McLoskey v. Colvin
Filing
21
ORDER Accepting 20 Report and Recommendation and Remanding Action. Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (JOwe)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MATTHEW McLOSKEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 14-11305
Hon. Denise Page Hood
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Defendant.
/
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
and
REMANDING ACTION
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge David R. Grand’s
Report and Recommendation. [Doc. No. 20, filed June 19, 2015] To date, no
objections have been filed to the R&R and the time to file such has passed.
Judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision is limited in scope to
determining whether the Commissioner employed the proper legal criteria in
reaching his conclusion. Garner v. Heckler, 745 F.2d 383 (6th Cir. 1984). The
credibility findings of an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) must not be discarded
lightly and should be accorded great deference. Hardaway v. Secretary of Health
and Human Services, 823 F.2d 922, 928 (6th Cir. 1987). A district court’s review
of an ALJ’s decision is not a de novo review. The district court may not resolve
conflicts in the evidence nor decide questions of credibility. Garner, 745 F.2d at
397. The decision of the Commissioner must be upheld if supported by substantial
evidence, even if the record might support a contrary decision or if the district
court arrives at a different conclusion. Smith v. Secretary of HHS, 893 F.2d 106,
108 (6th Cir. 1984); Mullen v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 535, 545 (6th Cir. 1986).
The Court has had an opportunity to review this matter and finds that the
Magistrate Judge reached the correct conclusions for the proper reasons. The
Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the ALJ failed to properly review and
analyze certain evidence, including McLoskey’s wife’s third-party function and
statements and other medical record which appears to contradict the ALJ’s
findings. The Magistrate Judge thoroughly addressed the evidence the ALJ should
have properly reviewed finding that the ALJ failed to weigh this evidence against
the evidence the ALJ relied on for her conclusions. The Court further agrees with
the Magistrate Judge that the ALJ’s conclusion that McLoskey is only mildly
limited in activities of daily living, maintaining social functioning, and maintaining
concentration, persistence or pace may not be supported by substantial evidence, in
light of the evidence that was not considered by the ALJ.
The Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that this matter be
remanded for the ALJ to address all the evidence noted above and in the R&R and
to specifically address whether McLoskey became disabled at any point during the
relevant period. The Magistrate Judge reviewed the ALJ’s findings and the record
2
in reaching his conclusion. The Court accepts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation as this Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law that this
matter be remanded under Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
For the reasons set forth above,
IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge
David R. Grand [Doc. No. 20, filed June 19, 2015] is ACCEPTED and
ADOPTED as this Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment [Doc. No. 17, filed December 22, 2014] is GRANTED IN PART as
more fully set forth above and in the R&R.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment [Doc. No. 19, filed January 12, 2015] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commissioner’s findings are
REVERSED and this matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner under
Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is designated as CLOSED
on the Court’s docket.
S/Denise Page Hood
Denise Page Hood
United States District Judge
Dated: July 31, 2015
3
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of
record on July 31, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry
Case Manager
4
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?