Dreon v. Social Security, Commissioner of

Filing 18

OPINION AND ORDER Adopting the Magistrate Judge's 15 Report and Recommendation, DENYING Plaintiff's 11 Motion for Summary Judgment, and GRANTING Defendant's 13 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Judith E. Levy. (JHea)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
Julie D.,
Plaintiff,
v.
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

Case No. 23-12735
Judith E. Levy
United States District Judge
Mag. Judge David R. Grand

________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE
JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [15], DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [11], AND
GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT [13]
On October 16, 2024, Magistrate Judge David R. Grand issued a
Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (ECF No. 15) recommending that
the Court deny Plaintiff Julie D.’s motion for summary judgment (ECF
No. 11), grant Defendant Commissioner of Social Security’s motion for
summary judgment (ECF No. 13), and affirm the Administrative Law
Judge’s (“ALJ”) decision. On October 29, 2024, Plaintiff filed two timely
objections to the R&R under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) and

Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 72.1(d). (ECF No. 16.) Defendant
responded to the objection. (ECF No. 17.)
For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s objections are overruled
and the R&R is adopted. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for summary
judgment is denied and Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is
granted.
I.

Background

The Court adopts by reference the background set forth in the R&R,
having reviewed it and finding it to be accurate and thorough. (ECF No.
15, PageID.2438–2439.)
II.

Legal Standard

A party may object to a magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation on dispositive motions, and a district judge must resolve
proper objections under a de novo standard of review. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B)–(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1)–(3). “For an objection to be
proper, Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 72.1(d)(1) requires
parties

to

‘specify

the

part

of

the

order,

proposed

findings,

recommendations, or report to which [the party] objects’ and to ‘state the
basis for the objection.’” Pearce v. Chrysler Grp. LLC Pension Plan, 893
2

F.3d 339, 346 (6th Cir. 2018) (alteration in original). Objections that
restate arguments already presented to the magistrate judge are
improper, see Coleman-Bey v. Bouchard, 287 F. App’x 420, 422 (6th Cir.
2008) (citing Brumley v. Wingard, 269 F.3d 629, 647 (6th Cir. 2001)), as
are those that dispute the general correctness of the report and
recommendation, see Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995).
Moreover, objections must be clear so that the district court can
“discern those issues that are dispositive and contentious.” Id. (citing
Howard v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir.
1991)); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 147 (1985) (stating that
objections must go to “factual and legal” issues “at the heart of the
parties’ dispute”). In sum, objections must be clear and specific enough
that the Court can squarely address them on the merits. See Pearce, 893
F.3d at 346.
In Biestek v. Berryhill, 587 U.S. 97 (2019), the Supreme Court
articulated the standard the district court must apply when conducting
its de novo review. The Court indicated that the phrase “substantial
evidence” is a “term of art.” Id. at 102 (internal citation omitted). “Under
the substantial-evidence standard, a court looks to an existing
3

administrative record and asks whether it contains ‘sufficien[t] evidence’
to support the agency’s factual determinations.” Id. (alteration in
original) (internal citation omitted). “And whatever the meaning of
‘substantial’ in other contexts, the threshold for such evidentiary
sufficiency is not high. Substantial evidence . . . is ‘more than a mere
scintilla.’” Id. at 103 (internal citations omitted). Specifically, “[i]t
means—and means only—‘such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’” Id. (internal citations
omitted). “[I]f substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s [administrative
law judge’s] decision, this Court defers 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. Callahan, 109 F.3d 270, 273 (6th Cir. 1997)).
III. Analysis
A.

Objection 1

In Plaintiff’s first objection, she argues that the ALJ did not
adequately address Plaintiff’s hand impairments and that, as a result,
the ALJ’s conclusion that Plaintiff could perform light work is
insufficient. (ECF No. 16, PageID.2463.) Plaintiff takes issue with the
4

R&R’s recommendation that the ALJ’s decision adequately addresses her
hand impairments.
The R&R determined that the ALJ sufficiently considered
Plaintiff’s allegations of hand-related limitations when formulating the
RFC assessment. (ECF No. 15, PageID.2451.) According to the R&R, “the
factors identified in Emard are present in the ALJ’s decision in this case.”
(Id.) In Emard v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 953 F.3d 844 (6th Cir. 2020), the
Sixth Circuit held that an ALJ’s decision complied with the requirements
in 20 C.F.R. § 416.945(e) and SSR 96-8p when the ALJ expressly
referenced SSR

96-8p and discussed the

plaintiff’s non-severe

impairments at step two of the analysis. Id. at 851–52. Here, the R&R
notes that the ALJ stated that she “accounted for all impairments” and
all symptoms, weighed “the totality of the record,” expressly referenced
SSR 96-8p, and considered the combined effects of all of Plaintiff’s
medically determinable impairments. (ECF No. 15, PageID.2451–2452
(citing ECF No. 7-1, PageID.135, 139).)
Plaintiff contends that this analysis is not sufficient. In support of
this argument, Plaintiff states that, “since Emard was decided, several
district courts have found that an ALJ does not comply with SSR 96-8p
5

