Geer v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 21

ORDER Overruling 19 Objection; Adopting 18 Report and Recommendation; Denying Plaintiff's 16 Motion for Summary Judgment; and Granting Defendant's 17 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Stephen J. Murphy, III. (DPar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
RAEANN GEER,

Case No. 2:17-cv-13447

Plaintiff,

HONORABLE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III

v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.

/

ORDER OVERRULING
OBJECTION [19], ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION [18], DENYING
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [16], AND
GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [17]
The Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ("SSA") denied
Raeann Geer's application for Disability Insurance Benefits in a decision issued by
an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"). The SSA Appeals Council declined to review
the ruling, and Geer appealed. The Court referred the matter to the magistrate judge
and the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. ECF 16, 17.
The magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation ("Report")
suggesting the Court deny Geer's motion and grant the Commissioner's motion. ECF
18. Geer filed a timely objection and the Commissioner filed a response to Geer’s
objection. ECF 19, 20. Having examined the record and considered the objections de
novo, the Court will overrule the objection, adopt the Report, deny Geer's motion for

1

summary judgment, grant the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment, and
dismiss the complaint.
BACKGROUND
The Report properly details the events giving rise to Geer's action. ECF No. 18,
PgID 787–90. The Court will adopt that portion of the Report.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Civil Rule 72(b) governs the review of a magistrate judge's report. A district
court's standard of review depends upon whether a party files objections. The Court
need not undertake a review of portions of a Report to which no party has objected.
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 153 (1985). De novo review is required, however, if the
parties "serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and
recommendations." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). In conducting a de novo review, "[t]he
district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive
further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions."
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
When reviewing a case under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the Court "must affirm the
Commissioner's conclusions absent a determination that the Commissioner has failed
to apply the correct legal standards or has made findings of fact unsupported by
substantial evidence in the record." Longworth v. Comm'r Soc. Sec. Admin., 402 F.3d
591, 595 (6th Cir. 2005) (quotations omitted). Substantial evidence consists of "more
than a scintilla of evidence but less than a preponderance" such that a "reasonable
mind might accept it as adequate to support a conclusion." Rogers v. Comm'r of Soc.

2

Sec., 486 F.3d 234, 241 (6th Cir. 2007) (quotations omitted). An ALJ may consider the
entire body of evidence without directly addressing each piece in his decision.
Kornecky v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 167 F. App'x 496, 507–08 (6th Cir. 2006). And an
ALJ need not "make explicit credibility findings as to each bit of conflicting testimony,
so long as his factual findings as a whole show that he implicitly resolved such
conflicts." Id. (quotation omitted).
DISCUSSION
When making a disability determination, an ALJ performs a five-step
sequential analysis. Walters v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 127 F.3d 525, 529 (6th Cir. 1997)
(quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520). Geer's motion for summary judgment challenges the
ALJ's conclusion at Step 3. At Step 3, the ALJ determined that Geer "did not have an
impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled the
severity of one of the listed impairments." EFC 18, PgID 792 (citing ECF 11-2, PgID
56). Geer's summary judgment motion asserts that the ALJ wrongly determined that
she does not meet Listing 1.04, and improperly dismissed treating physician
evidence. See generally ECF 16. The magistrate judge analyzed Geer's claims along
with the Commissioner's contention that "substantial evidence supports the ALJ's
Step 3 determination and . . . the ALJ properly evaluated the opinion of Plaintiff's
treating physician, Mayada Abdul-Aziz, M.D." ECF 18, PgID 791. The magistrate
judge recommended that the Court deny Geer's motion for summary judgment and
grant the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment because "Plaintiff has the
burden of proof on her statements of error, and she has not shown legal error that
would upend the ALJ's decision." Id. at 805. Geer filed one objection to the magistrate
3

judge's Report, claiming that the magistrate judge incorrectly applied a harmless
error analysis and wrongly concluded that Geer did not meet or equal Listing 1.04.
ECF 19, PgID 808. The Court has conducted a de novo review of Geer's objection and
finds it lacks merit.
I.

Listing 1.04
Listing 1.04 relates to disorders of the spine. In Geer's case, the ALJ concluded

that Geer did not meet Listing 1.04 "because the record does not show nerve root
compression, spinal arachnoiditis, or lumbar spinal stenosis." ECF 18, PgID 793
(emphasis omitted) (ECF 11-2, PgID 56). Geer did not identify record evidence of
spinal arachnoiditis, and her summary judgment brief did not discuss it. See ECF 16,
PgID 741–64. Consequently, the magistrate judge assumed that Plaintiff intended to
argue that she meets Listing 1.04 subparts A and C. ECF 18, PgID 796 n.4. Geer does
not object to the assumption. See ECF 19, PgID 808–11. The pertinent section of
Listing 1.04 requires demonstration of the following:
1.04 Disorders of the spine (e.g., herniated nucleus
pulposus,
spinal
arachnoiditis,
spinal
stenosis,
osteoarthritis, degenerative disc disease, facet arthritis,
vertebral fracture), resulting in compromise of a nerve root
(including the cauda equina) or the spinal cord. With:
A. Evidence of nerve root compression characterized by
neuro-anatomic distribution of pain, limitation of motion of
the spine, motor loss (atrophy with associated muscle
weakness or muscle weakness) accompanied by sensory or
reflex loss and, if there is involvement of the lower back,
positive straight-leg raising test (sitting and supine); OR
...
C. Lumbar spinal stenosis resulting in pseudoclaudication,
established by findings on appropriate medically

