Rutledge v. SSA, Commissioner of
Filing
18
OPINION and ORDER Overruling Plaintiff's 17 Objections; Adopting 16 Report and Recommendation; Denying Plaintiff's 11 Motion for Summary Judgment; and Granting Defendant's 15 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Stephen J. Murphy, III. (DPar)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ISADORE J. RUTLEDGE,
Case No. 2:17-cv-13651
Plaintiff,
HONORABLE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
/
OPINION AND ORDER
OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS [17],
ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [16],
DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [11],
AND GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [15]
The Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ("SSA") denied
Plaintiff Isadore J. Rutledge's application for Supplemental Security Income and
Disability Insurance Benefits in a decision issued by an Administrative Law Judge
("ALJ"). ECF 7-2. After the SSA Appeals Council declined to review the ruling,
Plaintiff appealed. The Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Patricia T.
Morris, and the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. ECF 2, 11, 15. The
magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation ("Report") suggesting that
the Court deny Plaintiff's motion and grant the Commissioner's motion. ECF 16.
Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Report. ECF 17. After examining the record and
considering Plaintiff's objections de novo, the Court concludes that his arguments do
not have merit. Accordingly, the Court will overrule the objections, adopt the Report's
1
findings, deny Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, and grant the
Commissioner's motion for summary judgment.
BACKGROUND
The Report properly details the events giving rise to Plaintiff's action against
the Commissioner. ECF 16, PgID 632–43. 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 objects. The Court need not
undertake any 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
2
mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Rogers v. Comm'r of Soc.
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 the decision.
Kornecky v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 167 F. App'x 496, 508 (6th Cir. 2006) (citation
omitted). "Nor must an ALJ 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. (citation omitted). A court disturbs an ALJ's credibility
assessment "only for a compelling reason." See Sims v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 406 F.
App'x 977, 981 (6th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted).
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff made three objections. First, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred by
determining that he could perform sustained light work. ECF 17, PgID 663. Second,
Plaintiff maintains that the ALJ failed to properly evaluate opinion evidence. Id. at
664. Third, Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ's decision was not supported by substantial
evidence. Id. at 666.
I.
Plaintiff's First Objection
Plaintiff argues that the ALJ improperly determined that he could engaged in
sustained light work. ECF 17, PgID 663. The ALJ found that Plaintiff could perform
a limited range of "light work" requiring: "a sit/stand option at least every 30
minutes," no more than occasional lifting of 20 pounds and frequent lifting of 10
pounds, occasional crouching, crawling, kneeling, climbing, balancing, bending, or
stopping, and a clean-air environment. ECF 7-2, PgID 53–54.
3
In Branon v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., the Sixth Circuit considered how an ALJ
should proceed when a "plaintiff's residual functional capacity was for a limited range
of light work," which "falls between the category of 'light work' and 'sedentary.'" 539
F. App'x 675, 680 (6th Cir. 2013) (emphasis in original). The Branon plaintiff "needed
the option to change position every 30 minutes or so." Id. The Sixth Circuit concluded
that because the plaintiff needed "to alternate between sitting and standing at 30minute intervals," he fell between the categories of light work and sedentary. Id.
In that situation, the ALJ must call a vocational expert ("VE") to testify about
the existence of jobs in the national economy. Id. Then, "[s]o long as the hypothetical"
posed to the VE "is accurate, the administrative law judge may rely on the vocational
expert's testimony to find that the plaintiff can perform a significant number of jobs
in the national economy." Id.
Here, Plaintiff's limitations resemble those of the plaintiff in Branon. The ALJ
called a VE to testify. Plaintiff does not challenge the hypothetical presented to the
VE, and the ALJ relied upon the VE's testimony. As in Branon, the Court can find no
error in the ALJ's approach. Id.
II.
Plaintiff's Second Objection
Plaintiff argues that "the ALJ exclusively relied on the opinion of the State
agency medical consultant," Dr. Muhammad Khalid, "in determining that Plaintiff
was capable of performing a limited range of light work." ECF 17, PgID 665. Plaintiff
further represents that Dr. Khalid did not have the results from an August 12, 2015
MRI, which would have "indicate[d] significant problems that Dr. Khalid should have
4
considered." Id. at 666. Plaintiff concludes that Dr. Khalid's opinion did not warrant
greater weight than Dr. Sethi's opinion, because Dr. Sethi's "records clearly show
significant objective physical as well as radiography evidence supporting limitations
greater than light work." Id.
