Snoddy v. Social Security

Filing 21

ORDER Accepting Report and Recommendation and Remanding 20 and Remanding Action. Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (LSau)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CAMILLE A. SNODDY,
Plaintiff,
V.

Case No. 17-CV-11161
Honorable Denise Page Hood

COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
/
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION AND REMANDING ACTION
This matter comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Stephanie Dawkins
Davis’s Report and Recommendation. [Dkt. No. 20] Plaintiff filed this action on
April 13, 2017, asking this Court to review the Commissioner’s final decision to deny
her application for disability benefits. The parties filed cross motions for summary
judgment.

The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court: (1) deny the

Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment; (2) grant Plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment to the extent she seeks remand but deny it to the extent she seeks
reversal and a direct award of benefits; and (3) remand this matter back to the
Commissioner for further proceedings, as detailed below. Neither party filed any
objections to the Report and Recommendation.

Judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision is limited in scope to
determining whether the Commissioner employed the proper legal criteria in reaching
his 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 it is 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. Finding no
error in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the Court adopts the
Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Furthermore, as neither party has raised
an objection to the Report and Recommendation, the Court finds that the parties have
waived any further objections to the Report and Recommendation. Smith v. Detroit
Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987) (a party’s failure
2

to file any objections waives his or her right to further appeal); Thomas v. Arn, 474
U.S. 140, 149 (1985).
For the reasons stated above,
IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [Docket No. 20, filed
August 13, 2018] is ADOPTED as this Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of
law.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment
[Docket No. 16, filed November 2, 2017] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN
PART.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary
Judgment [Docket No. 18, filed December 7, 2017] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is REMANDED back to the
Commissioner in order to: (a) obtain the opinion of a qualified medical advisor on the
issue of equivalence as to Plaintiff’s impairments in combination; (b) re-evaluate the
medical opinions rendered to date; (c) review Plaintiff’s objective symptoms; (d)
obtain updated vocational expert testimony, taking into consideration the foregoing;
and (e) review and, as necessary, modify the RFC in light of the foregoing.
s/Denise Page Hood
Denise Page Hood
Chief Judge, United States District Court
Dated: September 11, 2018

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of
record on September 11, 2018, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/LaShawn R. Saulsberry
Case Manager

4