You're viewing Docket Item 18 from the case Preston v. Social Security, Commissioner of. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




2:12-cv-11413-NGE-MAR Doc # 18 Filed 07/31/13 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 678

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Connie Ann Preston,

Plaintiff,

v.

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

/

Case No. 12-11413

Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds

ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE

JUDGE’S JUNE 28, 2013 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND ACCEPTING

AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [15]

Before the Court is the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation on Plaintiff

Connie Ann Preston’s appeal of the denial of her request for Social Security disability

benefits. (Dkt. 15.)

Plaintiff has filed objections. (Dkt. 16, Pl.’s Objections.) Defendant has responded

to the objections. (Dkt. 17.) Plaintiff objects to the finding that the administrative law judge

did not find that Plaintiff’s emotional impairments were severe and the issues that stem

from that finding–that the ALJ erred when he crafted a hypothetical posed to the vocational

and that the ALJ erred when he gave more weight to a non-examining physician than to a

physician that treated Plaintiff one time . (Pl.’s Objections at 1-4.)

Defendant argues that the ALJ appropriately weighed the evidence and decided that

Plaintiff’s alleged impairments were non-severe. (Def.’s Resp. at 1-2.) Given that weight

and decision, Defendant asserts that the ALJ crafted an appropriate hypothetical question

2:12-cv-11413-NGE-MAR Doc # 18 Filed 07/31/13 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 679

to the vocational expert, on which the ALJ could rely. (Id. at 8.) Defendant also argues that

the ALJ appropriate weighed the reviewing physician’s opinion. (Id. at 2-3.)

The Court has reviewed the pleadings, including the ALJ’s determination and the

record, the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, and the objections and

response. The Court agrees with Defendant and the magistrate judge. Substantial

evidence existed to find that Plaintiff’s alleged mental impairments were non-severe. The

ALJ therefore did not err with his hypothetical question to the vocational expert and the ALJ

could appropriately rely on the vocational expert’s testimony to find that jobs existed in the

economy that Plaintiff could perform.

The Court consequently ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation. (Dkt. 15.) The Court therefore DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for summary

judgment, GRANTS Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and dismisses this case.

(Dkt. 10, 14.)

So ordered.

Dated: July 31, 2013

s/Nancy G. Edmunds
Nancy G. Edmunds
United States District Judge

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record
on July 31, 2013, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.



s/Johnetta M. Curry-Williams
Case Manager
Acting in the Absence of Carol Hemeyer

2