Yargeau v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 28

ORDER Denying 14 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment; Granting 18 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment; Adopting 25 Report and Recommendation and Overruling Objections 26 .. Signed by District Judge Stephen J. Murphy, III. (CCoh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
NATALIE YARGEAU,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 14-cv-14165

v.

HONORABLE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
/
ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS (document no. 26),
ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (document no. 25),
DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (document no. 14),
AND GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (document no. 18)
The Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ("SSA") denied the
application of Natalie Yargeau (“Yargeau”) for Supplemental Security Income and Disability
Insurance Benefits in a decision issued by an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”).
Administrative Record ("A.R.") 19, ECF No. 13-2. After the SSA Appeals Council declined
to review the ruling, Yargeau appealed. The Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge
R. Steven Whalen and the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Mot. Summ.
J., ECF Nos. 14, 18. The magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation
(“Report”) advising the Court to deny Yargeau’s motion and grant the Commissioner’s
motion. Report, ECF No. 25. Yargeau filed timely objections to the Report. Obj., ECF No.
26. After examining the record and considering Yargeau's objections de novo, the Court
concludes that her arguments do not have merit. Accordingly, the Court will adopt the
Report's findings, deny Yargeau's motion for summary judgment, grant the Commissioner's
motion for summary judgment, and dismiss the complaint.

BACKGROUND
The Report properly details the events giving rise to Yargeau's action against the
Commissioner. Report 2–11, ECF No. 25. The Court will adopt that portion of the Report.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Civil Rule 72(b) governs the review of a magistrate judge's report. A district court’s
standard of review depends upon whether a party files objections. The Court need not
undertake any review of portions of a Report to which no party has objected. Thomas v.
Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). De novo review is required, however, if the parties "serve
and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations." Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). In conducting a de novo review, "[t]he district judge may accept, reject,
or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to
the magistrate judge with instructions." Id.
When reviewing a case under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the Court "must affirm the
Commissioner's conclusions absent a determination that the Commissioner has failed to
apply the correct legal standards or has made findings of fact unsupported by substantial
evidence in the record." Longworth v. Comm'r Soc. Sec. Admin., 402 F.3d 591, 595 (6th
Cir. 2005) (quotations omitted). Substantial evidence consists of "more than a scintilla of
evidence but less than a preponderance" such that a "reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion." Rogers v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 486 F.3d 234, 241 (6th
Cir. 2007) (quotations omitted). An ALJ may consider the entire body of evidence without
directly addressing each piece in his decision. Kornecky v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 167 F.
App'x 496, 508 (6th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). "Nor must an ALJ make explicit credibility
findings as to each bit of conflicting testimony, so long as his factual findings as a whole
2

show that he implicitly resolved such conflicts." Id.
DISCUSSION
Yargeau’s objections flow from the argument that the Report improperly relied on the
ALJ’s analysis, which Yargeau faults for incorrectly according “minimal weight” to the
opinion of Dr. Allan Clague, a neurologist who assessed Yargeau once in March 2013 and
opined that Yargeau was “totally and permanently medically disabled.” Obj. 1–3, ECF No.
26; A.R. 31–32, ECF No. 13-2; A.R. 1325, ECF No. 13-11. An ALJ must give “good
reasons” for the weight accorded to a treating source. Smith v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 482
F.3d 873, 875 (6th Cir. 2007). An ALJ may reject all or a portion of a treating physician's
opinion that is inconsistent with substantial evidence indicating otherwise. Warner v.
Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 375 F.3d 387, 391 (6th Cir. 2004). If a source is not given controlling
weight, an ALJ must determine what weight to give it in light of the length, frequency of
examination, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; supportability of the opinion
and its consistency with the record as a whole; and the specialization of the treating source.
Wilson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 378 F.3d 541, 544 (6th Cir. 2004).
First, Yargeau argues that the ALJ improperly found that Dr. Clague’s “opinion is
inconsistent with claimant’s activities of daily living.” Obj. 2, ECF No. 26. The Court
disagrees. Despite her impairments, Yargeau “admitted [to] activities of daily living including
light housework; preparing meals; going shopping; taking care of her parents; taking care
of her pets; driving; and socializing daily.” A.R. 30, ECF No. 13-2. She also admitted to
reading and dancing. Id. When considering the claimant's complaints, "an ALJ may properly
consider the credibility of the claimant. Furthermore, an ALJ's findings based on the
credibility of the applicant are to be accorded great weight and deference, particularly since
3

an ALJ is charged with the duty of observing a witness's demeanor and credibility." Walters
v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 127 F.3d 525, 531 (6th Cir. 1997) (internal citations omitted). Here,
the ALJ juxtaposed Yargeau’s subjective complaints with her admitted daily activities and
found that the admissions diminished the credibility of her allegations. A.R. 30–32, ECF No.
13-2. Because Dr. Clague "apparently relied quite heavily on the subjective report of
symptoms and limitations provided by [Yargeau] and seemed to uncritically accept as true
most, if not all, of what [Yargeau] reported," the ALJ accorded Dr. Clague's opinion minimal
weight. Id. at 32. The Court gives deference to the ALJ's findings and concludes that they
are proper.
Second, Yargeau asserts that the ALJ improperly discredited Dr. Clauge’s opinion
because Yargeau’s representative arranged for Dr. Clague’s examination. Obj. 2–3, ECF
No. 26. She argues that Dr. Clague’s opinion is “well supported and consistent with the
record,” and as a treating physician, his opinion should have been given controlling weight
in the ALJ’s determination. Id. at 3. Lashen v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs. would apply
if the ALJ accorded Dr. Clague's opinion minimal weight "merely because the doctor ha[d]
seen the claimant only once, and the claimant's attorney made the referral." 7 F.3d 233 (6th
Cir. 1993) (Table); see also Blankenship v. Bowen, 874 F.2d 1116, 1122 n.8 (6th Cir.
1989). But the ALJ cited several additional reasons for according minimal weight to Dr.
Clague's opinion: (1) Dr. Clague's strong reliance on, and uncritical acceptance of,
Yargeau's subjective complaints; (2) the possibility that Dr. Clague "was referring solely to
an inability to perform [Yargeau's] past work" when he opined that Yargeau is "disabled";
(3) the inconsistency of Dr. Clague's opinion with Yargeau's admitted activities of daily
living; and (4) the brief nature of the Dr. Clague's treating relationship with Yargeau. A.R.
4

32, ECF No. 13-2. Accordingly, the Court finds that the ALJ's findings were supported by
substantial evidence, and will overrule Yargeau's objection.
Finally, Yargeau claims that the magistrate judge wrongly described Yargeau’s earlier
argument as stating “that the ALJ rejected Dr. Clague’s opinion on the sole basis that Dr.
Clague was hired by Plaintiff’s counsel to examine Plaintiff.” Id. at 1. Because the Court is
reviewing the instant matter de novo and finds that the ALJ’s determination was supported
by substantial evidence in the record, Yargeau’s objection is irrelevant.
CONCLUSION
The Court has carefully reviewed the parties' motions, the Report, and Yargeau's
objections. The Court finds Yargeau's objections unconvincing, and agrees with the
Report's recommendation to grant the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment and
deny Yargeau's motion for summary judgment.
ORDER
WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that the magistrate judge's Report and
Recommendation (document no. 25) is ADOPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (document
no. 14) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment
(document no. 18) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
SO ORDERED.
s/Stephen J. Murphy, III
STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III
United States District Judge
5

Dated: January 7, 2016

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties
and/or counsel of record on January 7, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Carol Cohron
Case Manager

6