Sims v. Social Security, Commissioner of

Filing 19

ORDER Adopting 16 Report and Recommendation, OVERRULING 17 Plaintiff's Objection, GRANTING Defendant's 15 Motion for Summary Judgment, DENYING Plantiff's 14 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (AChu)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

MICHAEL SIMS,
Case No. 17-12060
Plaintiff,
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT
JUDGE ARTHUR J. TARNOW

v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

MAGISTRATE JUDGE MONA K.
MAJZOUB

Defendant.

/
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION [16]; OVERRULING
PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION [17]; GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT [15]; DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [14]
Plaintiff Michael Sims seeks judicial review of the decision of an
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) denying his application for disability benefits.
Plaintiff, through counsel, filed a Motion for Summary Judgment [14] on October
19, 2017. Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment [15] on October 27,
2017. On June 28, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation
[16] (“R&R”) recommending that the Court grant Defendant’s Motion and deny
Plaintiff’s Motion. Plaintiff filed an Objection to the R&R [17] on July 7, 2018.
Defendant filed a Reply [18] on July 9, 2018.
Page 1 of 7

For the reasons stated below, the Court ADOPTS the R&R [16]. Plaintiff’s
Objection [17] is OVERRULED. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [15]
is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [14] is DENIED.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The Magistrate Judge summarized the record as follows:
II.

Procedural History

Plaintiff protectively filed an application for supplemental
security income on June 19, 2014, alleging that he has been disabled
since September 1, 2010, due to the human immunodeficiency virus
(HIV), a closed head injury, and depression. The Social Security
Administration denied Plaintiff’s claims on October 22, 2014, and
Plaintiff requested a de novo hearing. On March 1, 2016, Plaintiff
appeared with a representative and testified at the hearing before
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Joy A. Turner. The ALJ issued an
unfavorable decision on April 7, 2016, and the Appeals Council
declined to review the decision. Plaintiff then commenced this action
for judicial review, and the parties filed cross motions for summary
judgment, which are currently before the Court.
III.

Hearing Testimony and Medical Evidence

In his brief, Plaintiff sets forth the procedural history of this
matter and provides a brief “Statement of Relevant Facts,” which
primarily consists of a summary of the ALJ’s decision. The ALJ
summarized Plaintiff’s hearing testimony, Plaintiff’s medical record,
and the vocational expert’s (VE’s) testimony in her decision. Defendant
adopts the ALJ’s recitation of the facts. Having conducted an
independent review of Plaintiff’s medical record and the hearing
transcript, the undersigned finds that there are no material
inconsistencies between these recitations of the record. Therefore, in
lieu of re-summarizing this information, the undersigned will
incorporate the above-cited factual recitations by reference and will
Page 2 of 7

also make references and citations to the record as necessary to address
the parties’ arguments throughout this Report and Recommendation.
IV.

Administrative Law Judge’s Determination

The ALJ found that Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial
gainful activity since the application date of June 19, 2014, and that
Plaintiff suffered from the severe impairments of HIV, fractures of left
upper extremity, intracranial injury, seizure disorder, and affective
disorder. Additionally, the ALJ found that Plaintiff’s impairments did
not meet or medically equal the severity of an impairment listed in 20
C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. The ALJ then found that
Plaintiff had the following residual functional capacity (RFC):
[C]laimant has the residual functional capacity to perform
sedentary work as defined in 20 CFR 416.967(a) except
[he] can occasionally climb stairs and ramps; cannot climb
ladders, ropes or scaffolds; and can occasionally balance,
stoop, kneel, crouch, and crawl. The claimant needs to
avoid concentrated exposure to extreme cold, heat,
wetness, humidity, and needs to avoid all exposure to
pulmonary irritants, hazardous machinery, and
unprotected heights. The claimant is limited to simple,
routine tasks with occasional interaction with [the] public,
co-workers and supervisors.
Subsequently, in reliance on the VE’s testimony, the ALJ determined
that Plaintiff was capable of performing a significant number of jobs in
the national economy. Therefore, the ALJ found that Plaintiff was not
disabled under the Social Security Act at any time since June 19, 2014,
the date the application was filed.
[R&R at 2-3] (internal citations omitted).
STANDARD OF REVIEW

