Hoon v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 22

ORDER Adopting Magistrate Judge Patti's 19 Report and Recommendation. Signed by District Judge Judith E. Levy. (SBur)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
Robert Hoon, Jr.,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 17-cv-10494
Judith E. Levy
United States District Judge

Commissioner of Social Security,
Mag. Judge Anthony P. Patti
Defendant.
________________________________/
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE PATTI’S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [19]
On February 26, 2018, Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti issued
a Report and Recommendation recommending the Court deny plaintiff’s
motion for remand (Dkt. 15), grant defendant’s motion for summary
judgment (Dkt. 17), and affirm the Commissioner’s decision to deny
plaintiff benefits under the Social Security Act. (Dkt. 19.)
Plaintiff filed three timely objections to Magistrate Judge Patti’s
Report and Recommendation on February 26, 2018. (Dkt. 20.) Where a
magistrate judge has submitted a Report and Recommendation and a
party has timely filed objections to some or all of the Report and

Recommendation, the Court must review de novo those parts of the
Report and Recommendation to which the party has objected. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1).
I.

Background

The Court adopts by reference the background set forth in the
Report and Recommendation, having reviewed it and found it to be
accurate and sufficiently thorough. (Dkt. 19 at 2-6.)
II.

Analysis

The Court’s review of a determination of the Commissioner of
Social Security “is limited to determining whether 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 less than a preponderance but more
than a scintilla; it refers to relevant evidence that a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Gentry v. Comm'r of
Soc. Sec., 741 F.3d 708, 722 (6th Cir. 2014) (citing Rogers, 486 F.3d at
241). When determining “whether substantial evidence supports the
[Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”)] decision, [the Court does] not try
the case de novo, resolve conflicts in evidence, or decide questions of
2

credibility.

Instead, [the Court] considers the ALJ's decision

determinative if there is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind
might accept as sufficient to support the ALJ's conclusion.” Bass v.
McMahon, 499 F.3d 506, 509 (6th Cir. 2007) (internal citations and
quotations omitted).
A. Objection No. 1
Plaintiff’s first objection to Magistrate Judge Patti’s Report and
Recommendation is that it improperly rejects plaintiff’s argument that
the ALJ erred in evaluating the credibility of the various doctors who
examined and treated plaintiff for his alleged disability. (Dkt. 20 at 15.) Plaintiff explains the conclusions of the various doctors that treated
him, and explains why the ALJ erred in the weight he assigned to each
of them. (Id.)
Such an argument is not proper at this stage of the proceedings.
A district court does not weigh evidence when reviewing an ALJ’s
decision, and “if substantial evidence supports the ALJ's decision, [this
Court] defer[s] to that finding ‘even if there is substantial evidence in
the record that would have supported an opposite conclusion.’” Blakley
v. Comm'r Of Soc. Sec., 581 F.3d 399, 406 (6th Cir. 2009) (quoting Key v.
3

Callahan, 109 F.3d 270, 273 (6th Cir. 1997)); see also Mullins v. Sec’y of
Health and Human Servs., 836 F.2d 980, 984 (“Claimant's argument
rests solely on the weight to be given opposing medical opinions, which
is clearly not a basis for our setting aside the ALJ's factual findings.”).
In other words, it is not this Court’s role to go back through the
record and determine which doctor’s testimony should be given which
amount of weight. Instead, the District Court is limited to determining
only if there was “substantial evidence” supporting the ALJ’s
conclusions.

As Magistrate Judge Patti explains in the Report and

Recommendation, there is substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s
weight determinations for each doctor, and the ALJ complied with the
Social

Security

Administration’s

credibility determinations.

regulations

(Dkt. 19 at 10-14.)

for

supporting

his

See 20 C.F.R. §§

404.1527(c)(2)-(6), 416.927(c)(2)-(6) (laying out factors for weighing
doctors’ opinions); Francis v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 414 F. App’x 802, 80405 (6th Cir. 2011) (explaining that the regulations require only “good
reasons for the weight given to the treating source’s opinion[,] not an
exhaustive factor-by-factor analysis.”) (internal formatting omitted).

4

Accordingly, the reasoning in the Report and Recommendation is
adopted and plaintiff’s first objection is overruled.
B.

Objection No. 2

Plaintiff’s second objection to the Report and Recommendation is
that the Magistrate Judge improperly adopted the ALJ’s determination
regarding plaintiff’s credibility. (Dkt. 20 at 5-6.) Specifically, plaintiff
suggests the ALJ’s credibility determination is inconsistent with the
evidence in the record and improperly relies solely on the opinion of one
doctor.
As explained in the Report and Recommendation, the ALJ
supported his credibility determination of plaintiff’s testimony with
substantial evidence. (Dkt. 19 at 22.) In fact, the ALJ provided an
exhaustive review of the evidence in the record that led him to
determine that plaintiff’s own testimony of his symptoms was not
entirely credible. This included a review of objective medical evidence.
(Dkt. 10-2 at 29-32.) The ALJ incorporated “such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as sufficient to support the ALJ's
conclusion.” Bass, 499 F.3d at 509. Thus, his conclusion cannot be
disturbed.
5

C. Objection No. 3
Plaintiff’s third and final objection is that the Report and
Recommendation “failed to address in any cogent way the fact that the
Plaintiff would miss work and be off task due to his impairments. Thus
the RFC was defective in that it did not include all of the Plaintiff’s
severe impairments and did not address the vocational impact of said
impairments.” (Dkt. 20 at 6.) However, in establishing the RFC, the
ALJ made clear and detailed findings about the testimony he found
credible and not credible. (Dkt. 10-2 at 30-32.) None of that testimony
or evidence included anything about plaintiff needing to miss work
frequently or be off task. Indeed, plaintiff does not cite to any evidence
in the record to establish that these limitations were before the ALJ.
(Dkt. 20 at 6.) Regardless, the ALJ’s RFC determination was supported
by substantial evidence, and any failure to disregard plaintiff’s
potential absenteeism and inability to stay on task was harmless error.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the Court ADOPTS the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 19), plaintiff’s
motion for summary judgment is DENIED (Dkt. 15), defendant’s motion
6

for summary judgment is GRANTED (Dkt. 17), and the ALJ’s decision
is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 22, 2018
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 March 22, 2018.
s/Shawna Burns
SHAWNA BURNS
Case Manager

7