From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Donovan v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Nov 20, 2013
Case No. 12-14671 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 20, 2013)

Summary

holding that despite a claimant's argument that his "periods of decompensation continued both prior to and subsequent to his hospital admission," where "the record is largely silent as to [claimant's] condition immediately prior and after hospitalization," substantial evidence supported a finding that hospital stays of four, five, and eight days did not qualify as episodes of decompensation of "extended duration"

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

Opinion

Case No. 12-14671

11-20-2013

GARY ARTHUR DONOVAN, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.


Hon. Gerald E. Rosen

Magistrate Judge Laurie J. Michelson


ORDER ADOPTING

MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION


At a session of said Court, held in

the U.S. Courthouse, Detroit, Michigan

on November 20, 2013


PRESENT: Honorable Gerald E. Rosen

Chief Judge, United States District Court

On September 9, 2013, Magistrate Judge Laurie J. Michelson issued a Report and Recommendation ("R & R") recommending that the Court grant in part Plaintiff Gary Arthur Donovan's motion for summary judgment, deny the Defendant Commissioner of Social Security's motion for summary judgment, and remand this case to the Defendant Commissioner for further proceedings on the question whether Plaintiff is entitled to a closed period of disability benefits. Plaintiff filed an objection to the R & R on September 23, 2013, and Defendant filed a response to this objection on September 27, 2013. The Court has now reviewed the R & R, Plaintiff's objection, Defendant's response, the parties' underlying motions, and the remainder of the record. For the reasons stated below, the Court overrules Plaintiff's objection and adopts the Magistrate Judge's R & R as the opinion of this Court.

Plaintiff has lodged only a single objection to the R & R. Specifically, while the Magistrate Judge has recommended that this case be remanded for further administrative proceedings as to Plaintiff's eligibility for a closed period of disability benefits, (see R & R at 22-24), Plaintiff argues that the scope of this recommended remand should be expanded to consider whether he should be awarded benefits going forward. Yet, the Magistrate Judge found that the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") erred only as to the backward-looking question of Plaintiff's eligibility for a closed period of disability benefits, and not as to his entitlement to an ongoing award of benefits. As to this latter issue, the Magistrate Judge determined that the record provided a reasonable basis for the ALJ to infer that Plaintiff would not continue to experience the ongoing, work-preclusive absenteeism that would warrant an open-ended award of benefits. (See R & R at 22.) Because this aspect of the ALJ's decision is supported by substantial evidence, and because Plaintiff does not demonstrate otherwise in his objection to the R & R, but suggests only the bare possibility that a remand might shed further light on his ability to maintain regular attendance going forward, the Court finds no basis for insisting that the ALJ revisit a ruling that has withstood judicial scrutiny.

For these reasons,

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's September 23, 2013 objection to the Magistrate Judge's September 9, 2013 Report and Recommendation is OVERRULED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (docket #16) is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. Finally, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, for the reasons set forth in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff's March 15, 2013 motion for summary judgment (docket #9) is GRANTED IN PART, and Defendant's May 29, 2013 motion for summary judgment (docket #14) is DENIED. In light of these rulings, this matter will be remanded to the Defendant Commissioner for further proceedings in accordance with the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation.

Gerald E. Rosen

Chief Judge, United States District Court
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on November 20, 2013, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

Julie Owens

Case Manager, (313) 234-5135


Summaries of

Donovan v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Nov 20, 2013
Case No. 12-14671 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 20, 2013)

holding that despite a claimant's argument that his "periods of decompensation continued both prior to and subsequent to his hospital admission," where "the record is largely silent as to [claimant's] condition immediately prior and after hospitalization," substantial evidence supported a finding that hospital stays of four, five, and eight days did not qualify as episodes of decompensation of "extended duration"

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

Donovan v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

Case Details

Full title:GARY ARTHUR DONOVAN, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY…

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

Date published: Nov 20, 2013

Citations

Case No. 12-14671 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 20, 2013)

Citing Cases

Alexander v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

However, Plaintiff does not provide caselaw to support this position, and instead relies solely on vague…