Steward v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 19

ORDER Accepting and Adopting the Magistrate Judge's August 6, 2024 Report and Recommendation 16 . Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (MarW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MATTHEW S.,
Case No: 23-11305

Plaintiff,

Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds
Magistrate Judge Curtis Ivy, Jr.

v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
_______________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S AUGUST 6,
2024 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [16]
Plaintiff Matthew S. filed this action seeking review of the Commissioner of Social
Security’s decision denying his applications for disability insurance benefits and
supplemental security income under the Social Security Act. (ECF No. 1.) The parties
filed cross-motions for summary judgment. (ECF Nos. 12; 14.) The Court referred these
motions to Magistrate Judge Curtis Ivy, Jr., who issued a report and recommendation to
deny Plaintiff’s motion and grant Defendant’s. (ECF No. 16.) Plaintiff has filed one
objection to the report. (ECF No. 17.) Defendant has filed a response to that objection.
(ECF No. 18.) The court has conducted a de novo review of the portions of the
Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation objected to and OVERRULES Plaintiff’s
objection. Thus, the Court ACCEPTS AND ADOPTS the report and recommendation.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, GRANTS
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and AFFIRMS the decision of the
Commissioner under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

1

I.

Standard of Review
A. De Novo Review of Objections to Magistrate Judge’ Report
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3), “[t]he district judge must

determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly
objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended
disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate with
instructions.”
B. Substantial Evidence Standard
This Court must affirm the Commissioner’s decision if “it is supported by
substantial evidence and was made pursuant to proper legal standards.” Rogers v.
Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 486 F.3d 234, 241 (6th Cir. 2007). “Substantial evidence is more
than a scintilla of evidence but less than a preponderance; it is such relevant evidence
as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Cutlip v.
Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 25 F.3d 284, 286 (6th Cir. 1994). A decision by the
Commissioner supported by substantial evidence will be affirmed “even if the reviewing
court would decide the matter differently.” Id. Further, the Court “does not try the case
de novo, nor resolve conflicts in the evidence, nor decide questions of credibility.” Id.
II.

Analysis
Plaintiff makes one objection to the Magistrate Judge’s report and

recommendation. (ECF No. 17.) To the extent Plaintiff repeats many of the same
arguments he made before the Magistrate Judge, however, the Court notes it “is not
obligated to address objections made in this form because the objections fail to identify
the specific errors in the magistrate judge’s . . . recommendations, and such objections

2

undermine the purpose of the Federal Magistrate’s Act, which serves to reduce
duplicative work and conserve judicial resources.” Owens v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1247, 2013 WL 1304470 at *3 (W.D. Mich. Mar. 28, 2013).
Plaintiff objects to the portion of the Magistrate Judge’s report and
recommendation which finds the administrative law judge’s (“ALJ”) assessment of
Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”) was supported by substantial evidence and
complete according to the Social Security Administration’s (“SSA”) regulations. See
Bowen v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 478 F.3d 742, 745 (6th Cir. 2007) (citing Wilson v.
Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 378 F.3d 541, 546-47 (6th Cir. 2004)) (“a decision of the
Commissioner will not be upheld where the SSA fails to follow its own regulations and
where that error prejudices a claimant on the merits . . .”). More specifically Plaintiff
challenges the completeness of the ALJ’s mental RFC assessment for not addressing
Plaintiff’s “ability to respond appropriately to supervision and co-workers in work situations
. . .” as required under Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 96-8p. (See ECF No. 17,
PageID.2675.) Plaintiff also appears to challenge the Magistrate Judge’s report and
recommendation on the basis that the ALJ did not adequately explain why his RFC
finding and determination of Plaintiff’s ability to work did not adopt certain medical source
opinions that evaluated Plaintiff’s mental RFC. (ECF No. 17, PageID.2675-76.)
The Magistrate Judge found that the ALJ articulated facts and pointed to objective
medical data that support his RFC assessment and the potential exclusion of some
portions of medical source opinions provided by two State agency psychological
consultants.1 (See ECF No. 16, PageID.2662-63.) The Magistrate Judge noted numerous

1

The Magistrate Judge noted some of the limitations found in the evaluations of the two State agency
consultants that Plaintiff argues were improperly excluded from that ALJ’s RFC assessment were only

3

references to Plaintiff’s medical record, including notes from multiple health care
providers, by the ALJ that support his RFC assessment and the work limitations he found
for Plaintiff regarding mental activities. (ECF No. 16, PageID.2662-64.) The Magistrate
Judge agreed with the ALJ that this medical evidence did not indicate some of the
limitations suggested by the two State agency consultants in their RFC worksheet. Id. at
2664. Further, the ALJ’s RFC assessment and work restriction findings do address
Plaintiff’s limitations in interacting with others and mental capacity in work situations
insofar as the ALJ found such limitations to apply to Plaintiff. (See ECF No. 7, PageID.3839.) The Magistrate Judge therefore found that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s
RFC assessment, and some of the mental limitations in work situations suggested by
medical opinions in the record were excluded in compliance with SSR 96-8p. The Court
agrees.
Plaintiff also appears to argue the ALJ’s assessment did not provide sufficient
explanation for omitting the limitations suggested by Kyle Wood, MS, LLP’s opinion. (See
ECF Nos. 16, PageID.2665; 17, PageID.2676.) The Magistrate Judge found, however,
that Plaintiff “mischaracterizes the ALJ’s conclusion” with respect to the ALJ’s treatment
of Mr. Wood’s opinion. (ECF No. 16, PageID.2666.) The Magistrate Judge found the ALJ
based his finding that Plaintiff did not have the marked social limitations suggested by Mr.
Wood’s opinion in part on Plaintiff reporting a variety of activities and interests. Id. Plaintiff
maintains this is an error based on the ALJ “misrepresent[ing]” Plaintiff’s mention of

included in their mental RFC worksheets—which are documents that aid consultants in formulating their
actual mental RFC assessments but do not constitute the assessment—and not all of these limitations
were included in their actual mental RFC assessments. (ECF no. 16, PageID.2664.) Accordingly, the
Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the ALJ was not obligated to include them in his RFC
assessment on this basis as well.

4

activities such that Plaintiff actually engaged in all the activities he mentioned. (ECF No.
17, PageID.2676). The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the ALJ based his
assessment of Plaintiff’s socialization limitations on activities and interests as reported in
Plaintiff’s medical record—not based on an assumption Plaintiff participated in all such
activities. This and other medical evidence in the record provide substantial evidence to
support the ALJ’s treatment of Mr. Wood’s opinion and assessment of Plaintiff’s social
limitations. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objection is overruled.
III.

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objection and

ACCEPTS AND ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation. Therefore,
the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 12), GRANTS
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 14), and AFFIRMS the decision of
the Commissioner of Social Security pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

SO ORDERED.
s/ Nancy G. Edmunds
Nancy G. Edmunds
United States District Judge
Dated: September 25, 2024
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record
on September 25, 2024, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/ Marlena Williams
Case Manager

5