Huntington v. Social Security, No. 2:2018cv11873 - Document 16 (E.D. Mich. 2019)
Court Description: 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)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Huntington v. Social Security Doc. 16 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- Dockets.Justia.com 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-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