4

acceptable imaging, manifested by chronic nonradicular
pain and weakness, and resulting in inability to ambulate
effectively, as defined in 1.00B2b.
ECF 18, PgID 792–93 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Listing 1.04, www.ssa.gov); see
also ECF 16, PgID 756–57.
Geer alleges that the ALJ's finding that she does not meet the listing is
"virtually unsupported and inaccurate." ECF 16, PgID 757. As to nerve root
compression, the magistrate judge noted that there is evidence in the record showing
"mild compression of the descending left S1 nerve root," and showing "mild foraminal
stenosis" but that the ALJ's "mis-statements" regarding this aspect of Geer's case are
"not outcome-determinative." ECF 18, PgID 796 (citations omitted). The magistrate
judge found that even if the ALJ's statement that there is a lack of evidence of nerve
root compression or lumbar spinal stenosis is inaccurate, the error is harmless
because Geer failed to present medical evidence that her impairment meets or equals
the impairments in Listing 1.04. Id. at 799. "For a claimant to show that his
impairment matches a listing, it must meet all of the specified medical criteria. An
impairment that manifests only some of those criteria, no matter how severely, does
not qualify." Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 530 (1990); Rabbers v. Comm'r Soc. Sec.
Admin., 582 F.3d 647, 653 (6th Cir. 2009) ("A claimant must satisfy all of the criteria
to meet the listing."). Specifically, as to Listing 1.04 subpart A, Geer did not establish
she suffered motor loss as described in the Listing, or that she underwent positive
straight-leg raise tests in both the sitting and supine positions. ECF 18, PgID 796–
97. And as to Listing 1.04 subpart C, Geer did not cite any evidence to support finding

5

that her leg pain is due to pseudoclaudication and failed to show that she could not
"ambulate effectively" as defined in Listing 1.04. Id. at 797–99. And further, "the ALJ
made sufficient findings elsewhere in her decision to support her conclusion at step
3." Id. at 799–800 (quoting Forrest v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 591 F. App'x 359, 366 (6th
Cir. 2014)).
Geer objects to the magistrate's finding that any misstatement by the ALJ
regarding lack of evidence of nerve root compression or lumbar spinal stenosis is
harmless error. ECF 19, PgID 808–11; see ECF 18, PgID 799. Geer argues that "[i]t
is clear by all analyses that whether Plaintiff meets and/or equals listing 1.04 is in
fact plausible." ECF 19, PgID 811. But Geer fails to acknowledge that it is the
claimant's burden to "point to specific evidence that demonstrates [s]he reasonably
could meet or equal every requirement of the listing." And she has not met this
burden. See Smith-Johnson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 579 F. App'x 426, 432–33 (6th Cir.
2014) (citation omitted). "Through step four, the claimant bears the burden of proving
the existence and severity of limitations caused by her impairments and the fact that
she is precluded from performing her past relevant work[.]" Jones v. Comm'r of Soc.
Sec., 336 F.3d 469, 474 (6th Cir. 2003).
Further, Geer's argument that "the ALJ ought to have obtained some kind of
medical opinion to determine whether the Plaintiff equaled the listing," ignores
record evidence addressed by the magistrate judge. ECF 19, PgID 811. Specifically,
scrutiny of the ALJ opinion "reveals a more extensive analysis of the medical records
within the RFC determination" that supports the ALJ's finding at Step 3 including

6

"reference to the April 10, 2015 physical RFC assessment of state agency medical
consultant R.H. Digby, M.D., M.P.H." that the ALJ gave "some weight." ECF 18, PgID
800 (citing ECF 11-3, PgID 103–05; ECF 11-2, PgID 60). Geer failed to establish she
met all of the specified medical criteria under Listing 1.04. The Court agrees with the
recommendation of the magistrate judge.
CONCLUSION
The Court has carefully reviewed the parties' motions, the Report, and Geer's
objections. The Court finds the objections unconvincing and agrees with the Report's
recommendation to grant the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment and
deny Geer's motion for summary judgment.
ORDER
WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that Geer's Objections to the
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [19] are OVERRULED, and the
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [18] is ADOPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Geer's Motion for Summary Judgment [16]
is DENIED, and the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment [17] is
GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.
SO ORDERED.
s/ Stephen J. Murphy, III
STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III
United States District Judge
Dated: March 15, 2019

7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties
and/or counsel of record on March 15, 2019, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/ David P. Parker
Case Manager

8