Huntington v. Social Security
Filing
16
OPINION and ORDER Accepting 15 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; Denying 13 MOTION for Summary Judgment; and Granting in Part 11 MOTION for Summary Judgment - Signed by District Judge George Caram Steeh. (LBar)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SHAWN MARIE HUNTINGTON,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 18-11873
v.
HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH
COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
____________________________/
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION (DOC. 15)
Before the court is Magistrate Judge David R. Grand’s report and
recommendation, dated March 4, 2019. Magistrate Judge Grand
recommends that the court deny the Commissioner’s motion for summary
judgment, grant Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in part, and
remand the case to the ALJ for further proceedings. No timely objections
have been filed.
With respect to reports and recommendations from magistrate
judges, this court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of
the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which
objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The court “may accept, reject
-1-
or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the
magistrate.” Id.
When reviewing a case under the Social Security Act, the district
court may affirm, modify, or reverse the Commissioner’s decision, with or
without remand. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Findings of fact by the
Commissioner are conclusive if supported by substantial evidence. Id.
The court “must affirm the Commissioner’s decision if it ‘is supported by
substantial evidence and was made pursuant to proper legal standards.’”
Rabbers v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 582 F.3d 647, 651 (6th Cir. 2009) (citation
omitted). “The substantial-evidence standard is met if a ‘reasonable mind
might accept the relevant evidence as adequate to support a conclusion.’”
Blakley v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 581 F.3d 399, 406 (6th Cir. 2009) (citation
omitted). “When deciding under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) whether substantial
evidence supports the ALJ’s decision, we do not try the case de novo,
resolve conflicts in evidence, or decide questions of credibility.” Bass v.
McMahon, 499 F.3d 506, 509 (6th Cir. 2007).
The magistrate judge found that the ALJ’s decision to discount the
opinion of Dr. Peppler, Plaintiff’s treating physician, was not supported by
substantial evidence. The magistrate judge recommends that the case be
remanded to the ALJ for further proceedings. The Commissioner has not
-2-
objected to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. Having reviewed the
record, the court agrees with the magistrate judge’s thorough and wellreasoned report and will accept his recommendation.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Grand’s March 4,
2019 report and recommendation (Doc. 15) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED
as the order of the court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for summary
judgment (Doc. 13) is DENIED; Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment
(Doc. 11) is GRANTED IN PART; the final decision of the Commissioner is
VACATED; and this matter is REMANDED to the ALJ, for further
proceedings consistent with the report and recommendation.
Dated: March 27, 2019
s/George Caram Steeh
GEORGE CARAM STEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on
March 27, 2019, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Lisa Bartlett
Deputy Clerk
-3-
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?