Lash v. Social Security, Commissioner of

Filing 17

ORDER Adopting Report and Recommendation for 15 Report and Recommendation, 13 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Social Security, Commissioner of, 10 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Sheila Helen Lash Signed by District Judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff. (MVer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SHEILA HELEN LASH,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case. No. 12-13472
Hon. Lawrence P. Zatkoff

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
/
OPINION AND ORDER
AT A SESSION of said Court, held in the United States Courthouse,
in the City of Port Huron, State of Michigan, on August 29, 2013
PRESENT: THE HONORABLE LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff filed this action seeking Social Security disability benefits. The matter currently before the
Court is Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [dkt 12], in which the Magistrate Judge recommends
that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [dkt 9] be denied and Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment [dkt 11] be granted. Plaintiff has filed objections to the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation [dkt
13]. The Court has thoroughly reviewed the court file, the respective motions, the Report and Recommendation,
and Plaintiff’s objections. For the reasons discussed below, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report
and Recommendation. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED, and Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment is GRANTED. The Court will, however, briefly address Plaintiff’s objections.
II. ANALYSIS
Plaintiff raises two objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. The Court notes
at the outset that Plaintiff’s Objections are largely based on claims that there is evidence to conflict the ALJ’s

relied-upon evidence, or that substantial evidence exists to support a finding in Plaintiff’s favor on a particular
issue. Even if true, however, these claims are not dispositive if “it is also true that substantial evidence supports
[Defendant’s] finding.” Casey v. Sec’y of Health & Human Svc’s, 987 F.2d 1230, 1235 (6th Cir. 1993). Thus, to
the extent that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s findings, Plaintiff’s claims must fail.
A. FIRST OBJECTION
Plaintiff first objects to the Magistrate Judge’s failure to accord controlling weight to the opinions of
Plaintiff’s treating physician, Dr. Kaufman. Essentially, Plaintiff is repeating the same argument contained in her
Motion for Summary Judgement, disputing the ALJ’s weighing of the evidence, and objecting to the Magistrate
Judge’s failure to adopt Plaintiff’s views in that regard. Plaintiff further argues in her objections that there is
evidence to conflict the ALJ’s relied-upon evidence, and that substantial evidence exists to support a finding in
Plaintiff’s favor on a particular issue. Even if true, however, these claims are not dispositive if “it is also true that
substantial evidence supports [Defendant’s] finding.” Casey v. Sec’y of Health & Human Svc’s, 987 F.2d 1230,
1235 (6th Cir. 1993). The ALJ showed, and the Magistrate Judge acknowledged, that substantial evidence (in
the form of an absence of objective medical findings to support Plaintiff’s claims) existed to support the ALJ’s
conclusions.
B. SECOND OBJECTION
Plaintiff states that the ALJ noted that Plaintiff “has dizziness and fatigue from medication,” but never
factored these symptoms into his analysis. From this, Plaintiff objects on the basis that the Magistrate Judge
wholly excused the ALJ’s omission when she stated that the “ALJ simply concluded based on substantial
evidence that the record did not substantiate Plaintiff’s contention that side effects from her medicine produced
symptomology and caused the disabling effects that she alleged.” Plaintiff contends that the ALJ did not make
such a finding, but instead ignored Plaintiff’s claimed side effects, and questions why the Magistrate Judge failed
to explain why Dr. Kaufman’s testimony was not substantial evidence of Plaintiff’s claimed side effects.

2

The Magistrate Judge, however, was under no obligation to explain why Dr. Kaufman’s testimony was
not substantial evidence, as there was other “substantial evidence support[ing] [Defendant’s] finding.” Casey,
987 F.2d at 1235. The ALJ acknowledged Plaintiff’s claims that she experienced dizziness and fatigue as a result
of taking her medication. The Magistrate Judge ultimately found that substantial evidence in the form of
Plaintiff’s underlying medical records, which the ALJ found to not reflect the severity of her claims, were
sufficient for the ALJ to reasonably decline to accept Plaintiff’s testimony in this regard. This determination was
proper under the circumstances. See Burns v. Barnhart, 312 F.3d 113, 130-131 (3d Cir. 2002) (stating that
“drowsiness often accompanies the taking of medication, and it should not be viewed as disabling unless the
record references serious functional limitations”); Johnson v. Barnhart,434 F.3d 650, 658 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating
that the side effects from medication are not disabling unless the treatment notes corroborate serious functional
limitations).
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [dkt 9] is
DENIED, and Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [dkt 11] is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: August 29, 2013

s/Lawrence P. Zatkoff
LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3