Gradascevic v. Colvin

Filing 23

ORDER (1) Overruling Plaintiff's 21 Objections to the Magistrate Judge's 20 Report and Recommendation, (2) Adopting Recommended Disposition of 20 Report and Recommendation, (3) Denying Plaintiff's 14 Motion for Summary Judgment, and (4) Granting Defendant's 19 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
INDIRA GRADASCEVIC,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 16-cv-12998
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
_________________________________/
ORDER (1) OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS (ECF #21) TO
THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
(ECF #20), (2) ADOPTING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION, (3) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF #14), AND (4) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF #19)
In this action, Plaintiff Indira Gradascevic challenges the denial of her
applications for supplemental security income (“SSI”) and disability insurance
benefits (“DIB”). After the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, the
assigned Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which he
recommended that the Court (1) grant summary judgment in favor of the Defendant,
the Commissioner of Social Security, and (2) deny Gradascevic’s motion for
summary judgment (the “R&R”). (See ECF #20.) Gradascevic filed a timely
objection to the R&R (the “Objection”). (See ECF #21.) The Court has conducted a
de novo review of the portions of the R&R to which Gradascevic has objected. For
1

the reasons stated below, the Court OVERRULES the Objection, ADOPTS the
recommended disposition of the R&R, GRANTS the Commissioner’s motion for
summary judgment, and DENIES Gradascevic’s motion for summary judgment.
I
A1
On April 1, 2013, and April 18, 2013, Gradascevic filed applications for SSI
and DIB (the “Applications”). (See Admin. R., ECF #8-5 at Pg. ID 199-200, 20814.) In the Applications, Gradascevic alleged she became disabled on March 24,
2010. (See id.) Among other things, Gradascevic says that she suffers from Reflex
Sympathetic Dystrophy Syndrome/Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (“Regional
Pain Syndrome”) (specifically left hand and wrist pain radiating to her neck),
anxiety, depression, sleeplessness, and substantial side effects from her medications.
The Social Security Administration (the “SSA”) denied the Applications because it
found that Gradascevic was not disabled. (See Admin. R., ECF #8-4 at Pg. ID 13134.)
Gradascevic thereafter requested and received a de novo hearing before
administrative law judge Timothy C. Scallen (the “ALJ”). The ALJ held that hearing

1

The Court recites only the facts relevant to Gradascevic’s Objection. A full
description of the facts is available in the R&R.
2

on November 12, 2014. Gradascevic, her husband, and an impartial vocational
expert all testified at the hearing.
On May 13, 2015, the ALJ issued a written decision affirming the SSA’s
denial of benefits. (See Admin. R., ECF #8-2 at Pg. ID 64-74.) In the ALJ’s decision,
he found that Gradascevic suffered from the following severe impairments:
“depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, and [Regional Pain Syndrome] (left upper
extremity) with a history of recurrent ganglion cyst (left wrist).” (Id. at Pg. ID 66.)
Despite these impairments, the ALJ nonetheless concluded that Gradascevic was not
disabled and was “capable of performing [her] past relevant work as a
housekeeper/cleaner.” (Id. at Pg. ID 72.)
The ALJ based his opinion in part on a 2013 examination of Gradascevic by
consultative examiner Dr. Ernesto Bedia. (See id. at Pg. ID 70-71.) During that
examination, Dr. Bedia did not observe any “atrophy or asymmetry in any [of
Gradascevic’s] extremit[ies],” and “save for some neck and left shoulder range of
motion limitations, [Gradascevic’s] exam was otherwise normal.” (Id. at 70.) In
addition, during that examination, Gradascevic denied having any fatigue, she had
no “swelling or tenderness of her bilateral hands or fingers[,] and her fine and gross
movements were intact.” (Id. at 70-71.) The ALJ concluded that “Dr. Bedia’s
opinion [was] well supported by objective diagnostic testing, his well-trained
observation, an impartial analysis of [Gradascevic’s] present illness, and a well3

