Fick v Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 20

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 14 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 17 Motion for Summary Judgment; adopting 19 Report and Recommendation. Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (MLan)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION THOMAS JAMES FICK, Case No. 18-13427 Plaintiff, SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE ARTHUR J. TARNOW v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE DAVID R. GRAND Defendant. / ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [19]; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [14]; AND DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [17] Plaintiff, Thomas James Fick, has sought judicial review of an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decision denying his application for disability benefits. On September 17, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) [Dkt. # 19] on the parties’ motions for summary judgment [14, 17]. Neither party filed an objection to the R&R. The Magistrate Judge determined that the matter should be remanded because the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) discounted the opinions of Mr. Fick’s treating mental health providers without supporting his decision with substantial evidence from the record. Page 1 of 2 The Court having reviewed the record, the Report and Recommendation [19] is hereby ADOPTED and entered as the findings and conclusions of the Court. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [14] is GRANTED insofar as it seeks remand and DENIED insofar as it seeks an award of benefits. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [17] is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case be REMANDED to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with this Order and the Report and Recommendation. SO ORDERED. Dated: October 9, 2019 s/Arthur J. Tarnow Arthur J. Tarnow Senior United States District Judge Page 2 of 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?