Weredick v. Social Security
OPINION AND ORDER Adopting 14 Report and Recommendation to Grant Plaintiff's 10 Motion for Summary Judgment and to Deny Defendant's 12 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (TMcg)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
CASE NO. 16-11694
HON. DENISE PAGE HOOD
OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION [#14] TO GRANT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT [#10] AND TO DENY DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [#12]
This matter is before the Court on a Report and Recommendation (Doc # 14)
filed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie Dawkins Davis on Plaintiff Kevin Weredick’s
Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc # 10), and Defendant Commissioner of Social
Security’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc # 12). To date, no objections were
filed to the Report and Recommendation, and the time to file such has passed. The
Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation, GRANTS
Weredick’s Motion for Summary Judgment, DENIES the Commissioner’s Motion
for Summary Judgment, REVERSES the findings of the Commissioner, and
REMANDS this matter back to the Commissioner for further proceedings under
The background facts of this matter are adequately set forth in the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation, and the Court adopts them here.
The standard of review by the district court when examining a Report and
Recommendation is set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636. This Court “shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report or the specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which an objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The
court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id. In order to preserve the right
to appeal the magistrate judge’s recommendation, a party must file objections to the
Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days of service of the Report and
Recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Failure to file specific objections
constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140,
155 (1985); Howard v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 508-09 (6th
Cir. 1991); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981).
After review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the
Court finds that her findings and conclusions are correct. The Court agrees with the
Magistrate Judge that this matter must be remanded to allow the Administrative Law
Judge (“ALJ”) to obtain the opinion of a qualified medical advisor on the issue of
equivalence regarding Plaintiff’s impairments. Many decisions from this Court have
explained that Social Security Ruling 96-6p requires a medical expert opinion on the
issue of equivalence. (see Doc # 14, Pg ID 8-10)
The Court also agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the ALJ will be required
to re-assess Plaintiff’s RFC findings, and Plaintiff’s credibility, after the opinion of
a qualified medical advisor has been obtained. The Court further agrees with the
Magistrate Judge that Dr. Kornblum’s statement was not a medical opinion and the
ALJ was not required to give the statement controlling weight, nor was the ALJ
required to re-contact Dr. Kornblum.
IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Stephanie Dawkins Davis’s Report
and Recommendation (Doc # 14) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as this Court’s
findings of fact and conclusions of law.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Commissioner of Social
Security’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc # 12) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Weredick’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc # 10) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the findings of the Commissioner are
REVERSED, and this matter is REMANDED back to the Commissioner for further
proceedings under Sentence Four.
s/Denise Page Hood
DENISE PAGE HOOD
Chief U.S. District Judge
DATED: September 18, 2017
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record
and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF System to their respective email or First Class
U.S Mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic filing on September 18, 2017
Case Manager Generalist
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?