reasoned conclusion.” (Id. at 71.) He therefore afforded “substantial weight” to that
opinion. (Id.)
B
On August 17, 2016, Gradascevic filed this action challenging the SSA’s
denial of benefits. (See Compl., ECF #1.) Gradascevic and the Commissioner then
filed cross-motions for summary judgment. (See Gradascevic’s Mot. Summ. J., ECF
#14; Commissioner’s Mot. Summ. J., ECF #19.) One of the arguments Gradascevic
made in her motion was that the ALJ did not properly apply Social Security Ruling
03-2p (“SSR 03-2p”)2 when he evaluated her claim that she suffered from Regional
Pain Syndrome. (See Gradascevic’s Mot. Summ. J., ECF #14 at Pg. ID 557-59.) She
also argued that the ALJ assigned too much weight to Dr. Bedia’s analysis. (See id.
at 559-60.)
The Court referred the cross-motions to the assigned Magistrate Judge. On
February 15, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued the R&R in which he recommended
that the Court grant the Commissioner’s motion and deny Gradascevic’s motion.
(See R&R, ECF #20) In arriving at his recommendation, the Magistrate Judge
carefully analyzed the arguments that Gradascevic made in her motion for summary
judgment, including her arguments that her Regional Pain Syndrome rendered her

2

SSR 03–2p addresses how to evaluate cases involving Regional Pain Syndrome.
4

disabled and that the ALJ relied too heavily on Dr. Bedia’s opinion. Ultimately, the
Magistrate Judge was not persuaded by any of Gradascevic’s arguments. (See id.)
On February 28, 2017, Gradascevic filed the Objection. (See ECF #21.) The
Objection, quoted in full below, objects to the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that
the ALJ properly analyzed Gradascevic’s claim that she was disabled as a result of
her Regional Pain Syndrome:
The Magistrate Judge erroneously concluded (p 20) that
the ALJ’s analysis is consistent with the requirements of
SSR 03-2p for evaluation of RSD/ CRPS disability claims,
citing only mild abnormalities on the Left Wrist Bone
Scan and no evidence of Osteoporosis. However,
Osteoporosis is not always present in RSD/ CRPS cases,
and is not a required criteria for diagnosis of the condition.
SSR 03-2p recognizes this, and further that the pain is
disproportionate to underlying pathology. Thus the cited
facts do not undercut the claim of disability due to RSD/
CRPS, which is otherwise supported by Claimant’s pain
complaints, and indications of autonomic instability such
as color changes and temperature changes. The Magistrate
further cites the manifestly normal Left Upper Extremity
evaluation of SSA Consultant Dr. Bedia. However, SSR
03-2p further recognized that the clinical symptoms of
RSD/ CRPS are transient, thus the difficulty in making a
correct diagnosis, the importance of the longitudinal
record, and the heightened importance of the treating
physician evidence. Here, all treating and examining
physicians other than Dr. Bedia agree with the diagnosis
of RSD/ CRPS, even the worker’s compensation
Consultative Examiner, Dr. Paige.
(Id. at Pg. ID 637.)

5

II
A
Where a party objects to a portion of a Magistrate Judge’s R&R, the Court
reviews that portion de novo. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Lyons v. Comm’r of Soc.
Sec., 351 F.Supp.2d 659, 661 (E.D. Mich. 2004). The Court has no duty to conduct
an independent review of the portions of the R&R to which a party has not objected.
See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).
B
In reviewing the disputed findings of an ALJ, the Court is limited to
determining whether those findings are supported by substantial evidence and are
made pursuant to proper legal standards. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (“The findings of
the Commissioner of Social Security as to any fact, if supported by substantial
evidence, shall be conclusive . . . .”). Substantial evidence is “more than a scintilla
of evidence but less than a preponderance; it is such relevant evidence as 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) (quoting Cutlip v. Sec’y of
Health & Human Servs., 25 F.3d 284, 286 (6th Cir. 1994)). “It is of course for the
ALJ, and not the reviewing court, to evaluate the credibility of witnesses, including
that of the claimant.” Rogers, 486 F.3d at 247. “[A] court is obligated to remand for
further administrative proceedings if there are any unresolved essential factual
6

issues.” Meehleder v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 2012 WL 3154968, at *2 (E.D. Mich.
Aug. 2, 2012) (citing Newkirk v. Shalala, 25 F.3d 316, 318 (6th Cir. 1994)).
III
In Gradascevic’s sole objection to the R&R, she insists that “[t]he Magistrate
Judge erroneously concluded [] that the ALJ’s analysis is consistent with the
requirements of SSR 03-2p for evaluation of [Gradascevic’s Regional Pain
Syndrome] claims.” (Objection, ECF #21 at Pg. ID 637.)

