Hubbard v. SSA

Filing 19

ORDER Accepting Report and Recommendation 16 and Dismissing Action. Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (LSau)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CHUMIAH HUBBARD,
on behalf of Z.A.G.,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 17-13204
Hon. Denise Page Hood

COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
/
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
AND DISMISSING ACTION
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford’s
Report and Recommendation. [Doc. No. 16] Timely objections and a response to
the objections were filed in this matter. [Doc. Nos. 17 and 18]
Judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision is limited in scope to
determining whether the Commissioner employed the proper legal criteria in
reaching his conclusion. Garner v. Heckler, 745 F.2d 383 (6th Cir. 1984). The
credibility findings of an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) must not be discarded
lightly and should be accorded great deference. Hardaway v. Secretary of Health
and Human Services, 823 F.2d 922, 928 (6th Cir. 1987). A district court’s review

1

of an ALJ’s decision is not a de novo review. The district court may not resolve
conflicts in the evidence nor decide questions of credibility. Garner, 745 F.2d at
397. The decision of the Commissioner must be upheld if it is supported by
substantial evidence, even if the record might support a contrary decision or if the
district court arrives at a different conclusion. Smith v. Secretary of HHS, 893 F.2d
106, 108 (6th Cir. 1984); Mullen v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 535, 545 (6th Cir. 1986).
The Court has had an opportunity to review this matter and finds that the
Magistrate Judge reached the correct conclusions for the proper reasons. Plaintiff
objects to the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that the ALJ did not commit
reversible error when finding that there were not marked limitations in four
functional domains. Plaintiff’s arguments: (1) largely consist of a recitation of the
arguments set forth in her brief in support of her motion for summary judgment,
and (2) ask the Court to examine the evidence and conclude that such evidence
dictates a finding of marked limitations in four functional domains. See Dkt. No.
17, PgID 332 (“As stated in Plaintiff’s brief, the overwhelming weight of the
evidence supports a marked limitation in Plaintiff’s ability to Acquire and Use
Information, Attend To and Complete Tasks, Relate to Others and Care for
Oneself.”). The Court is not persuaded by Plaintiff’s arguments.

2

First, a party cannot succeed by relying on and regurgitating the arguments
set forth in her summary judgment brief, as that approach is not appropriate or
sufficient. See, e.g., O’Connell v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 2016 WL 537771, at *1
(E.D. Mich. Feb. 11, 2016) (citing Betancourt v. Ace Ins. Co. of Puerto Rico, 313
F.Supp.2d 32, 34 (D.P.R. 2004)).

Second, as the Magistrate Judge stated,

“Essentially, [Plaintiff] is requesting that the court reweigh the evidence to
determine whether Z.A.G. should have been found disabled,” which is not
permissible. See Dkt. No. 16, PgID 320 (citing Cutlip v. Sec’y of Health & Human
Servs., 25 F.3d 284, 286 (6th Cir. 1994) (citations omitted) (if supported by
substantial evidence, the Commissioner’s decision must be “affirmed even if the
reviewing court would decide the matter differently, and even if substantial
evidence also supports the opposite conclusion”).
Third, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s objections identify isolated, specific
instances in the record that support her position, but Plaintiff fails to acknowledge
that many of those instances involved situations when Z.A.G. had not taken
medication prescribed for her to help her manage those situations.

Fourth,

Plaintiff’s argument that Z.A.G. has difficulty caring for herself and forgets to take
medications is not surprising. Z.A.G. was only seven years old when the claim
was filed and approximately 11 years old when the case was filed. At either age, a

3

child is unlikely to be able to care for herself or, especially, remember to take
medications.
Finally, even if there is not substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s
conclusion that Plaintiff suffered a marked limitation with respect to the Attend To
and Complete Tasks domain,1 the Court finds that there is substantial evidence in
the record to support a finding that there were not marked limitations in three of
the four functional domains identified by Plaintiff (Acquire and Use Information,
Relate to Others, and Care for Oneself). As Plaintiff does not argue that Z.A.G.’s
impairments constitute extreme limitations with respect to the Attend To and
Complete Tasks domain (or any other area), and as Plaintiff can show that Z.A.G.
had marked limitations in only one functional domain, Plaintiff cannot succeed in
establishing Z.A.G.’s disability. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.926a(a); Lintern v. Colvin,
2015 WL 6541692, at **6-7, n.3 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 29, 2015).
For the reasons set forth above, the Court finds that the ALJ’s decision,
including but not limited to the determinations Plaintiff challenges in her
objections, was supported by substantial evidence and was not based on any legally

The Magistrate Judge reached that conclusion, see Dkt. No. 16, PgID 326-27, and
the Court agrees.

1

4

erroneous determination. Further, the Court accepts the Magistrate Judge’s Report
and Recommendation as this Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge
Elizabeth A. Stafford [Doc. No. 16, filed October 19, 2018] is ACCEPTED and
ADOPTED as this Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Objections [Doc. No. 17,
filed October 31, 2018] are OVERRULED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment [Doc. No. 10, filed January 5, 2018] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment [Doc. No. 15, filed March 20, 2018] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED with
prejudice.
s/Denise Page Hood
Chief Judge, U.S. District Court
DATED: March 19, 2019

5