Meyer v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 24

ORDER denying 14 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 19 Motion for Summary Judgment; adopting 21 Report and Recommendation. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (CPin)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
TYSON MEYER,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 14-cv-13117
Hon. Victoria A. Roberts

v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.
/
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. # 21) GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. # 19) AND DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(Doc. # 14)
Tyson Meyer (“Meyer”) lost his appeal of a final determination by the
Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”), who denied Meyer’s application for
Supplemental Security Income and Disability Insurance Benefits. This matter is now
before the Court on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, which the Court
referred to Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen.
On June 9, 2015, Magistrate Judge Whalen filed a Report and Recommendation
(R&R) recommending that the Court grant the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary
Judgment, and deny Meyer’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. # 21).
Magistrate Judge Whalen found that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”): (1)
supported his proposition that Meyer did not require use of a wheelchair by substantial
evidence; (2) properly rejected Meyer’s treating physicians’ opinions because of their
lack of access to Michigan Department of Correction’s (“MDOC”) medical records,
1

which appeared to contradict some of Meyer’s claims, and the treating physicians’ own
diagnoses; (3) properly discounted the MDOC physicians’ observations because
observations were not “medical opinions,” and thus the treating physician rule did not
apply. Moreover, Magistrate Judge Whalen noted the MDOC’s medical records strongly
undermined Meyer’s disability claim; and (4) properly concluded Meyer’s “physiologic
opioid dependence, polypharmacy, sedative withdrawal syndrome, and suspected
opiate induced hyperalgesia” were “severe” impairments.
Meyer objected to the R&R. He says the ALJ erred by discounting Meyer’s
treating physician’s opinions and questioning his need for a wheelchair. The
Commissioner asks the Court to adopt the Report and Recommendation.
A court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or
specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b) (1). A court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge. Id. A district court need not conduct
de novo review where the objections are "[f]rivolous, conclusive or general." Mira v.
Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir.1986)(citation omitted). After completing a de novo
review, there is no requirement that the district court articulate all of the reasons it
rejects a party's objections. Tuggle v. Seabold, 806 F.2d 87, 93 (6th Cir. 1986).
The Court carefully reviewed the cross motions for summary judgment, the R&R,
Meyer’s objections, the Commissioner’s response, and the remainder of the record. The
Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Whalen’s conclusions.
Magistrate Judge Whalen accurately laid out the facts and relevant portions of
the administrative record; he engaged in a thorough analysis of the issues and provided
2

reasoned explanations for his conclusions. In reaching his conclusions, Magistrate
Judge Whalen considered the entire record and applied the appropriate standard for
review of an ALJ’s decision. Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision, even if
evidence in the record supports another outcome. Casey v. Sec’y of Health and Human
Servs., 987 F.2d 1230, 1233 (6th Cir. 1993); Crisp v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs.,
790 F.2d 450, 453 n.4 (6th Cir. 1986).
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Whalen’s Report and
Recommendation; GRANTS the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment; and
DENIES Meyer’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
IT IS ORDERED.

S/Victoria A. Roberts
Victoria A. Roberts
United States District Judge
Dated: July 10, 2015
The undersigned certifies that a copy of this
document was served on the attorneys of
record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on
July 10, 2015.
S/Carol A. Pinegar
Deputy Clerk

3