Patrick v. Social Security, Commissioner of
ORDER Sustaining 18 Objection, Adopting in Part and Rejecting in Part the 17 Report and Recommendation, Granting Plaintiff's 15 Motion for Summary Judgment, Denying Defendant's 16 Motion for Summary Judgment, and Remanding Commissioner's Decision Pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g). Signed by District Judge Thomas L. Ludington. (Sian, M)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
RICHARD EUGENE PATRICK,
Case No. 16-cv-10338
Honorable Thomas L. Ludington
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
ORDER SUSTAINING OBJECTION, ADOPTING IN PART AND REJECTING IN
PART THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND REMANDING COMMISSIONER’S DECISION
PURSUANT TO SENTENCE FOUR OF 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)
Plaintiff Richard Eugene Patrick filed an application for Disability Insurance Benefits
and Supplemental Security Income on May 5, 2013, alleging a disability onset date of July 1,
2011. After his applications were initially denied Plaintiff timely requested an administrative
hearing, which was held on February 6, 2015. On March 2, 2015 the ALJ issued a written
decision finding that Plaintiff was not disabled under the Social Security Act. That decision
became final when the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request for review. Plaintiff appealed
to this Court on February 1, 2016. See Compl., ECF No. 1.
Plaintiff Patrick filed a motion for summary judgment on June 20, 2016. ECF No. 15.
Defendant Commissioner then filed a motion for summary judgment on July 18, 2016. ECF No.
On February 8, 2017, Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford issued a report and
recommendation, concluding that the ALJ’s determination that Edwards was not disabled was
not supported by substantial evidence. ECF No. 17. In so concluding, the magistrate judge found
that the ALJ failed to give controlling weight to the opinion of Patrick’s treating source, Dr.
Leven Terejo, M.D., or, in the alternative, failed to provide good reasons for giving less than
controlling weight to the Dr. Terejo’s opinion. The magistrate judge further found that the ALJ
had impermissibly “played doctor.” She therefore recommended that Plaintiff’s motion for
summary judgment be granted, Defendant Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment be
denied, and the Commissioner’s decision be remanded pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. §
405(g). The Commissioner timely objected on February 16, 2017. See ECF No. 18.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, a party may object to and seek review of
a Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Objections must
be stated with specificity. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 151 (1985) (citation omitted). If
objections are made, “[t]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate
judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). De novo review
requires at least a review of the evidence before the Magistrate Judge; the Court may not act
solely on the basis of a Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation. See Hill v. Duriron Co.,
656 F.2d 1208, 1215 (6th Cir. 1981). After reviewing the evidence, the Court is free to accept,
reject, or modify the findings or recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. See Lardie v. Birkett,
221 F. Supp. 2d 806, 807 (E.D. Mich. 2002).
The Commissioner does not object to the magistrate judge’s conclusion that the matter
should be remanded pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The Commissioner objects
only to the magistrate judge’s finding that the ALJ impermissibly “played doctor” in reaching
“[A]n ALJ should resist the temptation to substitute the ALJ’s own interpretation of
medical records for that of a physician who has examined the records.” Brown v. Comm’r of Soc.
Sec., 602 F. App’x 328, 331 (6th Cir. 2015). In other words, “ALJ’s must not succumb to the
temptation to play doctor and make their own independent medical findings.” Simpson v.
Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 344 F. App’x 181, 194 (6th Cir. 2009) (quoting Rohan v. Chater, 98 F.3d
966, 970 (7th Cir. 1996)). On the other hand, the ALJ is required to make findings as to whether
a treating source’s medical opinion is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and
laboratory diagnostic techniques and supported by substantial evidence. See SSR 96-2p, 1996
WL 374188 at *1 (July 2, 1996); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2).
Here, the ALJ did not establish adequate grounds on which to discount the opinion of
Patrick’s treating physician. The ALJ thus did not adhere to the proper procedures in assessing
Patrick’s disability claims. See Gentry v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 741 F.3d 708, 723 (2014).
Specifically, the ALJ did not follow the treating physician rule, which requires the ALJ to “give
controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion as to the nature and severity of the claimant’s
condition as long as it ‘is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory
diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case
record.’” Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)). This rule intrinsically requires the ALJ to
consider and weigh the medical evidence of record. In the present case, the ALJ’s primary error
was not in engaging with the record and weighing the evidence, but in failing to award sufficient
deference to a treating source opinion. The Commissioner’s objection will therefore be sustained,
and the magistrate judge’s report rejected to the extent she states that the ALJ impermissibly
Accordingly, it ORDERED that Defendant Commissioner’s objections, ECF No. 18, are
It is further ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, ECF No.
17, is ADOPTED IN PART AND REJECTED IN PART.
It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff Patrick’s motion for summary judgment, ECF No.
15, is GRANTED.
It is further ORDERED that Defendant Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment,
ECF No. 16, is DENIED.
It is further ORDERED that this matter is REMANDED to the Social Security
Administration for further proceedings consistent with this Order.
s/Thomas L. Ludington
THOMAS L. LUDINGTON
United States District Judge
Dated: March 1, 2017
PROOF OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served
upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first
class U.S. mail on March 1, 2017.
s/Michael A. Sian
MICHAEL A. SIAN, Case Manager
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?