Sadler v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 21

ORDER adopting 18 Report and Recommendation on 13 Motion for Summary Judgment, 12 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge George Caram Steeh. (MBea)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
WILLIAM JOSEPH SADLER,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 18-11689
v.
Hon. George Caram Steeh
ANDREW SAUL, COMMISSIONER
OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
_______________________________/
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMDATION (ECF No. 18)
On August 16, 2019, Magistrate Judge Stephanie Dawkins Davis
issued a report and recommendation in this action for social security
disability insurance benefits. Magistrate Judge Davis recommends that the
court deny Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, grant the
Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment, and affirm the
Commissioner’s decision. Plaintiff, William Joseph Sadler, filed objections
to the report and recommendation, to which the Commissioner has
responded.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
With respect to reports and recommendations from magistrate
judges, this court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of
the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which
-1-

objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The court “may accept, reject
or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the
magistrate.” Id.
When reviewing a case under the Social Security Act, the district
court may affirm, modify, or reverse the Commissioner’s decision, with or
without remand. See 42 U.S.C. ' 405(g). Findings of fact by the
Commissioner are conclusive if supported by substantial evidence. Id.
The court “must affirm the Commissioner’s decision if it ‘is supported by
substantial evidence and was made pursuant to proper legal standards.’”
Rabbers v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 582 F.3d 647, 651 (6th Cir. 2009) (citation
omitted). “The substantial-evidence standard is met if a ‘reasonable mind
might accept the relevant evidence as adequate to support a conclusion.’”
Blakley v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 581 F.3d 399, 406 (6th Cir. 2009) (citation
omitted). “When deciding under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) whether substantial
evidence supports the ALJ’s decision, we do not try the case de novo,
resolve conflicts in evidence, or decide questions of credibility.” Bass v.
McMahon, 499 F.3d 506, 509 (6th Cir. 2007).
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff’s application for social security disability benefits was denied
after a hearing before an administrative law judge, which became the final
decision of the Commissioner. The ALJ found that Plaintiff suffers from the
-2-

following severe impairments: degenerative disc disease of the lumbar and
cervical spine; right shoulder degenerative joint disease and rotator cuff
tear; irritable bowel syndrome; osteoporosis; osteoarthritis; a depressive
disorder; “NOS”; and cannabis dependence.
The ALJ concluded that although Plaintiff could not return to his past
relevant work as an automobile mechanic and welder, he had the residual
functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform light work, with certain restrictions.
Magistrate Judge Davis, upon review of the record and the parties’ crossmotions for summary judgment, recommends that the court affirm the
Commissioner’s decision. Plaintiff raises several objections to the
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.
I.

Objection 1

Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred by adopting a previously
determined RFC and by not discussing the functional impairments caused
by his osteoarthritis and osteoporosis. The magistrate judge correctly
found that the ALJ did not blindly adopt the previous RFC, but gave the
evidence a “fresh look.” See ECF No. 10-2 at PageID 60 (“[A]ll of the new
evidence has been considered in evaluating the claimant’s residual
functional capacity since the alleged onset date.”); ECF No. 18 at PageID
727-30. See also Earley v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 893 F.3d 929, 931 (6th
Cir. 2018); Kamphaus v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 2018 WL 3800243 at *5
-3-

(E.D. Mich. Jul. 23, 2018) (no error in adopting previous RFC when ALJ
considered new evidence).
As for Plaintiff’s osteoarthritis and osteoporosis, he has not pointed to
evidence that these impairments have caused any additional functional
limitations. See Griffeth v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 217 Fed. Appx. 425, 429
(6th Cir. 2007) (“A claimant’s severe impairment may or may not affect his
or her functional capacity to work. One does not necessarily establish the
other.”) (citation omitted). Although Plaintiff suggests that the ALJ must
explain “how he determined that Plaintiff’s new severe impairments would
not result in any additional functional limitations,” it is Plaintiff’s burden to
establish his RFC. Jordan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 548 F.3d 417, 423 (6th
Cir. 2008) (claimant “retains the burden of proving her lack of residual
functional capacity”). Plaintiff has not demonstrated additional functional
limitations as a result of his osteoarthritis or osteoporosis; accordingly, the
ALJ and magistrate judge did not err in this regard.
Plaintiff further argues that the ALJ improperly relied on Plaintiff’s
daily activities in formulating the RFC and did not account for the limitations
to which Plaintiff testified. The ALJ found that Plaintiff’s “statements
concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of [his] symptoms
are not entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence in

-4-

the record.” ECF No. 10-2 at PageID 62. Plaintiff does not challenge this
credibility determination. Moreover, the ALJ properly considered Plaintiff’s
daily activities in evaluating his subjective complaints and RFC. Warner v.
Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 375 F.3d 387, 392 (6th Cir. 2004) (“The
administrative law judge justifiably considered Warner’s ability to conduct
daily life activities in the face of his claim of disabling pain.”). In sum,
Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the ALJ failed to consider new evidence
or otherwise erred in determining his RFC.
II.

