Cassidy v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

Full title: MEGHAN MERCEDES CASSIDY, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Date published: Sep 2, 2016

Case No. 2:15-cv-12277 (E.D. Mich. Sep. 2, 2016)

Opinion

Case No. 2:15-cv-12277

09-02-2016

MEGHAN MERCEDES CASSIDY, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.

Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DE 16) , GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DE 17) AND AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE COMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

Plaintiff, Meghan Mercedes Cassidy, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3) for review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner") denying her application for disability insurance benefits. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (DE 16), the Commissioner's cross-motion for summary judgment (DE 17), and the administrative record (DE 10-11).

The parties have consented to my authority. (DE 19.) A hearing was noticed for September 1, 2016. On that date, Plaintiff's counsel, Kenneth F. Laritz, appeared in person and Defendant's counsel, AUSA Amelia Stewart, appeared by telephone.

The Court concludes that the ALJ unerringly applied the correct legal standards in reaching her decision and that substantial evidence in the record supports her findings. As stated in Defendant's motion for summary judgment, the ALJ's credibility findings were supported by substantial evidence, she correctly analyzed the weight given to non-examining physician Dr. Khalid's opinion, and the RFC finding is supported by substantial evidence in the record.¹ Accordingly, and for the reasons stated on the record, Plaintiff's motion is DENIED (DE 16), Defendant's motion is GRANTED (DE 17), and the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is AFFIRMED.

1 And, as explained on the record, any error the ALJ may have made with respect to her observations about statements concerning aerobic exercise in the ALJ's analysis of Plaintiff's credibility was harmless, as there were several other valid bases given for discounting Plaintiff's credibility and the overall analysis was correct. --------

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 2, 2016

s/Anthony P. Patti

Anthony P. Patti

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record on September 2, 2016, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail.

s/Michael Williams

Case Manager for the

Honorable Anthony P. Patti