Tucker v. Social Security, Commissioner of
Filing
22
ORDER Adopting 18 Report and Recommendation: Denying 11 Motion to Remand filed by Jason Tucker; and Granting 16 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Social Security, Commissioner of. Signed by District Judge George Caram Steeh. (CCoh) Modified on 9/19/2013 (CCoh).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JASON TUCKER,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 12-cv-13414
HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH
vs.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
_____________________________/
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION (DOC. # 18), GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. # 16) AND DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. # 11)
INTRODUCTION
This case, in which plaintiff Jason Tucker seeks review of the Commissioner of
Social Security’s denial of his application for benefits, is before the court on the parties’
cross-motions for summary judgment. The magistrate judge has filed her report and
recommendation to deny plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and grant that of the
defendant. Plaintiff has filed his objections to the report and recommendation. Because the
court is convinced that substantial evidence supported the decision of the ALJ, the
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation will be adopted and the plaintiff’s objections
will be overruled as set forth below.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff Jason Tucker applied for both child’s disability benefits and Supplemental
Security Income in June 2010, alleging that he had been disabled since March 1, 1994.
-1-
After the claims were denied by the agency, plaintiff requested a hearing before an
administrative law judge (ALJ). That hearing was held in October of 2011, and the ALJ’s
decision issued in December 2011. The ALJ’s decision finding that plaintiff was not
disabled under the Social Security Act was not reviewed by the Appeals Council, which
made it the agency’s final decision. Plaintiff then filed this action for judicial review.
The court will not reiterate all of the factual background in its decision but will
address the background pertinent to plaintiff’s objections. Plaintiff’s first objection concerns
the weight attributed by the ALJ to the records of Dr. Vallabhaneni, whom plaintiff visited
twice. The ALJ stated that:
the undersigned has given very little weight to the opinions offered by Aparna
Vallabhaneni, M.D. On August 10, 2011, Dr. Vallabhaneni evaluated the
claimant and assessed his physical RFC. Her conclusions that indicate that
the claimant is significantly limited and likely to miss more than three days of
work per month are not consistent with the claimant’s description of his daily
activities or with the rest of the objective medical evidence.
(A.R. at 20.) Plaintiff argues that Dr. Vallabhaneni was his treating physician, and that Dr.
Vallabhaneni’s report concerning his functional capacity1 is thus entitled to “special or
1
This report is a form faxed by plaintiff’s counsel to Dr. Vallabhaneni on October 7,
2011 “for Mr. Tucker’s SS hrg on 10/25.” In that form, Dr. Vallabhaneni diagnosed plaintiff
with “low back pain.” Dr. Vallabhaneni checked the box “frequently” in response to the
question “[h]ow often is your patient’s experience of pain sufficiently severe to interfere with
attention and concentration?,” checked the box “yes” in response to the question of
whether her patient’s impairments could be “expected to last at least 12 months,” and
indicated that plaintiff could walk 2-3 blocks, could sit continuously for 45 minutes, stand
continuously for 10, and sit at least 6 hours in an eight-hour workday and stand/walk less
than 2 hours in an eight-hour workday (with normal breaks). Dr. Vallabhaneni also
indicated that plaintiff needed to walk every 15 minutes, and that he needed a “job which
permits shifting positions at will from sitting, standing or walking.” Finally, plaintiff points
to Dr. Vallabhaneni’s indication that he was limited to lifting/carrying less than 10 pounds
only occasionally, and that, based on his impairments, plaintiff could be expected to be
absent from work about 3 times a month. (AR at 222-26.)
-2-
complete” deference, citing 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(c)(2); Wilson v. Comm’r of Social Security,
278 F.3d 541, 544 (6th Cir. 2004).
The court acknowledges that the ALJ only briefly addressed Dr. Vallabhaneni’s
records. However, the court agrees with the magistrate judge that the ALJ was not
required to consider Dr. Vallabhaneni a “treating source” under applicable regulations. In
fact, as quoted by defendant, the relevant regulatory language that explains why treating
source opinions are generally given more weight describes how the more involved
relationship between treater and patient allows the source to “provide a detailed,
longitudinal picture of your medical impairment(s)....” See 20 C.F.R. § 404.927(c)(2). The
picture of plaintiff’s medical impairment as presented by Dr. Vallabhaneni was neither
“detailed” nor “longitudinal.” The form filled out at plaintiff’s counsel’s request provides a
cursory opinion of plaintiff’s situation, and the court sees no information in the record about
why, for instance, the doctor feels plaintiff would miss three days of work a month. Nor do
the other records of Dr. Vallabhaneni (the second of which mostly addresses plaintiff’s
complaint of headaches), shed any light on the reasons for such an opinion, which the court
agrees does conflict with an MRI showing only “mild/minimal” abnormalities. See 20 C.F.R.
§ 404.927(c)(2)-(6). While the court recognizes that in another situation two visits could
possibly create a treating source relationship, this particular set of circumstances did not.
See, e.g. Ealy v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 594 F.3d 504, 514 (6th Cir. 2006).
In plaintiff’s second objection, he includes an excerpt from the ALJ’s decision, which
he asserts is internally inconsistent and “fatally flawed.” He points to a sentence in which
the ALJ describes the difference between the objective medical evidence and the
claimant’s allegations of pain. He then highlights a sentence in the next paragraph that
-3-
reads: “[s]uch phenomena could be expected to reasonably account for the claimant’s
reported level of pain and alleged loss of function.” (AR at 19.) Plaintiff is arguing that the
ALJ actually determined that the medical evidence in the record supported his allegations.
However, it is clear to the court that just the opposite was intended by the ALJ. As noted
by the magistrate, just before the sentence concerning the “phenomena” is one that reads
“[n]o focal disc herniation or spinal canal or significant neural foraminal stenosis were
noted.” Id. No other “phenomena” was described in the paragraph. Although the writing
could have been more precise, there is no doubt as to the ALJ’s meaning: that plaintiff’s
described limitations were exaggerated and not supported by the record.
Finally, plaintiff again argues that Dr. Vallabhaneni’s opinion was entitled to special
weight and should have been the determining factor in assessing the plaintiff’s residual
functional capacity. For the reasons given above, the court finds the magistrate judge
correctly determined substantial evidence supported the determination of the ALJ.
The court has carefully reviewed the record, the decision of the ALJ, and the
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in this matter. The magistrate judge
conducted an thorough review of plaintiff’s arguments and concluded that they did not
provide a basis for reversing the ALJ’s decision, which was supported by substantial
evidence. The court is in agreement and, accordingly, accepts the magistrate judge’s
recommendation. Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation is accepted
as the findings and conclusions of this court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant’s motion for summary judgment is
GRANTED and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED for the reasons given
-4-
in the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.
Judgment will enter for the
defendant.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 19, 2013
s/George Caram Steeh
GEORGE CARAM STEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on
September 19, 2013, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Carol Cohron
Deputy Clerk
-5-
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?