Daniels v. Social Security, Commissioner of
Filing
22
OPINION AND ORDER Adopting Report and Recommendation denying 18 to Grant Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 17 and to Deny Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment 16 . Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (LSau)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
AUDRA SUZANNE DANIELS,
Plaintiff,
CASE NO. 17-12574
HON. DENISE PAGE HOOD
v.
COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
/
OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION [#18] TO GRANT DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [#17] AND TO DENY
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [#16]
I.
BACKGROUND
This matter is before the Court on a Report and Recommendation (Doc # 18)
filed by Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub to grant the Motion for Summary
Judgment filed by Defendant Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”)
(Doc # 17) and to deny the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiff Audra
Suzanne Daniels (“Daniels”) (Doc # 16). Daniels has timely filed three objections
to the Report and Recommendation. (Doc # 20) The Commissioner has filed a
response to the objections. (Doc # 21) Having conducted a de novo review of the
parts of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation to which valid
1
objections have been filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court ACCEPTS
and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation, GRANTS the Commissioner’s
Motion for Summary Judgement, and DENIES Daniels’ Motion for Summary
Judgment.
The background facts of this matter are adequately set forth in the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation, and the Court adopts them here.
II.
ANALYSIS
A. Standard of Review
The standard of review by the district court when examining a Report and
Recommendation is set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636. This Court “shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report or the specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which an objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The
court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id. In order to preserve the right
to appeal the magistrate judge’s recommendation, a party must file objections to the
Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days of service of the Report and
Recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Failure to file specific objections
constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140,
155 (1985); Howard v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 508-09 (6th
Cir. 1991); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981).
2
B. Daniels’ Objections
1. First Objection
Daniels first objects to the Magistrate Judge’s analysis of the administrative
law judge’s (“ALJ”) decision to not give controlling weight to the opinion of
Daniels’ treating physician, Dr. Maria Liza Laynes. Daniels argues that the weight
that the ALJ gave Dr. Laynes’ opinion was insufficient considering that Dr. Laynes
specialized in rheumatology. The Magistrate Judge determined that the ALJ took
Dr. Laynes’ specialty into consideration when deciding what weight to assign to her
opinion, but Daniels contends that the Magistrate Judge was in error.
The
Commissioner argues that substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s decision to
discount Dr. Laynes’ opinion because it was “not entirely consistent with the
evidence of record.” (Doc # 11-2, Pg ID 63-64)
The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s finding that the ALJ properly
assessed how much weight should be given to Dr. Laynes’ opinion. Since the ALJ
provided Daniels with a good reason for not giving Dr. Laynes’ opinion controlling
weight, the ALJ was fully within her discretion to discount Dr. Laynes’ opinion.
See, e.g., Gentry v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 741 F.3d 708, 727 (6th Cir. 2014)
(explaining that an ALJ may only choose not to give a treating physician's opinion
controlling weight if she offers a good reason in support of her decision). Courts
have held that a “good reason” could be that a treating physician’s opinion is
3
inconsistent with the evidence in the case record. Warsaw v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.,
No. 11-14872, 2013 WL 943534, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 11, 2013). While there are
six factors that an ALJ must consider when determining that a treating source’s
medical opinion is not controlling, the ALJ was under no obligation to offer Daniels
an “exhaustive factor-by-factor analysis” that explained how she reached her
conclusion. Francis v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 414 F. App’x 802, 804 (6th Cir.
2011). Daniels’ first objection is overruled.
2. Second Objection
Daniels also objects to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that the Court
affirm the ALJ’s finding that according to the record, there were inconsistencies
between Dr. Laynes’ opinion and Daniels’ activities. Daniels argues that the
Magistrate Judge engaged in an inappropriate “post hoc rationalization” in reviewing
the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff’s normal activities conflicted with Dr. Laynes’
medical diagnosis. The Commissioner responds that Daniels’ challenge to the
inconsistencies was waived because it was deemed “wholly undeveloped” by the
Magistrate Judge. The Commissioner further responds that even if this Court were
to allow Daniels to present her claim, the Magistrate Judge properly looked into the
record as a whole as opposed to conducting a post hoc analysis.
This Court cannot consider Daniels’ argument that the Magistrate Judge
inappropriately reviewed the ALJ’s decision to hold that Dr. Laynes’ opinion was
4
inconsistent with Daniels’ daily activities. Daniels waived this claim when she
inadequately presented this argument to the Magistrate Judge. (Doc # 18, Pg ID
716); United States v. Elder, 90 F.3d 1110, 1118 (6th Cir.1996) (stating that “issues
adverted to in a perfunctory manner, unaccompanied by some effort at developed
argumentation, are deemed waived.”). Due to Daniels’ waiver of this claim, she
cannot present it to this Court. Swain v. Commissioner of Social Sec., 379 Fed.Appx.
512, 517-18 (6th Cir.2010) (noting a “claim raised for the first time in objections to
a magistrate judge's report is deemed waived.”). Daniels’ second objection is
overruled.
3. Third Objection
In her third objection, Daniels claims that the Magistrate Judge erred by not
adequately focusing on the ALJ’s rationale for discounting Dr. Laynes’ opinion.
Daniels claims that the ALJ was overly concerned with the labels of the diagnoses
offered by Dr. Laynes and Dr. Kocheril, but should have instead addressed the
substance of their medical opinions. The Commissioner responds by arguing that
the Magistrate Judge found that the ALJ offered sufficient reasoning for her finding
that Dr. Kocheril’s medical opinion conflicted with Dr. Laynes’ medical opinion.
The Magistrate Judge properly found that the ALJ’s rationale for determining
that Dr. Kocheril’s medical opinion was in conflict with the medical opinion of Dr.
Laynes was acceptable. The Magistrate Judge cited record evidence in support of
5
her determination, and therefore the ALJ’s finding is conclusive.
Duncan v.
Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 801 F.2d 847, 851 (6th Cir.1986) (“Pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the findings of the ALJ are conclusive if they are supported
by substantial evidence. Accordingly, our review is limited to determining whether
there is substantial evidence in the record to support the findings.”). Daniels’ third
objection is overruled.
III.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above,
IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub’s Report and
Recommendation (Doc # 18, filed July 31, 2018) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as
this Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Commissioner of Social
Security’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc # 17, filed April 23, 2018) is
GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Audra Suzanne Daniels’ Motion
for Summary Judgment (Doc # 16, filed March 26, 2018) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice.
S/Denise Page Hood
Denise Page Hood
Chief Judge, United States District Court
Dated: September 28, 2018
6
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on
September 28, 2018, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry
Case Manager
7
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?