Malak v. Social Security

Filing 25

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S 10 MOTION for Judgment , DENYING DEFENDANT'S 18 MOTION for Summary Judgment AND REMANDING THE CASE FOR FURTHER ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THE FOURTH SENTENCE OF 42 U.S.C., Section 495(g) - Signed by Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen. (CCie)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

BARBARA MALAK,

Civil Action No. 16-13838

Plaintiff,
HON. R. STEVEN WHALEN
U.S. Magistrate Judge

v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
/

OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Barbara Malak (“Plaintiff”) brings this action under 42 U.S.C. §405(g),
challenging a final decision of Defendant Commissioner denying her applications for
Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) and Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) under the
Social Security Act. Both parties have filed summary judgment motions. For the reasons
and under the terms stated on the record on March 13, 2018, Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment [Dock. #10] is GRANTED to the extent that the case is remanded for further
administrative proceedings, pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 495(g).
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Dock. #18] is DENIED.
The ALJ’s formulation of the Plaintiff’s RFC, and the hypothetical question to the
Vocational Expert, contained a limitation on “repetitive twisting with the left upper
-1-

extremity” and the “non-dominant upper extremity.” In addition, the RFC provided for work
at all exertional levels. However, the record is clear that Plaintiff is right handed, and that
she suffers from right carpal tunnel syndrome. It is unclear how upper extremity limitations
of the right upper extremity would change the job findings, particularly because Plaintiff, 62
at the time of the decision was “approaching retirement age.” Therefore, a finding that she
was limited to light or sedentary unskilled, for example, would result in a finding of
disability. See Rule 203.07 of the Medical–Vocational Guidelines; 20 C.F. R. pt. 404, subpt.
P, app. 2, § 203.07.
On remand, the AJL reconsider Plaintiff’s claim for benefits based on a correct RFC
and hypothetical question, that accurately portrays her limitations.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ R. Steven Whalen
R. STEVEN WHALEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Dated: March 13, 2018

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of
record on March 13, 2018, electronically and/or by U.S. mail.
s/Carolyn M. Ciesla
Case Manager to the
Honorable R. Steven Whalen

-2-