Southam v. Social Security, Commissioner of
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
STEVEN L. SOUTHAM,
Case No. 2:16-cv-12529
Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti
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.
Case Manager for the
Honorable Anthony P. Patti
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?