From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kolasa v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Mar 11, 2015
Case No. 13-cv-14311 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 11, 2015)

Summary

noting that "[w]hether there is evidence in the record to support the ALJ's less restrictive RFC is not relevant because the ALJ did not discuss his decision not to adopt the more restrictive limitation suggested by Dr. Blum, and relying on other information in the record to explain that omission would require this Court to engage in the post hoc rationalization that case law clearly prohibits"

Summary of this case from Miley v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

Opinion

Case No. 13-cv-14311

03-11-2015

TED MICHAEL KOLASA, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.


ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (document no. 18), GRANTING KOLASA'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (document no. 9), DENYING COMMISSIONER'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (document no. 14), AND REMANDING CASE

The Social Security Administration denied plaintiff and claimant Ted Michael Kolasa's application for disability and disability insurance beneifts. An Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") issued the original decision. See ALJ Decision 11, ECF No. 6-2. After the Social Security Administration Appeals Council declined to review the ruling, the ALJ's decision became the final decision of the Commissioner, and Kolasa appealed to the Court. The Court referred the matter to a United States Magistrate Judge, and the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. On February 3, 2015, the magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation ("Report") suggesting the Court grant Kolasa's motion and deny the Commissioner of Social Security's motion. Report, ECF No. 18.

A copy of the Report was sent to the parties on February 3, 2015. Under Civil Rule 72(b), each party had fourteen days from the date of service to file any written objections to the recommended disposition. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Neither party has filed any objections. De novo review of the magistrate judge's findings is therefore not required. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The Court has reviewed the file and the Report, and finds that the magistrate judge's analysis is proper. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report's findings and conclusions and will enter an appropriate judgment.

ORDER

WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation (document no. 18) is ADOPTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Kolasa's motion for summary judgment (document no. 9) is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment (document no. 14) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

SO ORDERED.

s/Stephen J. Murphy, III

STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III

United States District Judge
Dated: March 11, 2015 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on March 11, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Carol Cohron

Case Manager


Summaries of

Kolasa v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Mar 11, 2015
Case No. 13-cv-14311 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 11, 2015)

noting that "[w]hether there is evidence in the record to support the ALJ's less restrictive RFC is not relevant because the ALJ did not discuss his decision not to adopt the more restrictive limitation suggested by Dr. Blum, and relying on other information in the record to explain that omission would require this Court to engage in the post hoc rationalization that case law clearly prohibits"

Summary of this case from Miley v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

remanding where, inter alia, the ALJ gave considerable weight to the state-agency consultant's opinion, "but he did not discuss why he omitted the occasional handling and fingering limitation and instead adopted the less restrictive frequent limitation, as required by SSR 96-8p"

Summary of this case from Hankinson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

remanding "because the ALJ disregarded the applicable regulations in considering the State agency consultant's opinion"

Summary of this case from Mitchell v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

remanding where, inter alia, the ALJ gave considerable weight to the state-agency consultant's opinion, "but he did not discuss why he omitted the occasional handling and fingering limitation and instead adopted the less restrictive frequent limitation, as required by SSR 96-8p"

Summary of this case from Haning v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
Case details for

Kolasa v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

Case Details

Full title:TED MICHAEL KOLASA, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY…

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

Date published: Mar 11, 2015

Citations

Case No. 13-cv-14311 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 11, 2015)

Citing Cases

Swank v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

Any effort by this Court to use other information in the record to explain the ALJ's failure to include this…

Mitchell v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

Violation of this regulation is a basis for remand. See Postell v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 16-13645, 2018 WL…