Plaintiff's objection is unavailing for several reasons. First, he does not identify
any medical opinions submitted by Dr. Sethi. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1) ("Medical
opinions are statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about
the nature and severity of [a patient's] impairment(s)."). Because Plaintiff does not
show that Dr. Sethi provided medical opinions as his treating physician, the ALJ
could not have afforded greater weight to Dr. Sethi's opinion than Dr. Khalid's. See
20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (describing the weight given to opinions of treating
sources); see also ECF 16, PgID 650–51 (Report describing the lack of a medical
opinion from Dr. Sethi).
Second, the ALJ explained that she gave significant weight to Dr. Khalid's
opinion because it "was consistent with record evidence, including that Plaintiff's
physical examination findings were 'minimal at best' with no evidence of acute
distress, gait abnormalities, range of motion deficits, or reduced muscle strength,
excepting that one occasion in November 2013." ECF 16, PgID 652–53 (citing ECF 72, PgID 57–58). Moreover, the ALJ observed that Plaintiff did not require
appointments for his back between November 2013 and July 2015 and did not report
back pain during visits to the emergency room in 2014 and 2015. ECF 7-2, PgID 57–
58.
5
Finally, Plaintiff's representation that the magistrate judge relied only on
Plaintiff's failure to present sufficient medical opinions is belied by the Report. The
magistrate judge detailed the ALJ's findings and responded to Plaintiff's arguments
about the weight afforded Dr. Khalid's opinion. See ECF 16, PgID 652–54.
The ALJ's decision to afford significant weight to Dr. Khalid's opinion is
supported by substantial evidence and the ALJ sufficiently explained her reasoning.
III.
Plaintiff's Third Objection
Plaintiff claims that the ALJ's decision was not supported by substantial
evidence. ECF 17, PgID 666. In support of the argument, Plaintiff acknowledges that
the ALJ identified his severe impairments. See id. at 667. Plaintiff further represents
that he: "gets very little sleep," "has to take naps during the day," "cannot focus," and
is preoccupied by thinking about his pain. Id. Moreover, Plaintiff testified that he
"has to lay down for relief" of his severe pain. Id. Plaintiff concludes that "[i]t is
impossible, based upon the medical records and testimony, for Plaintiff to perform
sustained work." Id.
The ALJ explained the she "found no evidence of 'significant deterioration or
worsening of [Plaintiff's] lumbar spine,'" and noted that Plaintiff's November 2013
MRI did not show "significant degenerative disc disease changes." ECF 16, PgID 653
(quoting ECF 7-2, PgID 57). The ALJ noted that Plaintiff did not have follow-up
appointments about back pain between February 2014 and the date he was last
insured in December 2014 but Plaintiff returned to Dr. Sethi in July 2015. ECF 7-2,
6
PgID 57. Nor did Plaintiff report back pain during visits to the emergency room in
May 2014 and March 2015. Id. at 58.
The ALJ further commented that Plaintiff's asthma appeared to be
"sufficiently managed with treatment." Id. Plaintiff reported not having to use his
rescue inhaler, id., and the record lacked evidence "of any ER treatment for asthma
exacerbations, physical exam findings of lung or respiratory abnormalities, or
mentions that Plaintiff's asthma was uncontrolled[.]" ECF 16, PgID 653. The medical
evidence of Plaintiff's worsening asthma condition arose after the date last that he
was insured. Id. The ALJ's decision is therefore supported by substantial evidence.
For these reasons, the Court will overrule Plaintiff's objections and adopt the
magistrate judge's report.
ORDER
WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's Objections [17] are
OVERRULED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the magistrate judge's Report and
Recommendation [16] is ADOPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment
[11] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's motion for summary
judgment [15] is GRANTED.
7
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 27, 2019
s/ Stephen J. Murphy, III
STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III
United States District Judge
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties
and/or counsel of record on February 27, 2019, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/ David P. Parker
Case Manager
8
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?