Gould v. Social Security, Commissioner of

Filing 17

OPINION and ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 16 Objections, Adopting the Magistrate Judge's 14 Report and Recommendation, Denying Plaintiff's 10 Motion for Summary Judgment and Granting Defendant's 13 Motion for Summary Judgment - Signed by District Judge Judith E. Levy. (FMos)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
Andrew Lamar Gould,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 13-cv-11624
Hon. Judith E. Levy
Mag. Judge Mona K. Majzoub

v.
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S [16]
OBJECTIONS, ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S [14]
REPORT & RECOMMENDATION, DENYING PLAINTIFF’S [10]
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S [13] MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This is an appeal from a denial of Social Security disability
benefits. Before the Court are the parties’ cross-motions for summary
judgment.

Magistrate

Judge

Majzoub

filed

a

Report

and

Recommendation (“R&R”) on May 14, 2015, in which she recommends
granting the Commissioner of Social Security’s motion for summary
judgment and denying plaintiff Andrew Lamar Gould’s motion for
summary judgment.

(Dkt. 14.)

Gould timely filed objections to the

R&R on May 19, 2014. (Dkt. 16.) For the reasons discussed below, the

Court will deny Gould’s objections, adopt the Magistrate Judge’s Report
and Recommendation, deny Gould’s motion for summary judgment, and
grant the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment.
I.

Factual background
The Magistrate Judge adequately recounted the relevant facts and

procedural history. Her findings are incorporated herein.
II.

Standard of review
District courts review de novo those portions of a report and

recommendation to which a specific objection has been made. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(C). “De novo review in these circumstances entails at least a
review of the evidence that faced the magistrate judge; the Court may
not act solely on the basis of a report and recommendation.” Spooner v.
Jackson, 321 F. Supp. 2d 867, 868-69 (E.D. Mich. 2004).
In deciding Social Security appeals, the Court is limited to
determining whether the ALJ applied the correct legal standards in
reaching a decision, and whether the ALJ’s findings are supported by
substantial evidence. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Substantial evidence is
“such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate
to support a conclusion.” Colvin v. Barnhart, 475 F.3d 727, 730 (6th
2

Cir.2007) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

“If the

Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial evidence, we must
defer to that decision, even if there is substantial evidence in the record
that would have supported an opposite conclusion.” Id. (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted).
III. Analysis
The ALJ decided to give little weight to the opinion of Gould’s
treating physician. The Magistrate Judge found the ALJ’s decision was
supported by substantial evidence.

Gould objects to that finding,

arguing that the Magistrate Judge, and the ALJ, misapplied the
treating physician rule. Gould raises no other objections to the R&R.
Under the treating physician rule, if “a treating source's opinion
on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of [a claimant’s] impairment(s)
is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory
diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial
evidence in [the] case record,” it must be given controlling weight,
unless the ALJ gives “good reasons” for not doing so.

20 C.F.R. §

404.1527(c)(2); Gentry v. Comm’r Soc. Security, 714 F.3d 708, 727 (6th
Cir. 2014).

If the treating source’s opinion is not given controlling
3

weight, the ALJ must apply other factors to determine what weight to
give the opinion. Gentry, 714 F.3d at 727.
Here, the ALJ gave little weight to the opinion of Dr. Sajida
Mathew, a psychiatrist who treated Gould from December 2008 to
March 2011. (Dkt. 7-2, Transcript 19-20 [hereinafter “Tr.”].) The ALJ
gave several reasons for this decision; relevant here is the ALJ’s
determination that Dr. Mathew’s opinions in a medical source
statement (Tr. 403-408) were not consistent with Dr. Mathew’s own
treatment notes. (Tr. 20.)
The ALJ noted that Dr. Mathew evaluated Gould on two
occasions: once in December 2008 and once in December 2009. (Tr. 19.)
Otherwise, Dr Mathew only saw Gould for “brief medication review
appointments.” (Id.) Dr. Mathew completed at least part of a medical
source statement in March 2011, in which she opined that Gould could
not independently, appropriately, or effectively complete a workday
without interruption from psychologically based symptoms. (Tr. 40308.) Dr. Mathew found that Gould was seriously limited with regard to
many areas of functioning.
contradicted

her

own

The ALJ found Dr. Mathew’s opinion

contemporaneous
4

treatment

notes,

which

consistently indicate Gould’s improvement and mental stability. (Tr.
20.) According to the ALJ, the notes further show Gould has far fewer
limitations and is doing much better than Dr. Mathew’s source
statement indicates. (Id.)
Dr. Mathew’s source statement indicates Gould is “seriously
limited, but not precluded” with respect to the following mental abilities
and aptitudes needed to do unskilled work: remember work-like
procedures; maintain attention for 2 hour segment; maintain regular
attendance and be punctual; sustain an ordinary routine without
special supervision; work in coordination with or in proximity to others
without being unduly distracted; make simple work-related decisions;
perform at a consistent pace without an unreasonable number and
length of rest periods; accept instructions and respond appropriately to
criticism from supervisors, and deal with normal work stress. (Tr. 405.)
The source statement further indicates Gould is unable to meet
competitive standards with respect to the following: complete a normal
workday and workweek without interruptions from psychologicallybased symptoms. (Id.)

