Pryor v. Social Security, Commissioner of
ORDER Accepting 15 Report and Recommendation and Dismissing Action. Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (DPar)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Case No. 14-13325
Hon. Denise Page Hood
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris’
Report and Recommendation. [Doc. No. 15, filed August 21, 2015] To date, no
Objections have been filed to the Report and Recommendation 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 a 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.
Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that although Plaintiff had severe
impairments, Plaintiff did not have an impairment or combination of impairments
that met the listed impairments as required in step three of the five-step sequential
evaluation of the evidence.
The Court further agrees that the ALJ’s conclusion that Plaintiff had the
residual functional capacity to perform sedentary work, with certain limitations.
The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that even though the ALJ erroneously
concluded that transferability of job skills is not an issue because the claimant does
not have past relevant work where Plaintiff reportedly had experience as a cashier
for four months, remand is not appropriate in this matter.
The sole issue on
remand would be to determine whether the cashiering skills were transferable. The
ALJ did not find that Plaintiff lacked transferable skills, but instead mistakenly
found that his transferable skills were not relevant. As noted by the Magistrate
Judge, the ALJ already implicitly made a decision that Plaintiff’s cashiering skill is
transferable when the Magistrate Judge expressly adopted the Vocational Expert’s
(“VE’s”) testimony that the cashiering skills were transferable. The Magistrate
Judge reviewed the ALJ’s findings and the record, including the VE’s testimony,
in reaching her conclusion. The Court accepts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation as this Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.
For the reasons set forth above,
IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge
Patricia T. Morris [Doc. No. 15, filed August 21, 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. 13, filed March 12, 2015] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment [Doc. No. 14, filed March 26, 2015] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED with
Dated: November 4, 2015
S/Denise Page Hood
Denise Page Hood
United States District Judge
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of
record on November 4, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry
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?