Schrock v. Social Security, Commissioner of

Filing 19

OPINION and ORDER Overruling 16 OBJECTION, Adopting 15 Report and Recommendation, Denying Plaintiff's 12 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Granting Defendant's 14 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Stephen J. Murphy, III. (DPar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JEFFREY SCHROCK, JR.,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:15-cv-13731

v.

HONORABLE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

MAGISTRATE MONA K. MAJZOUB

Defendant.
/
OPINION AND ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS
[16], ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [15],
DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [12],
AND GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [14]
The Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ("SSA") denied Jeffrey
Schrock, Jr.'s application for Supplemental Security Income and Disability Insurance
Benefits in a decision issued by an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"). The SSA Appeals
Council declined to review the ruling, and Schrock appealed. The Court referred the matter
to the magistrate judge and the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The
magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation ("Report") suggesting the Court
deny Schrock's motion and grant the Commissioner’s motion. Schrock filed timely
objections. Having examined the record and considered the objections de novo, the Court
will overrule the objections, adopt the Report, deny Schrock'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 Schrock's action. Report 2–3,
ECF No. 15. The Court will adopt that portion of the Report.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 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 review the portions of a Report to which no party has objected. Thomas
v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 153 (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)(2). 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." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
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 it 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, 507–08 (6th Cir. 2006). And an ALJ need not "make explicit credibility findings
as to each bit of conflicting testimony, so long as his factual findings as a whole show that
he implicitly resolved such conflicts." Id.
DISCUSSION
Schrock objects to the magistrate judge's decision to uphold the ALJ's adverse
2

credibility determination based on Schrock's noncompliance with his prescribed medical
treatment. The ALJ's decision, he argues, was not supported by substantial evidence; he
says the record instead shows that Schrock "lacked the funds and mental stability to
adhere to the treatment program." Obj. 2, ECF No. 16.
An ALJ may properly assess a claimant's credibility when considering her complaints.
Walters v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 127 F.3d 525, 531 (6th Cir. 1997). And because an ALJ's
duty is to observe a witness's demeanor and credibility, any findings based on credibility
are to be accorded great weight and deference. Id.
Here, the magistrate judge clearly and comprehensively outlined the ALJ's
assessment of Schrock's noncompliance with his medical treatment for Type I diabetes.
See Report 8–10, ECF No. 15. Although Schrock claimed there were mental, social, and
fiscal barriers to complying with his treatment, the ALJ found that the evidence in the entire
case record diminished the credibility of his allegations: his mental heath issues were mild
considering the symptomology, intervention, and service that accompanies severe issues;
he did not pursue mental health treatment like someone whose mental health bars him
from work activity; he had access to low cost psychological providers; he possessed the
requisite intelligence, concentration, and memory for his diabetes treatment; and, among
other things, he reportedly completed a wide range of daily activities. AR 28–31, ECF No.
9-2.
The Court accords great deference to the ALJ's findings, and concludes that they are
proper. Substantial evidence supported the ALJ's determination that Schrock was not
disabled.

3

CONCLUSION
The Court has carefully reviewed the parties' motions, the Report, and Schrock's
objections. The Court finds the objections unconvincing, and agrees with the Report's
recommendation to grant the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment and deny
Schrock's motion for summary judgment.
ORDER
WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that Schrock's Objections [16] are
OVERRULED, and the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation [15] is ADOPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Schrock's Motion for Summary Judgment [12] is
DENIED, and the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment [14] 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
Dated: February 13, 2017

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or
counsel of record on February 13, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/David P. Parker
Case Manager

4