More specifically,

Gradascevic appears to argue that both the ALJ and the Magistrate Judge erred when
they failed to recognize that she had been diagnosed with Regional Pain Syndrome.
For example, Gradascevic takes issue with the Magistrate Judge’s finding that her
claim of disability from Regional Pain Syndrome was “undermined” by a bone scan
of her wrist that showed no signs of osteoporosis, “one of the few objectively
verifiable characteristics of [Regional Pain Syndrome].” (R&R, ECF #20 at Pg. ID
626.) According to Gradascevic, “osteoporosis is not always present in [Regional
Pain Syndrome] cases, and is not a required criteria for diagnosis of the condition.”
(Objection, ECF #21 at Pg. ID 637.) Gradascevic also argues that Dr. Bedia’s
conclusion that she was not disabled was flawed because “the clinical symptoms of
[Regional Pain Syndrome] are transient,” which makes diagnosis of the disorder
during a single examination “difficult[].” (Id.) Finally, Gradascevic points out that

7

“all treating and examining physicians other than Dr. Bedia agree with the diagnosis
of [Regional Pain Syndrome].” (Id.)
Gradascevic has misconstrued the R&R and the ALJ’s ruling. Neither the
ALJ nor the Magistrate Judge concluded that Gradascevic did not suffer from, or
had not been diagnosed with, Regional Pain Syndrome.

Indeed, the ALJ

acknowledged that diagnosis and found that the syndrome was a “severe
impairment” that had “more than a minimal effect on [Gradascevic’s] ability to
perform basic work activities.” (Admin R., ECF #8-2 at Pg. ID 66.) Likewise, the
Magistrate Judge concluded that Gradascevic’s lack of osteoporosis only
“undermined [Gradascevic’s] claims of disability resulting from the condition,” not
the existence of the condition. (R&R, ECF #20 at Pg. ID 626; emphasis added.)
Thus, both the ALJ and the Magistrate Judge accepted and accounted for
Gradascevic’s diagnosis when reaching their conclusions.
To the extent that Gradascevic argues in the Objection that the ALJ (and, in
turn, the Magistrate Judge) erred when he concluded that her Regional Pain
Syndrome did not render her disabled, the Court declines to substitute its findings
for that of the ALJ. See Young v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 787 F.2d 1064,
1066 (6th Cir. 1986) (“A reviewing court does not conduct a de novo examination
of the evidence and it is not free to substitute its findings of fact for those of the
Secretary if substantial evidence supports those findings and inferences”). Here, the
8

ALJ conducted a thorough review of the record before concluding that
Gradascevic’s Regional Pain Syndrome, despite being a severe impairment, was not
disabling. Moreover, while Gradascevic argues that her disability “is supported by
[her] pain complaints,” both the ALJ and the Magistrate Judge cogently explained
why those complaints were not credible and were not consistent with the entirety of
the medical evidence in the record. (See Admin R., ECF #8-2 at Pg. ID 68-72; R&R,
ECF #20 at Pg. ID 625-28, 31-32.) This comprehensive review of Gradascevic’s
medical records assures the Court that even if “the clinical symptoms of [Regional
Pain Syndrome] are transient” as Gradascevic claims (see Objection, ECF #21 at Pg.
ID 637), the ALJ’s conclusion was based on more than a single examination during
a single finite period of time. Accordingly, the Court overrules the Objection.
IV
For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
 Gradascevic’s Objection to the R&R (ECF #21) is OVERRULED;
 The Magistrate Judge’s recommended disposition in the R&R (ECF #20) is
ADOPTED;
 Gradascevic’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF #14) is DENIED; and
 The Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF #19) is
GRANTED.

Dated: September 5, 2017

s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
9

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on September 5, 2017, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]

10