Khan v. Social Security, Commissioner of
ORDER Adopting 29 Report and Recommendation; Denying 25 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Granting 28 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (LVer)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
ANWAR KHAN, JR.
Case No. 16-11383
District Judge Victoria A. Roberts
Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
ORDER: (1) ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION (Doc. # 29); (2) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. # 28); AND (3) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. # 25)
Anwar Khan, Jr. (“Khan”) brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 405(g). He
appeals the denial of Social Security disability benefits by the Commissioner of Social
Security (the “Commissioner”). The Appeals Council denied Khan’s Request for Review
of the decision issued by the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) on March 1, 2016. That
ALJ decision stands as the Commissioner’s final decision. The parties filed crossmotions for summary judgment. The Court referred those motions to Magistrate Judge
R. Steven Whalen.
Magistrate Judge Whalen issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)
recommending that the Court grant the Commissioner’s Motion and deny Khan’s.
Magistrate Judge Whalen concluded that the ALJ did not err by giving little weight to Dr.
Binkley’s (Khan’s psychiatrist) opinions and adopting a non-examining assessment over
the treater’s assessment. He also concluded there was no basis for remand because
the ALJ rejected the opinions of therapist Baer; and physician assistant Nugent. Finally,
Magistrate Judge Whalen concluded that the ALJ did not violate Khan’s due process
rights, and that her determination of Khan’s ability to work was well within the “zone of
choice” accorded to ALJs.
Khan filed Objections. He specifically objects to Magistrate Judge Whalen’s: (1)
acceptance of the ALJ’s disregard of reports showing a cervical spine impairment; (2)
acceptance of the ALJ’s rejection of Dr. Binkley’s opinions; (3) failure to address Khan’s
argument that the ALJ erred in considering the opinions of a non-examining doctor (Dr.
Douglass); and (4) finding that the ALJ did not violate Khan’s due process rights.
Standard of Review
A person may seek judicial review of any final decision of the Commissioner;
however, the findings of the Commissioner as to any fact, if supported by substantial
evidence, shall be conclusive. 42 U.S.C. § 405.
“Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla of evidence but less than a
preponderance … .” Brainard v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 889 F.2d 679, 681
(6th Cir. 1989) (citing Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)). It exists
when a reasonable mind could accept the evidence as adequate to support the
challenged conclusion, even if that evidence could also support the opposite conclusion.
Casey v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 987 F.2d 1230, 1233 (6th Cir. 1993). And,
if the Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, it must stand,
regardless of whether the Court would resolve the disputed facts differently. Bogle v.
Sullivan, 998 F.2d 342, 347 (6th Cir. 1993).
After proper objections are made, the Court conducts a de novo review of a
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation on a dispositive motion. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1); F. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 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); see also
Rice v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 169 F. App’x 452, 453-54 (6th Cir. 2006) (“issues adverted
to in a perfunctory manner, unaccompanied by some effort at developed argumentation,
are deemed waived.”) (quoting McPherson v. Kelsey, 125 F.3d 989, 995-96 (6th
Cir.1997)). 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); Dickey-Williams v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 975 F. Supp. 2d
792, 798 (E.D. Mich. 2013).
After de novo review of the cross motions for summary judgment, the R&R,
Khan’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 the law, and provided 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, which was supported by applicable law and substantial evidence in the record.
The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Whalen’s Report and Recommendation:
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED; Plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment is DENIED. The decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is
IT IS ORDERED.
S/Victoria A. Roberts
Victoria A. Roberts
United States District Judge
Dated: September 21, 2017
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?