Thomas v. SSA

Filing 25

OPINION and ORDER (1) Adopting Magistrate Judge's 21 Report and Recommendation; (2) Denying Plaintiff's 15 Motion for Summary Judgment; (3) Granting Defendant's 19 Motion for Summary Judgment; and (4) Affirming Defendant's Decision. Signed by District Judge Linda V. Parker. (RLou)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
TAMMIE LEE THOMAS,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 17-13239
Honorable Linda V. Parker

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER (1) ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
FEBRUARY 25, 2019 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 21];
(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [15];
(3) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
]19]; AND (4) AFFIRMING DEFENDANT’S DECISION
On October 3, 2017, Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit challenging the
Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying her application for social
security benefits. On the same date, this Court referred the lawsuit to Magistrate
Judge R. Steven Whalen for all pretrial proceedings, including a hearing and
determination of all non-dispositive matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)
and/or a report and recommendation (“R&R”) on all dispositive matters pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). (ECF No. 3.) The parties subsequently filed crossmotions for summary judgment. (ECF Nos. 15, 19.)
On February 25, 2019, Magistrate Judge Whalen issued an R&R
recommending that this Court deny Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and
1

grant Defendant’s motion. (ECF No. 21.) At the conclusion of the R&R,
Magistrate Judge Whalen advises the parties that they may object to and seek
review of the R&R within fourteen days of service upon them. Plaintiff filed
objections on March 11, 2019. (ECF No. 22.)
When objections are filed to a magistrate judge’s R&R on a dispositive
matter, the court “make[s] a de novo determination of those portions of the report
or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The court, however, “is not required to articulate all of the
reasons it rejects a party’s objections.” Thomas v. Halter, 131 F. Supp. 2d 942,
944 (E.D. Mich. 2001) (citations omitted). A party’s failure to file objections to
certain conclusions of the report and recommendation waives any further right to
appeal on those issues. See Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d
1370, 1373 (6th Cir.1987). Likewise, the failure to object to certain conclusions in
the magistrate judge’s report releases the court from its duty to independently
review those issues. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).
Plaintiff asserts two objections to the R&R, both of which address the ALJ’s
and Magistrate Judge Whalen’s assessment of her mental impairment. First,
Plaintiff argues that the evidence established that her mental conditions interfere
with her ability to perform sustained work. Relatedly, in her second objection,
Plaintiff contends that the ALJ failed to account for her mental limitations in the
2

RFC. Having conducted a de novo review of these issues, this Court finds that
neither objection has merit.
The only evidence Plaintiff points to in support of her claim that her mental
conditions preclude her ability to work are her GAF score, her mental diagnosis
mentioned in the medical records, and her own testimony and subjective
complaints. (See Obj. at 5, ECF No. 22 at Pg ID 558.) Plaintiff acknowledges,
however, that a GAF score does not include an assessment of one’s work-related
functions. (Pl.’s Br. at 11, ECF No. 15 at Pg ID 486); see also DeBoard v.
Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 211 F. App’x 411, 415 (6th Cir. 2006) (“[T]he Commissioner
has declined to endorse the Global Assessment Functioning score for use in the
Social Security and Supplemental Security Income disability programs, and has
indicated that Global Assessment Functioning scores have no direct correlation to
the severity requirements of the mental disorders listings.”) (citations, quotation
marks and brackets removed). Moreover, “[a] GAF score is a ‘subjective rating of
an individual’s overall psychological functioning[.]’” Miller v. Comm’r of Soc.
Sec., 811 F.3d 825, 835 (6th Cir. 2016) (quoting Kennedy v. Astrue, 247 F. App’x
761, 766 (6th Cir. 2007)). Plaintiff’s GAF score of 35 was assigned as part of
Plaintiff’s initial evaluation at Northeast Guidance Center on August 4, 2015, is the
only score in the record and thus there is no evidence of consistently low scores,
and is not accompanied by evidence of work-related limitations. (See A.R. at 3363

416, ECF No. 9-7 at Pg ID 427-461.) Moreover, as outlined by the ALJ and
Magistrate Judge Whalen, it is contradicted by substantial evidence in the record.
(See A.R. at 16-17, ECF No. 9-2 at Pg ID 56-57; R&R at 28-29, ECF No. 21 at Pg
ID 551-52.) Sixth Circuit precedent reflects that ALJs do not err when discrediting
a claimant’s GAF scores under similar circumstances. See Miller, 811 F.3d at 836
(citing Kornecky v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 167 F. App’x 496 (6th Cir. 2006)).
“‘The mere diagnosis of [an ailment] … says nothing about the severity of
the condition.’” Long v. Apfel, 1 F. App’x 326, 331 (6th Cir. 2001) (quoting Higgs
v. Bowen, 880 F.2d 860, 863 (6th Cir. 1988)). The Sixth Circuit has found
substantial evidence to support the denial of benefits despite the diagnosis of a
disorder where the record does not support limitations on the claimant’s
functioning. See id. (citing cases). As set forth by the ALJ and Magistrate Judge
Whalen, the record in this case is devoid of objective evidence establishing
functional limitations resulting from Plaintiff’s diagnosed mental impairments.
(See A.R. at 16, ECF No. 9-2 at Pg ID 56; R&R at 22-23, ECF No. 21 at Pg ID
545-46.) The records from Northeast Guidance Center reflect that Plaintiff was
consistently described as having goal directed thought processes, as being alert and
oriented to her person, place, and time, and having normal mood, impulse control,
judgment, psychomotor activity, attention, concentration, and affect. (A.R. at 337-

4

39, 343-43, 358-59, 371-72, 378-79, 385-86, 392-93, ECF No. 9-7 at Pg ID 382384, 389-90, 403-04, 416-17, 423-24, 430-31, 437-38.)
Lastly, Plaintiff’s subjective reports of a mental impairment are not
supported by objective evidence in the record and the ALJ adequately explained
her reason for finding Plaintiff not fully credible. Notably, when the ALJ asked
Plaintiff why she was unable to work, she mentioned only her physical
impairments and medication side effects. (A.R. at 44.) She did not refer to any
mental limitations.
For these reasons, the Court rejects Plaintiff’s objections to Magistrate Judge
Whalen’s R&R and adopts Magistrate Judge Whalen’s recommendations. The
Court therefore is affirming the Commissioner’s decision finding Plaintiff not
disabled under the Social Security Act.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is
DENIED (ECF No. 15); and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for summary
judgment is GRANTED (ECF No. 19).
s/Linda V. Parker
LINDA V. PARKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: March 27, 2019
5

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of
record and/or pro se parties on this date, March 27, 2019, by electronic and/or U.S.
First Class mail.
s/R. Loury
Case Manager

6