Southam v. Social Security, Commissioner of

Filing 26

OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 16 Motion to Remand ; granting in part and denying in part 21 Motion for Summary Judgment--Signed by Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti. (MWil)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION STEVEN L. SOUTHAM, Plaintiff, Case No. 2:16-cv-12529 Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. ___________________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR REMAND PURSUANT TO SENTENCE FOUR (DE 16), GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DE 21), REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY and REMANDING THIS MATTER TO THE COMMISSIONER Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for remand pursuant to Sentence Four (DE 16), the Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment (DE 21), Plaintiff’s reply (DE 22), and the administrative record (DE 14). The parties have consented to my authority. (DEs 8-9.) A hearing was held on August 4, 2017, at which Plaintiff’s counsel (Lewis M. Seward) and Defendant’s counsel (AUSA Rami M. Vanegas) appeared by telephone. For the reasons stated on the record, all of which are hereby incorporated by this reference as though fully restated herein, the Court concludes that the ALJ unerringly applied the correct legal standards in reaching his decision as to the treatment of the third-party function report but further concludes that the ALJ committed harmful error in evaluating the evidence from the incorrect onset date. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART (DE 16), Defendant’s motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART (DE 21), the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is REVERSED IN PART, and this matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner of Social Security for a new hearing, at which the ALJ shall: (1) use the correct onset date and evaluate the evidence in light of it; (2) re-evaluate Plaintiff’s mental impairments at Step 2; (3) re-evaluate Plaintiff’s mental impairments and restrictions at Step 4; (4) re-evaluate Plaintiff’s credibility; (5) re-evaluate Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity; and (6) adjust the hypotheticals and Step 5 analysis as necessary. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 4, 2017 s/Anthony P. Patti Anthony P. Patti UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Certificate of Service I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record on August 4, 2017, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail. s/Michael Williams Case Manager for the Honorable Anthony P. Patti 2

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?