merely by mentioning it in the decision.” (ECF No. 16, PageID.2461.)
Instead, the ALJ’s decision “must include at least some discussion of how
a claimant has been limited by their non-severe impairments at step two,
if not in the RFC assessment.” (Id. (citing King v. O’Malley, No. 1:23-CV00065, 2024 WL 3696479, at *7 (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 6, 2024)).) Further,
Plaintiff argues, “[w]hat is missing from both the ALJ’s decision and the
magistrate judge’s analysis is any attempt to connect the evidence
regarding [Plaintiff’s] upper extremities . . . to the RFC result, which did
not include any explicit limitations related to this impairment.” (Id. at
PageID.2462.)
As an initial matter, the ALJ’s analysis consisted of more than
merely mentioning SSR 96-8p. At Step 2 of the analysis, the ALJ
discussed Plaintiff’s hand-related impairments, such as “decreased range
of motion in her wrists.” (ECF No. 7-1, PageID.135.) The ALJ also “noted
Plaintiff’s testimony about pain in her hands and that she ‘dropped
objects in her hand due to loss of grip strength.’” (ECF No. 15,
PageID.2452 (citing ECF No. 7-1, PageID.139).) To the extent this is
necessary, the ALJ’s decision “include[d] at least some discussion of how
a claimant has been limited by their non-severe impairments,” King,
6

2024 WL 3696479, at *7, along with her acknowledgment that the RFC
“has been assessed based on all the evidence with consideration of the
limitations and restrictions imposed by the combined effects of all the
claimant’s medically determinable impairments.” (ECF No. 7-1,
PageID.139.)
Although Plaintiff argues that the RFC assessment had no
connection to the evidence regarding Plaintiff’s upper extremities (ECF
No. 16, PageID.2462), “the ALJ’s statements that she had considered the
entire record and all of [Plaintiff’s] symptoms suggests that she had
considered [Plaintiff’s] impairments in combination.” Emard, 953 F.3d at
851. Further, the Sixth Circuit’s indication that “an ALJ need not
specifically discuss all nonsevere impairments in the residual-functionalcapacity assessment when the ALJ makes clear that her decision is
controlled by SSR 96-8p” lends additional support to the R&R’s
determination that the ALJ’s decision complied with SSR 96-8p.
As such, Plaintiff’s first objection is overruled.
B.

Objection 2

In Plaintiff’s second objection, she argues that the R&R erred
because it “minimizes the evidence showing additional RFC limitations
7

were warranted” for Plaintiff’s migraine headaches. (ECF No. 16,
PageID.2463.) In short, Plaintiff believes that the ALJ did not correctly
weigh the evidence of Plaintiff’s migraines in making her RFC
assessment, and disagrees with the R&R’s recommendation that the
ALJ’s decision be affirmed. (Id. at PageID.2464 (“The magistrate judge
found the ALJ’s assessment of [Plaintiff’s] RFC appropriate, despite the
ALJ’s failure to account for the ‘crippling’ light sensitivity from her
migraines.”); see also id. at PageID.2464–2465 (arguing that the fact that
Plaintiff did not wear sunglasses to one or two appointments between
October 2021 and April 2022 “is insufficient rationale for the ALJ’s
apparent finding that no restrictions related to her photosensitivity were
warranted in the RFC”).)
First, this objection appears to restate arguments already
presented to the magistrate judge. (See ECF No. 11, PageID.2401–2406.)
As such, this objection is improper because it restates arguments already
presented to the magistrate judge. See Coleman-Bey, 287 F. App’x at 422.
Additionally, the R&R is correct that the ALJ’s decision was
sufficiently supported by substantial evidence. The Court’s review of the
ALJ’s decision is limited. “[I]f substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s
8

[administrative law judge’s] decision, this Court defers to that finding
‘even if there is substantial evidence in the record that would have
supported an opposite conclusion.’” Blakley, 581 F.3d at 406 (quoting Key,
109 F.3d at 273). “Under the substantial-evidence standard, a court looks
to an existing administrative record and asks whether it contains
‘sufficien[t] evidence’ to support the agency’s factual determinations.”
Biestek, 587 U.S. at 102.
As explained in the R&R, the ALJ “did in fact consider Plaintiff’s
testimony and the medical evidence” with regard to her migraines. (ECF
No. 15, PageID.2456.) “[G]iven that Plaintiff displayed a sensitivity to
light at only a handful of medical appointments over a less-than-threemonth period, the ALJ did not err in failing to include a limitation
regarding exposure to light in the RFC.” (Id. at PageID.2456–2457.) As
noted in the R&R and the ALJ’s decision, during Plaintiff’s February 3,
2022 appointment, she did not wear sunglasses, the lights were on, and
she reported “that she was having less frequent migraines, and had not
had one in the past week.” (Id. at PageID.2455; ECF No. 7-1, PageID.142,
144.) Additionally, on March 29, 2022, “Plaintiff reported that her
migraines had decreased significantly with Aimovig, although she still
9

had tension headaches several times a week.” (ECF No. 15, PageID.2455;
ECF No. 7-1, PageID.142, 144.)
The Court agrees with the R&R’s finding that the ALJ’s analysis is
supported by substantial evidence and must be affirmed. As such,
Plaintiff’s second objection is overruled.
IV.

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, the Report and Recommendation
(ECF No. 15) is ADOPTED, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment
(ECF No. 11) is DENIED, and Defendant’s motion for summary judgment
(ECF No. 13) is GRANTED. The ALJ’s decision is AFFIRMED. This case
is hereby DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: March 12, 2025
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 12, 2025.
s/Joseph Heacox
On behalf of William Barkholz
Case Manager
10