Gregson v. Social Security
Filing
21
OPINION AND ORDER Adopting 18 Report and Recommendation; Overruling Plaintiff's 19 Objections; Granting 17 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Commissioner of Social Security and Denying 16 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Billy Ray Gregson Signed by District Judge Robert H. Cleland. (LWag)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
BILLY RAY GREGSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 17-13600
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
/
OPINION AND ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION,
ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, AND GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
All matters in this Social Security appeal stemming from the denial of disability
benefits were referred to Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub for consideration and
recommendation. (Dkt. #3.) Both Plaintiff and Defendant filed motions for summary
judgment. (Dkt. #16, 17.) Currently before this court is a Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) issued by Judge Majzoub which recommends granting Defendant’s motion for
summary judgment and denying Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. #18.)
Plaintiff timely filed one objection to the R&R. (Dkt. #19.) After reviewing the R&R and
the parties’ filings, the court concludes that a hearing is unnecessary. See E.D. Mich.
LR 7.1(f)(2). For the reasons stated below, and in the R&R, the court will overrule
Plaintiff’s objection and adopt the R&R in its entirety without alteration.
I. STANDARD
The filing of timely objections to an R&R requires the court to “make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendations
to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Raddatz,
447 U.S. 667 (1980); United States v. Winters, 782 F.3d 289, 295 n.1 (6th Cir. 2015);
United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). This de novo review requires the
court to re-examine all the relevant evidence previously reviewed by the magistrate
judge to determine whether the recommendation should be accepted, rejected, or
modified in whole or in part. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
In order for this court to apply meaningful de novo review, it is insufficient for the
objecting party to simply incorporate by reference earlier pleadings or reproduce an
earlier unsuccessful motion for dismissal or judgment or response to the other party’s
dispositive motion. See Funderburg v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 15-10068, 2016 WL
1104466, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 22, 2016) (collecting cases from the Eastern District of
Michigan). Insufficient objections to a magistrate judge’s analysis will ordinarily be
treated by the court as an unavailing general objection. See Spencer v. Bouchard, 449
F.3d 721, 725 (6th Cir. 2006) (“Overly general objections do not satisfy the objection
requirement.”).
II. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff’s sole objection challenges the weight afforded to the opinions of
Plaintiff’s treating physician, Dr. Magnatta. Plaintiff contends that the ALJ did not
sufficiently explain her reasons for discounting the opinions of Dr. Magnatta and that
Judge Majzoub improperly credited the ALJ’s assessment of Dr. Magnatta’s opinions.
(Dkt. #19, PageID 378.) In analyzing the opinions of a treating source,
An ALJ is required to give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion
so long as that opinion is supported by clinical and laboratory diagnostic
evidence not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. But
if the ALJ concludes that a treating source’s medical opinion is not entitled
to controlling weight, she must weigh the opinion in light of several factors.
The ALJ need not perform an exhaustive, step-by-step analysis of each
2
factor; she need only provide “good reasons” for both her decision not to
afford the physician’s opinion controlling weight and for her ultimate
weighing of the opinion.
Biestek v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 880 F.3d 778, 785 (6th Cir. 2017) (internal
citation omitted).
Plaintiff contends that the ALJ did not have “good reason” for assigning
only some weight to Dr. Magnatta’s opinions. Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ gave
two justifications for discounting Dr. Magnatta’s opinions: 1) the inconsistency
between Dr. Magnatta’s ultimate assessment of Plaintiff’s abilities and repeated
observation of Plaintiff’s normal gait and station and 2) the provision of only
conservative care until April 2016. Plaintiff argues that that neither justification
was sufficient to discount Dr. Magnatta’s opinions.
Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertions, the ALJ does not rely exclusively on Dr.
Magnatta’s observation of normal gait and station and provision of conservative care in
discounting Dr. Magnatta’s opinions. Rather, these were two of several factors
considered by the ALJ. The ALJ’s opinion also analyzes the results of Plaintiff’s MRI, xrays, and musculoskeletal exams in addition to Plaintiff’s large gaps in treatment and
the opinions of other treating sources. (Dkt. #10-2, PageID 33–34, 61.) The court
agrees with Judge Majzoub’s recommendation that these factors, taken in conjunction
with the inconsistencies present in Dr. Magnatta’s treatment notes and lengthy provision
of conservative care, provide sufficent explanation for the ALJ’s decision not to afford
controlling weight to Dr. Magnatta’s opinions. Thus, even if additional evidence on the
record could support a finding of disability, the court will not reweigh the evidence
3
considered by the ALJ. See Brainard v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 889 F.2d 679,
681 (6th Cir. 1989).
To the extent Plaintiff argues that he be entitled to benefits for a disability
beginning in April 2016 (Dkt. #19, PageID 379), this argument is waived because it has
been ostensibly raised for the first time in Plaintiff’s objection to the R&R. See Swain v.
Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 379 F. App’x 512, 517–18 (6th Cir. 2010).
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the court overrules Plaintiff’s objection and adopts
Judge Majzoub’s R&R in full and without amendment. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objection (Dkt. #19) is OVERRULED and that
Judge Majzoub’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. #18) is ADOPTED IN FULL AND
INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment
(Dkt. #17) is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. #16) is
DENIED.
s/Robert H. Cleland
ROBERT H. CLELAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: February 21, 2019
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record
on this date, February 21, 2019, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Lisa G. Wagner
Case Manager and Deputy Clerk
(810)292-6522
S:\Cleland\Cleland\HEK\Civil\17-13600.GREGSON.adopt.social.security.R&R.HEB.docx
4
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?