Brief & decision

[Faith L.] v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.

W.D. Mich. Nov. 8, 2022

In this download

  • The brief or briefs as filed with the court
  • The court’s written decision
  • Searchable PDF, formatted for printing

Written and filed by Sarah H. Bohr

Delivered by email the moment you order

‹ Sixth Circuit Briefs - ED MI & WD MI

Federal court brief

[Faith L.] v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.

W.D. Mich. Nov. 8, 2022

Incontinence and work breaks, past work, subjective complaints

$75

One-time purchase · instant download

  • Won in the court listed above — the arguments that worked, as filed
  • Adapt the structure and authorities to your own case
  • No subscription, no account required

About this case

Faith L.] v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 2:21-CV-12942, 2022 WL 19518452 (W.D. Mich. Nov. 8, 2022) (Report and Recommendation by U.S. Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris, adopted in part, rejected in part, by U.S. District Judge Terrence G. Berg in No. 2:21-CV-12942-TGB-PTM, 2023 WL 2733382 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 31, 2023)

Briefs Included: Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff’s Reply Brief, and Plaintiff’s Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation   

Topics addressed: 

  • RFC - need to consider nonsevere impairments 
  • RFC - relationship with PRTF findings
  • RFC - off task findings
  • RFC - breaks due to incontinence
  • RFC - post-DLI evidence
  • Subjective symptoms - ALJ must consider reasons for not seeking treatment
  • Subjective symptoms - work activity
  • Subjective symptoms -medication side effects
  • Subjective symptoms - work activity 
  • Colitis  

                  Rulings addressed:

                  • Social Security Ruling 96-8p

                  • Social Security Ruling 82-62  (Note: rescinded and replaced by SSR 24-2p) 

                  Issues briefed:

                  1)  The ALJ failed to properly account for Plaintiff’s fecal incontinence, despite the ample evidence of this condition and the vocational witness testimony that even one unscheduled break per day would preclude competitive work.

                  2)  The ALJ committed reversible error in finding Plaintiff could perform her past relevant skilled and semi-skilled work despite the credited mild mental impairments.

                  3) The ALJ did not properly discount Plaintiff’s subjective complaints and testimony.

                  Court decision:
                  After full briefing, the court remanded for further proceedings.