiff’s treating physician and did not
sufficiently address limitations identified by non-examining treating sources. (Id. at 1314.) Magistrate Judge Majzoub also finds that the ALJ failed to incorporate some
limitations identified by Plaintiff’s treating sources into the hypothetical posed to the
vocational expert. (Id. at 15-16.) She therefore recommends that the matter be remanded
to the Commissioner to: (a) “discuss the medical source opinions, explain the weight
given to those opinions and the reasons the ALJ believes they are inconsistent or
inconsistent with the medical evidence”; and, (b) “discuss the validity of Dr. [Thomas T.
L.] Tsai’s assessment that Plaintiff is limited to one to two step tasks, and discuss
Plaintiff’s social functioning limitation that she is fearful of authority figures.” (Id. at
16.) Magistrate Judge Mazjoub advises the Commissioner to incorporate these
limitations into the hypothetical question posed to the vocational expert and Plaintiff’s
residual functioning capacity if the ALJ finds them credible. (Id.)
At the conclusion of the R&R, Magistrate Judge Majzoub advises the parties that
they may object to and seek review of the R&R within fourteen days of service upon
them. (Id. at 17.) She further specifically advises the parties that “[f]ailure to file specific
objections constitutes a waiver of any further right to appeal.” (Id.) Neither Plaintiff nor
Defendant filed objections to the R&R.
The Court has carefully reviewed the R&R and concurs with the conclusions
reached by Magistrate Judge Majzoub. The Court therefore adopts Magistrate Judge
Majzoub’s January 25, 2013 Report and Recommendation.
IT IS ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the decision of the Commissioner is reversed
and this matter is remanded to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C.
Dated: February 28, 2013
s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
John M. Brissette, Esq.
Marc J. Boxerman, Esq.
AUSA Susan K. DeClercq
Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?