Filed: Mar. 31, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 31, 2014
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [14] AND GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [12] AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [9] ARTHUR J. TARNOW, Senior District Judge. On February 19, 2014, Magistrate Judge Hluchaniuk issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") [14] recommending that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [12] be granted and that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [9] be denied. Plaintiff filed an Objection [15] on February 25, 2014. For
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [14] AND GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [12] AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [9] ARTHUR J. TARNOW, Senior District Judge. On February 19, 2014, Magistrate Judge Hluchaniuk issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") [14] recommending that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [12] be granted and that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [9] be denied. Plaintiff filed an Objection [15] on February 25, 2014. For ..
More
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [14] AND GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [12] AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [9]
ARTHUR J. TARNOW, Senior District Judge.
On February 19, 2014, Magistrate Judge Hluchaniuk issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") [14] recommending that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [12] be granted and that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [9] be denied. Plaintiff filed an Objection [15] on February 25, 2014.
For the reasons stated below, the Report and Recommendation [14] is ADOPTED and is entered as the findings and conclusions of the Court. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [12] is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [9] is DENIED.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The R&R contains a detailed explanation of the factual background of this case, and the Court adopts the factual background as set out in the R&R in full.
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff raises one objection to the R&R [14]. Plaintiff argues that when an ALJ reaches the conclusion that a claimant has moderate limitations in concentration, persistence, and pace ("CPP") independent of a medical source, the ALJ must also incorporate these limitations into his RFC assessment and hypothetical question to the vocational expert ("VE").
In Hicks v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 10-13643 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 30, 2011) (Michelson, M.J.), the court thoroughly digested the case law in this district and determined that the cases generally fall into two categories—those where a medical expert has found a moderate limitation in CPP, and those where the ALJ specifically found such a limitation, whether or not there was such a finding by a medical expert. Id. at *21-28, *23 n.3 (collecting cases). In the latter class of cases, in which this case falls, the ALJ must incorporate the CPP limitation, in some way or form, into the hypothetical questions asked of the VE. Hicks, No. 10-13643 at *23-24.
Boley v. Astrue, No. 11-10896 at *16 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 10, 2012) (Grand, M.J.) (emphasis added). Here, the ALJ made "a specific finding of the effect of the limitation on the claimant's ability to work." Boley, No. 11-10896 at *16, n.4. In his hypothetical to the VE, the ALJ added the requirements that Plaintiff "never climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds . . . should avoid all use of moving machinery and all exposure to unprotected heights; and [] work would be limited to simple, routine, repetitive tasks" to his assessment that Plaintiff could perform sedentary work. The ALJ, therefore, satisfied the Hicks requirement that the hypothetical to the VE "in some way or form" incorporate Plaintiff's CPP limitation.
CONCLUSION
The Court having reviewed the record in this case, the Report and Recommendation [14] of the Magistrate Judge is hereby ADOPTED and is entered as the findings and conclusions of the Court.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Objection [15] is OVERRULED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [12] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [9] is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