5

Dr. Mathew’s treatment notes comprise two evaluations conducted
in December 2008 and December 2009, medication review notes for each
month of 2009 except February, medication review notes for March,
April, and October 2010, and a medication review note for March 2011.
Dr. Mathews evaluated Gould’s memory twice, indicating it was
good at the December 2008 evaluation, and “fair” at the December 2009
evaluation.

(Tr. 255, 261.)

She recorded his attention and

concentration as within normal limits in March, April, May, June, July,
August, September, October, and November of 2009; in March, April,
May, June, July, August, September, and October 2010; and in March
2011. (Tr. 310, 313, 316, 321, 324, 327, 330, 333, 336, 415, 418, 425,
433, 438, 443, 446, 450, 454.) Although Gould’s judgment is frequently
indicated as limited, it is listed as “better” in January 2009, then as
within normal limits or as “better” in June, August, and September
2009, and again in August 2010. (Tr. 307, 321, 327, 330, 443.) Stability
or improvement are indicated on numerous occasions: January 2009
(mood improved, energy and motivation better, clinical status
improving); March 2009 (in good spirits, symptoms stable); April 2009
(mood stable, symptoms stable); July 2009 (depression “lifting,” energy
6

and motivation better); September 2009 (mood stable, mood improved);
July 2010 (“doing better”); August 2010 (doing “good”, handling father’s
death “okay”); September 2010 (“doing real good”, “dealing with
stressors better”, symptoms stable); October 2010 (stable mood); and
March 2011 (feeling great, motivated to go to work). (Tr. 306, 308, 310,
312, 313, 324, 330, 423, 430, 438, 440, 442, 446.) In fact, the medication
review note for March 2011 – the same month Dr. Mathew reported
serious limitations in Gould’s ability to work – relates that Gould was
working part-time and felt motivated to go to work. (Tr. 423.)
In his objection, Gould points to several places in Dr. Mathew’s
treatment notes that, he contends, are consistent with the Dr. Mathew’s
opinion in the medical source statement.

(Dkt. 16, Objections 2-3.)

First, Dr. Mathew “documented a long history of manic symptoms.”
(Id.) To be sure, Dr. Mathew does mention Gould’s history of manic
symptoms in the December 2008 and 2009 evaluations, but she does so
in describing Gould’s mental health treatment history. (Tr. 252.) Dr.
Mathew further writes that Gould “stated that when he gets manic he
has increased energy, increased psychomotor activity, has racing
thoughts, hyperverbal speech and poor sleep.” Dr. Mathew’s treatment
7

notes consistently reflect Gould having no racing thoughts or increased
psychomotor activity, and only occasional poor sleep. On one occasion,
Dr. Mathew’s notes show Gould reporting increased psychomotor
activity and energy, but also reporting improvement in those symptoms
in the days before the November 2009 medication review. (Tr. 336.) In
other words, even if Gould had a history of manic symptoms, Dr.
Mathew’s notes show those symptoms occurring only once during the
period from December 2008 through March 2011.
Gould also cites four places where the treatment notes reflect his
symptoms growing “more depressive or less stable.”

(Dkt. 16,

Objections 3.) Two of the pages Gould cites reflect the same evaluation
on June 19, 2009. (Tr. 286, 320.) Gould reported feeling sad that day
because of his father’s chronic illness.

(Id.)

The August 2009

medication review indicates Gould “having more negative thoughts
recently” and “feeling low.” (Tr. 327.) The final page Gould cites is from
the November 2009 medication review, mentioned above, at which
Gould reported increased psychomotor activity and energy, but also
reported improvement in those symptoms. (Tr. 336.) This does not
constitute “variability over time,” as Gould contends; rather, it shows a
8

period in which Gould felt low in summer 2009, apparently tied to the
health of his father, and one instance in November 2009 when Gould
reported manic symptoms that improved.

Otherwise, as discussed

above, Dr. Mathew’s treatment notes consistently reveal stability and
improvement, as the ALJ found.
In sum, the ALJ’s determination to give Dr. Mathew’s opinion
statement little weight is supported by evidence that a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate.

The Court must therefore defer to that

determination.
Gould further objects to the ALJ’s treatment of the opinions of
Gould’s therapists, Gina Palacios and Andrea Orsini-Brown. (Dkt. 16,
Objections 3-4.)

The ALJ found these opinions inconsistent with

Palacios’ and Orsini-Brown’s evaluations of Gould, and with Gould’s
description of his own level of functioning. (Tr. 18). The ALJ thus
afforded the opinions little weight. (Id.)
As Gould acknowledges, however, the ALJ was not required to
accord any special weight or consideration to the opinions of Palacios
and Orsini-Brown, as they are not opinions from acceptable medical

9

sources as defined in the Social Security regulations. See 20 C.F.R. §§
404.1513(a), 416.913(a).
IV.

Conclusion
Accordingly, plaintiff’s objections (Dkt. 16) are DENIED;
The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 14) is

ADOPTED;
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 10) is DENIED;
and
Defendant’s

Motion

for

Summary

Judgment

(Dkt.

13)

is

GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 4, 2015
Ann Arbor, Michigan

s/Judith E. Levy
JUDITH E. LEVY
United States District Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon
counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF System
to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the
Notice of Electronic Filing on February 4, 2015.
s/Felicia M. Moses
FELICIA M. MOSES
Case Manager

10