Objection 2

Plaintiff also argues that the ALJ erred in determining his RFC
because the ALJ did not obtain a medical opinion. However, the Sixth
Circuit has repeatedly held that an ALJ is not required to base the RFC on
a physician’s opinion, because to do so “would, in effect, confer upon the
treating source the authority to make the determination or decision about
whether an individual is under a disability, and thus would be an abdication
of the Commissioner’s statutory responsibility to determine whether an
individual is disabled.” Rudd v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 531 Fed. Appx. 719,
728 (6th Cir. 2013). See also Tucker v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 775 Fed.
Appx. 220, 226 (6th Cir. 2019) (“No bright-line rule exists in our circuit
directing that medical opinions must be the building blocks of the residual

-5-

functional capacity finding, but the administrative law judge must make a
connection between the evidence relied on and the conclusion reached.”).
Plaintiff argues that the magistrate judge interpreted the raw medical
data herself by concluding that the medical records “show that Sadler
experienced back, elbow, toe, and shoulder pain with some limitation in the
range of motion in his right shoulder.” ECF No. 18 at PageID 740. To the
contrary, the magistrate judge did not interpret raw medical data, but
summarized the relevant medical records. Plaintiff has not demonstrated
that magistrate judge erred in doing so.
Plaintiff also contends that the magistrate judge erred in determining
that the RFC was supported by Dr. Kuiper’s opinion, which the ALJ gave
“partial weight.” Plaintiff argues that Dr. Kuiper found there was insufficient
evidence in the record and did not provide an opinion. Plaintiff’s
characterization is incorrect. After reviewing Plaintiff’s medical records, Dr.
Kuiper found the evidence was “sufficient to assess the severity” of
Plaintiff’s physical impairments and adopted the ALJ’s previous RFC. ECF
No. 10-3 at PageID 146-49 (emphasis added). Dr. Kuiper did not merely
recite the previous RFC, but agreed with it after considering new medical
evidence. The magistrate judge did not err in finding that the RFC was
supported by sufficient evidence. See ECF No. 18 at PageID 740-41.

-6-

III.

Objection 3

Plaintiff also asserts that the magistrate judge erred in finding that the
ALJ properly applied the treating physician rule. Plaintiff argues that the
ALJ improperly discounted the opinion of his treating physician, Dr.
Somand. The ALJ gave Dr. Somand’s opinion “little weight” because the
doctor “provided little to no explanation of the evidence relied on in forming
his opinions and reports” and the record did not support a significant
worsening of Plaintiff’s condition. The magistrate judge found that the ALJ
provided “good reasons to discount Dr. Somand’s opinion.” ECF No. 18 at
PageID 744-47. Indeed, it is appropriate for an ALJ to discount a
physician’s opinion when he does not identify the objective medical findings
that support the opinion. “Where the opinion of a treating physician is not
supported by objective evidence or is inconsistent with the other medical
evidence in the record, this Court generally will uphold an ALJ’s decision to
discount that opinion.” Price v. Comm'r Soc. Sec. Admin., 342 Fed. Appx.
172, 175-76 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing Combs v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 459 F.3d
640, 652 (6th Cir. 2006)). As the magistrate judge noted, although Dr.
Somand cited an objective finding of “multi-level foraminal narrowing,” he
“did not explain how that objective finding . . . lead him to conclude,
essentially, that Sadler had such extreme limitations.” ECF No. 18 at

-7-

PageID 746. Having reviewed the record, the court finds no error in the
magistrate’s analysis.
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge
Davis’s report and recommendation (ECF No. 18) is ACCEPTED and
ADOPTED as the order of the court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for summary
judgment (ECF No. 12) is DENIED, Defendant’s motion for summary
judgment (ECF No. 13) is GRANTED, Plaintiff’s objections (ECF No. 19)
are OVERRULED, and the final decision of the Commissioner is
AFFIRMED.
Dated: September 19, 2019
s/George Caram Steeh
GEORGE CARAM STEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on
September 19, 2019, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Marcia Beauchemin
Deputy Clerk

-8-