Homrich v. Commissioner of Social Security
1:12-cv-00445
W.D. Mich.Sep 24, 2013Background
- Plaintiff John Homrich challenged a SSA decision denying disability insurance benefits and SSI in Western District of Michigan (No. 1:12-cv-445).
- The magistrate judge recommended reversal and remand for vocational evidence based on Homrich’s residual functional capacity (RF C).
- The Commissioner objected; Homrich also objected to the magistrate’s recommendations.
- The court reviewed objections de novo and adopted the magistrate’s R&R as its own opinion.
- The ALJ’s hypothetical to the vocational expert did not include all of Homrich’s limitations, creating legal error; vocational findings may not account for climbing and crawling limits.
- The court reversed and remanded for re-evaluation of vocational evidence under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal error in ALJ hypothetical. | Homrich argues ALJ failed to include all limitations. | Homrich’s error not adequately shown? | Remanded for Vocational evidence; ALJ error acknowledged. |
| Evaluation of Dr. Brenner’s opinion. | ALJ mischaracterized Ambiguity in Dr. Brenner’s statements. | Brenner’s notes are ambiguous and do not exclude sedentary work. | Objections overruled; proper evaluation required on remand. |
| Evaluation of Dr. Rahimi’s opinion. | ALJ summarized Rahimi’s conclusions to support sedentary work. | ALJ noted sedentary work with limitations; no mischaracterization. | Objections overruled; remand to reconsider medical opinions. |
| Weight of vocational evidence. | Vocational evidence should reflect full RFC including climbing/crawling limits. | Vocational evidence relied on properly framed RFC. | Remand to reevaluate vocational evidence. |
| Overall disposition of R&R objections. | Homrich/Commissioner objections insufficient to alter remand. | Objections insufficient to oppose remand. | R&R adopted; decision reversed and remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976 (6th Cir. 2005) (de novo review of objections to magistrate's report)
- Howard v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991) (de novo review standard for certain R&R objections)