Bristow v. Social Security
Filing
22
OPINION and ORDER Overruling 17 Objections; Adopting 16 Report and Recommendation; Denying Plaintiff's 13 Motion for Summary Judgment; and Granting Defendant's 14 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Stephen J. Murphy, III. (DPar)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SANDRA BRISTOW,
Case No. 2:17-cv-13769
Plaintiff,
HON. STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
/
OPINION AND ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS [17],
ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [16],
DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [13]
AND GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [14]
The Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ("SSA") denied Plaintiff
Sandra Bristow's application for Supplemental Security Income and Disability Insurance
Benefits in a decision issued by an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"). The SSA Appeals
Council declined to review the ruling, and Plaintiff appealed. The Court referred the matter
to the magistrate judge, ECF 3, and the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment,
ECF 13, 14. The magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation ("Report")
suggesting the Court deny Plaintiff's motion and grant the Commissioner's motion. ECF
16. Plaintiff filed timely objections. ECF 17. Having examined the record and considered
the objections de novo, the Court will overrule the objections, adopt the report, deny
Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, grant the Commissioner's motion for summary
judgment, and dismiss the complaint.
1
BACKGROUND
The Report properly details the events giving rise to Plaintiff's action. ECF 16, PgID
614–15. 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. 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 mind might accept it 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 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.
2
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff raises three objections. The Court will address each of them in turn.
I.
ALJ's Weighing of Dr. Rivera's Opinion
First, Plaintiff objects to the magistrate judge's conclusion that the ALJ's
assignment of little weight to the opinion of Dr. Rivera, Plaintiff's treating physician, was
harmless. ECF 17, PgID 650.
The opinions of a treating physician must be "well-supported by medically
acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques" and consistent with "the other
substantial evidence in [the] case record" to be afforded controlling weight. 20 C.F.R.
§ 404.1527(c)(2). If the ALJ decides that the treating physician's opinion is not entitled to
controlling weight, the ALJ must consider six factors to determine what weight to afford
the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); Wilson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 378 F.3d 541, 544
(6th Cir. 2004).
Dr. Rivera's opinion was a single page with two check boxes and one sentence.1
The ALJ afforded little weight to Dr. Rivera's opinion because she was not a mental health
specialist2 and because Plaintiff's mental health providers did not complete any medical
source statement. ECF 16, PgID 634. The Report disagreed that the ALJ could dismiss
Dr. Rivera's opinion due to her lack of mental health specialization, but concluded that
1
One checkbox question asked whether Plaintiff's depression, anxiety, ADD, and chronic
diarrhea, combined, constituted "a severe mental impairment." ECF 11, PgID 464. Dr.
Rivera checked "yes." Id. The other checkbox question asked whether Plaintiff could
"sustain working a 40 hour a week sedentary job." Id. Dr. Rivera checked "no." Id. Dr.
Rivera also wrote, "Patient unable to concentrate, too anxious to keep doing a particular
task." Id.
2
The specialization of the treating physician is one factor listed in 20 C.F.R.
§ 404.1527(c)(5).
3
the error was harmless. Id. at 635–36 (citing Bragg v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 11–
10579, 2012 WL 1079942, at *10 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 24, 2012), rep. & rec. adopted, 2012
WL 1079925 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 30, 2012). As the Report explained, Dr. Rivera's opinion
was patently deficient. Id. at 635. The Report also pointed out that Dr. Rivera's opinion
spoke to issues reserved for the Commissioner. Id. at 634 (citing 20 C.F.R. §
404.1527(d)(3)). Finally, as the Report noted, the ALJ did not need to explicitly reference
all of the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Id. at 636.
The Court agrees that Dr. Rivera's opinion was patently deficient and that the ALJ
properly assigned little weight to Dr. Rivera's conclusory opinion. The ALJ took into
consideration Dr. Rivera's lack of mental health expertise. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(5)
(noting specialization as one factor to be considered). Furthermore, as the ALJ implicitly
recognized, Dr. Rivera completely failed to present relevant evidence to support her
medical opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3) (describing supportability),
§ 404.1527(c)(2) (providing that supportability is a factor in determining the weight
assigned to a treating physician's opinion). Dr. Rivera did not specify any reported or
observed symptoms or describe any functional limitations. She did not support her opinion
with any medically acceptable clinical or laboratory diagnostic techniques. See 20 C.F.R.
§ 404.1527(c)(2) (requiring the opinion to be well-supported by diagnostic techniques to
be afforded controlling weight). Because Dr. Rivera offered no objective evidence on how
she came to her conclusions, her opinion is patently deficient. See Bragg, 2012 WL
1079942, at *10. The ALJ properly assigned little weight to Dr. Rivera's conclusory
opinion, and Plaintiff's objection fails.
4
II.
