Prudhomme v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 16

ORDER (1) Sustaining in Part and Overruling in Part Defendant's 14 Objections to the Magistrate Judge's 13 Report and Recommendation, (2) Adopting in Part 13 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION as Opinion of the Court, (3) Granting in Part Plaintiff's 11 MOTION for Summary Judgment, (4) Denying Defendant's 12 MOTION for Summary Judgment, and (5) Remanding This Action for Further Proceedings. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
LYN MICHELE PRUDHOMME,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 18-cv-10801
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
_________________________________/
ORDER (1) SUSTAINING IN PART AND OVERRULING IN PART
DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS (ECF #14) TO THE MAGISTRATE
JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF #13), (2)
ADOPTING IN PART REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF #13) AS
OPINION OF THE COURT, (3) GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF #11), (4) DENYING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF #12), AND
(5) REMANDING THIS ACTION FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
In this action, Plaintiff Lyn Michele Prudhomme challenges the denial of her
application for disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act. (See
Compl., ECF #1.)

Both Prudhomme and Defendant Commissioner of Social

Security filed motions for summary judgment. (See Prudhomme’s Mot. for Summ.
J., ECF #11; Commissioner’s Mot. for Summ. J., ECF #12.)

The assigned

Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (the “R & R”) in which he
recommended that the Court (1) grant Prudhomme’s motion to the extent it seeks

1 

remand, (2) deny the Commissioner’s motion, and (3) remand for further
proceedings. (See ECF #13.)
The Commissioner has now filed limited objections to the R&R (the
“Objections”). (See ECF #14.) In the Objections, the Commissioner does not oppose
the Magistrate Judge’s recommended disposition of the pending motions nor does
the Commissioner take issue with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that the
Court remand this action for further proceedings.

Instead, the Commissioner

complains about the following sentences in the R & R:
Second, it appears that Prudhomme was blind-sided to learn on the
morning of the second hearing that she would be represented by an
attorney she had never met who knew little (if anything) about her
case.3 The Court cannot help but suspect that, had Prudhomme’s longtime attorney – who was familiar with her file – appeared at the second
hearing, he would have known to challenge VE Silver’s testimony that
she had prior work experience as a secretary. Thus, with these facts in
mind, the Court simply cannot overlook both the VE’s flawed
testimony with respect to Prudhomme’s past employment and the
ALJ’s reliance on that testimony in finding at Step Four that she can
perform her past relevant work.
3

Indeed, Prudhomme expressed frustration at this
hearing, saying she was thrown “for a loop” when her
long-time attorney, Joshua Moore, called her that morning
“and said he wasn’t going to be here today and I’ve known
Josh for so long and I just – I was trying to take it like an
adult and I, this morning, I just burst out crying because
Josh wasn’t going to be here.” (Tr. 65).

2 

(R & R, ECF #13 at Pg. ID 886.) The Commissioner objects that these statements
are speculation and that they violate the rule that federal courts do not second-guess
the manner in which a claimant’s counsel presents a claim for relief. (Objections,
ECF #14 at Pg. ID 892-95.) The Commissioner urges the Court not to adopt the
R & R.
The Court SUSTAINS IN PART the Commissioner’s Objection.

The

sentences to which the Commissioner objects are not essential to the Magistrate
Judge’s analysis or conclusions, and the Court can adopt the bulk of the analysis and
all of the conclusions – which the Court finds persuasive – without adopting the
challenged sentences. Accordingly, the Court adopts the R & R with the sole
exception of the sentences quoted above, which the Court rejects. And the Court
adopts in full the disposition recommended in the R & R. Accordingly, for the
reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:


The Commissioner’s Objections to the R & R (ECF #14) are
SUSTAINED IN PART to the extent they ask the Court not to adopt
the sentences from the R & R quoted above, and the Objections are
OVERRULED IN PART to the extent they seek any additional relief;



The R & R (ECF #13) is ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court with
the exception of the sentences from the R & R quoted above, which are
REJECTED;



Prudhomme’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF #11) is
GRANTED IN PART to the extent it seeks remand and DENIED IN
PART to the extent that it seeks additional relief beyond a remand;

3 




The Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF #12) is
DENIED; and
This action is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further
proceedings consistent with this Order and with those portions of the
R & R adopted by the Court herein.

s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: October 11, 2018
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties
and/or counsel of record on October 11, 2018, by electronic means and/or ordinary
mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]

4