Sheldon v. Social Security, Commissioner of ( 2019 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION JENNIFER J. SHELDON, Plaintiff, Case Number 18-12564 v. Honorable David M. Lawson Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. / ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER, AND REMANDING FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO SENTENCE FOUR OF 42 U.S.C. § 405(G) Presently before the Court is the report issued on July 1, 2019 by Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), recommending that the Court grant in part the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, grant in part and deny in part the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, reverse the decision of the Commissioner, and remand the case for further proceedings under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Although the magistrate judge’s report stated that the parties to this action may object to and seek review of the recommendation within fourteen days of service of the report, no objections have been filed. The parties’ failure to file objections to the report and recommendation waives any further right to appeal. Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Likewise, the failure to object to the magistrate judge’s report releases the Court from its duty to independently review the matter. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). However, the Court agrees with the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (ECF No. 18) is ADOPTED. It is further ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 14) and the defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 15) are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The defendant’s request for judgment as a matter of law on the question whether the ALJ failed to provide good reasons for giving less weight to the medical source statement completed by the plaintiff’s primary care physician, Sally Jo Sperbeck, D.O., is GRANTED. The plaintiff’s request to remand the case for reconsideration of the effect of the plaintiff’s hospitalizations and nursing home care on her ability to perform sustained work activities on a regular and continuing basis is GRANTED. The cross-motions are DENIED in all other respects. It is further ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED. It is further ORDERED that the matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). On remand the administrative law judge shall consider all of the medical opinions of record, elicit additional testimony from a vocational expert if necessary, and provide good reasons for her findings. s/David M. Lawson DAVID M. LAWSON United States District Judge Date: August 15, 2019 PROOF OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first class U.S. mail on August 15, 2019. s/Susan K. Pinkowski SUSAN K. PINKOWSKI