Page 3 of 7

The Court reviews objections to a Magistrate Judge’s R&R on a dispositive
motion de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c). However, vague, generalized objections
are not entitled to de novo review. Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir.
1986). “The parties have the duty to pinpoint those portions of the magistrate’s report
that the district court must specially consider.” Id. “A general objection, or one that
merely restates the arguments previously presented is not sufficient to alert the court
to alleged errors on the part of the magistrate judge.” Aldrich v. Bock, 327 F. Supp.
2d 743, 747 (E.D. Mich. 2004).
Judicial review of a decision by a Social Security ALJ is limited to
determining whether the factual findings are supported by substantial evidence and
whether the ALJ employed the proper legal standards. Richardson v. Perales, 402
U.S. 389, 401 (1971). “Substantial evidence is defined as 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). Provided that the ALJ’s conclusion is
supported by substantial evidence, the Court must “. . . defer to that finding even if
there is substantial evidence in the record that would have supported an opposite
conclusion.” Longworth v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 402 F.3d 591, 595 (6th Cir. 2005)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
Page 4 of 7

ANALYSIS
Plaintiff raises only one objection to the R&R, which is difficult to parse. The
Court construes the objection as a general challenge to the R&R’s finding that the
ALJ’s decision was supported by substantial evidence. In support of this argument,
Plaintiff maintains that, in its RFC evaluation, the ALJ failed to: 1) adequately assess
Plaintiff’s injuries and impairments; and 2) incorporate Dr. Tripp’s opinion that
Plaintiff would be limited in his ability to respond to changes in the workplace.
Plaintiff’s objection is without merit. First, the record makes clear that the
ALJ considered Plaintiff’s injuries and impairments in assessing his RFC. As the
Magistrate Judge noted, the ALJ considered the fact that Plaintiff was HIV positive,
experienced two brain injuries in the 1990s, and suffered from depression. Contrary
to Plaintiff’s assertion that the Magistrate Judge “reject[ed] that the ALJ must
incorporate the injuries sustained by Plaintiff within [its] RFC evaluation[,]” the bulk
of the R&R actually addresses the ALJ’s consideration of Plaintiff’s affective
disorder and intracranial injuries in its RFC evaluation. R&R at 6-7.
Furthermore, the ALJ reviewed Plaintiff’s medical records and three
professional opinions – including state psychological consultant Dr. Tripp’s opinion
– regarding Plaintiff’s physical and emotional capabilities. Plaintiff accurately notes
that Dr. Tripp found that Plaintiff was moderately limited in his ability to respond
Page 5 of 7

appropriately to changes in the work setting. But, Plaintiff’s attempt to pluck this
single finding out of Dr. Tripp’s entire report as grounds for remand is unavailing.
Dr. Tripp made several other determinations related to Plaintiff’s employment
capabilities such as findings that he was not significantly limited in his ability to:
perform activities within a schedule; sustain an ordinary routine without supervision;
work in coordination with others; make simple work-related decisions; and set
realistic goals.
In its decision, the ALJ included Dr. Tripp’s opinion that Plaintiff had: mild
restriction of activities of daily living; mild difficulties in maintaining social
functioning; moderate difficulties in maintaining concentration, persistence, or pace;
and no repeated episodes of decompensation. The ALJ plainly reviewed Dr. Tripp’s
opinion and afforded it appropriate weight, seeing as it was consistent with the
objective evidence of record. It would be absurd, as Plaintiff seems to suggest, to
require the ALJ to spell out each and every finding made by a psychological
consultant about the claimant’s particular capabilities in its decision.
Moreover, the Magistrate Judge referred to Dr. Tripp’s opinion in
recommending that this Court find that the ALJ’s RFC determination – which
limited Plaintiff to simple, routine tasks – was supported by substantial evidence.
R&R at 7. Even if the Magistrate Judge hadn’t considered Dr. Tripp’s specific
Page 6 of 7

finding that Plaintiff was moderately limited in his ability to respond to changes in
the workplace, the ALJ’s decision would nevertheless meet the substantial evidence
standard. Therefore, Plaintiff’s objection is overruled.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the R&R [16] of the Magistrate Judge is hereby
ADOPTED and is entered as the findings and conclusions of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Objection [17] is
OVERRULED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment [15] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment [14] is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 25, 2018

/s/Arthur J. Tarnow________________
Arthur J. Tarnow
Senior United States District Judge

Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that this Order was electronically submitted on July 25, 2018, using the
CM/ECF system, which will send notification to each party.
s/A. Chubb
Case Manager

Page 7 of 7