ALJ's Weighing of Dr. Czarnecki and Dr. Gventer's Opinions
Second, Plaintiff objects to the magistrate judge's conclusion that the ALJ's
deficient consideration of the opinions of Dr. Czarnecki and Dr. Gventer was not a suitable
ground for remand. ECF 17, PgID 652. Plaintiff argues that the ALJ's error was prejudicial
because the ALJ had relied on the medical opinions when formulating the residual
functional capacity ("RFC"). Id.
Dr. Czarnecki and Dr. Gventer were not treating sources. ECF 16, PgID 638. The
ALJ "generally should explain the weight given to opinions from . . . 'other sources,' or
otherwise ensure that the discussion of the evidence in the determination or decision
allows a claimant or subsequent reviewer to follow the adjudicator's reasoning[.]" SSR
06-03p, 2006 WL 2329939, at *6 (S.S.A. Aug. 9, 2006), rescinded Mar. 27, 2017.3
The ALJ seemed to state that he placed both little weight on Dr. Gventer's opinion
and significant weight on the limitations identified by both Dr. Gventer and Dr. Czarnecki.4
ECF 16, PgID 639–40. But, as the Report found, the ALJ's ultimate finding was consistent
with Dr. Czarnecki's opinion as a whole, as well as Dr. Gventer's opinion that Plaintiff had
no functional restrictions. See id. at 642. Because the ALJ's ultimate finding was
3
SSR 06–03p remained in effect at all relevant times in the case.
4
Dr. Gventer conducted a consultative examination and provided a diagnostic impression
of "Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, Moderate" with a fair prognosis. ECF 11-7,
PgID 380–81. She explained, "Based on the results of the current evaluation, the claimant
is oriented in all spheres. Her memory and concentration are both impaired indicating
some difficulty learning and retaining new information. She has a fund of knowledge that
is consistent with her education achievements. She has appropriate insight and judgment.
She is having a difficult time maintaining work at this time; however, it should be noted
that she is not in counseling so the efficacy of this is unknown at this time. There were no
functional restrictions noted." Id. at 381. The ALJ explained that he gave little weight to
the opinion that "the claimant will have a difficult time maintaining work" because the
opinion was "based upon a one-time examination and based upon information not
consistent with the record as a whole." ECF 11-2, PgID 43.
5
consistent with Dr. Czarnecki's opinion and because Plaintiff failed to allege prejudice,
the Report recommended against remand.
The Court agrees that the ALJ's determination is consistent with and supported by
Dr. Czarnecki's opinion. Dr. Czarnecki identified certain difficulties but ultimately
determined that Plaintiff had no functional restrictions, had a reasonable degree of
independence, and could engage in simple, repetitive work. Id. at 639. Notwithstanding
any ambiguity about exactly how much weight the ALJ assigned to Dr. Gventer's opinion,
the ALJ's RFC determination placed significant weight on Dr. Czarnecki's opinion. The
Court will overrule Plaintiff's objection.
III.
ALJ's Discussion of Plaintiff's Physical Impairments
Third, Plaintiff objects to the magistrate judge's conclusion that the ALJ's lack of
discussion of Plaintiff's physical impairments was not prejudicial. ECF 17, PgID 653.
Plaintiff allegedly suffered from arm pain ("paresthesia"), numbness from her cervical
spine, and chronic diarrhea. ECF 16, PgID 644. The ALJ mentioned the physical
impairments only briefly in his explanation of the RFC determination and apparently
omitted two facts about the chronic diarrhea. Id. at 644–45.
The Report concluded, however, that the ALJ's error, if any, was harmless because
no source identified any RFC limitations based on Plaintiff's pain or diarrhea. Id. at 645.
Indeed, Plaintiff did not allege that any additional limitations were needed to account for
the paresthesia or chronic diarrhea. The Report thus determined that Plaintiff failed to
carry her burden to prove her specific RFC restrictions and to show any limitation caused
by her alleged physical impairments. Id. (collecting cases).
6
The Court agrees with the Report's analysis. No source identified any RFC
limitations due to the alleged physical impairments. Plaintiff failed to establish that her
alleged impairments caused more limitations than those assessed by the ALJ. E.g.,
Bickerstaff v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 2:15-cv-10917, 2016 WL 4182756, at *11 (E.D.
Mich. July 15, 2016). Plaintiff's third objection fails.
CONCLUSION
The Court has carefully reviewed the parties' motions, the Report, and Plaintiff's
objections. It finds the objections unconvincing. The Court agrees with the Report's
recommendation to grant the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment and deny
Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.
ORDER
WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's objections [17] are
OVERRULED, and the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation [16] is
ADOPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment [13] is
DENIED, and the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment [14] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
SO ORDERED.
s/ Stephen J. Murphy, III
STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III
United States District Judge
Dated: December 19, 2018
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties
and/or counsel of record on December 19, 2018, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/ David P. Parker
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?