Southam v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

Full title: STEVEN L. SOUTHAM, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY…

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

Date published: Aug 4, 2017

Case No. 2:16-cv-12529 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 4, 2017)

Opinion

Case No. 2:16-cv-12529

08-04-2017

STEVEN L. SOUTHAM, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.

Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR REMAND PURSUANT TO SENTENCE FOUR (DE 16) , GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DE 21), REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY and REMANDING THIS MATTER TO THE COMMISSIONER

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for remand pursuant to Sentence Four (DE 16), the Commissioner's cross-motion for summary judgment (DE 21), Plaintiff's reply (DE 22), and the administrative record (DE 14).

The parties have consented to my authority. (DEs 8-9.) A hearing was held on August 4, 2017, at which Plaintiff's counsel (Lewis M. Seward) and Defendant's counsel (AUSA Rami M. Vanegas) appeared by telephone.

For the reasons stated on the record, all of which are hereby incorporated by this reference as though fully restated herein, the Court concludes that the ALJ unerringly applied the correct legal standards in reaching his decision as to the treatment of the third-party function report but further concludes that the ALJ committed harmful error in evaluating the evidence from the incorrect onset date. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART (DE 16), Defendant's motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART (DE 21), the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is REVERSED IN PART, and this matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner of Social Security for a new hearing, at which the ALJ shall: (1) use the correct onset date and evaluate the evidence in light of it; (2) re-evaluate Plaintiff's mental impairments at Step 2; (3) re-evaluate Plaintiff's mental impairments and restrictions at Step 4; (4) re-evaluate Plaintiff's credibility; (5) re-evaluate Plaintiff's residual functional capacity; and (6) adjust the hypotheticals and Step 5 analysis as necessary.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 4, 2017

s/Anthony P. Patti

Anthony P. Patti

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record on August 4, 2017, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail.

s/Michael Williams

Case Manager for the

Honorable Anthony P. Patti