McCloud v. Social Security, Commissioner of

Filing 23

ORDER Adopting Magistrate's Report and Recommendation. Granting defendant's 18 Motion for Summary Judgment. and denying pltf's 14 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (CBet)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

Andre McCloud,
Case No. 13-14619
Plaintiff,
Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds
v.
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
/
OPINION AND ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [19]
This matter comes before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation [19]. Plaintiff contests Defendant’s determination that Plaintiff is not
entitled to social security benefits for his physical impairments. The Magistrate Judge found
that substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s decision and recommended that Plaintiff’s
motion for summary judgment [14] be denied, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment
[18] be granted, and the case dismissed. Plaintiff timely filed an objection on March 11,
2015 [21].
Plaintiff’s only objection to the Report and Recommendation concerns the ALJ’s
formulation of Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity (RFC), specifically regarding his need
for a cane. In formulating the RFC, the ALJ considered the opinions of multiple physicians.
One of the physicians, Dr. Miller, opined that Plaintiff had a medical basis for the usage of
a cane for weight bearing, ambulation, and balance. The ALJ, however, accorded Dr.
Miller’s opinion little weight, reasoning that it was inconsistent with Dr. Miller’s treatment
notes and the record as a whole. (Tr. 27.) Nevertheless, the ALJ stated that she gave Dr.

Miller “the benefit of the doubt” regarding Plaintiff’s need for cane and “addressed it in
claimant’s residual functional capacity.” (Id.) Based on consideration of the entire record,
the ALJ described Plaintiff’s RFC as follows:
[T]he claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform light work as
defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) and 416.967(b) except the claimant cannot
climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds and can only occasionally climb stairs/ramps,
balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, and crawl. The claimant cannot operate foot/leg
controls with the left lower extremity. The work must allow for a sit/stand at will
option at the workstation and allow for the use of a cane to ambulate distances
greater than 50 feet.
(Id. at 25) (emphasis added.)
Plaintiff complains about the final limitation. Plaintiff believes the ALJ’s statement that
she would give Dr. Miller’s opinion the “benefit of the doubt” required her to fully adopt Dr.
Miller’s opinion, including the need for a cane for weight bearing and balance, and not just
the need of a cane to ambulate distances greater than 50 feet. The Court disagrees. An
ALJ’s RFC determination need only be supported by substantial evidence, and, as the
Magistrate Judge stated, “the ALJ is only required to incorporate into a claimant’s RFC
those limitations that the ALJ finds credible and supported by the record.” (Report and
Recommendation at 14) (citing Casey v. Sec'y of Health and Human Servs., 987 F.2d
1230, 1235 (6th Cir. 1993)). Here, the ALJ did just that. As the Report and
Recommendation persuasively discusses, the only cane-related limitation that the ALJ
found to be credible and supported by the record was Plaintiff’s need for a cane to
ambulate distances greater than 50 feet. This finding was supported by substantial
evidence. The ALJ was not obligated to include limitations in the RFC that she did not find
to be credible and her statement that she would give Dr. Miller’s opinion on Plaintiff’s need
for a cane the “benefit of the doubt” did not change that. The ALJ addressed Plaintiff’s need
2

for a cane in the RFC to the extent she believed it to be credible, and this determination
was supported by substantial evidence.
Accordingly, being fully advised in the premises and having reviewed the record and
the pleadings, including the Report and Recommendation and Plaintiff’s objections, the
Court hereby ACCEPTS AND ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment [14] is DENIED, Defendant’s
motion for summary judgment [18] is GRANTED, and the case is hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
s/Nancy G. Edmunds
Nancy G. Edmunds
United States District Judge
Dated: March 18, 2015
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record
on March 18, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Carol J. Bethel
Case Manager

3