Brown v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
26
OPINION AND ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 23 ; denying objections 24 ; Judgment to issue; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, rmw)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CARA BROWN,
Plaintiff,
Case No: 1:12-cv-1253
v
HON. JANET T. NEFF
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
/
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff seeks judicial review of a decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration denying her claim for disability insurance benefits (DIB) and Supplemental Security
Income (SSI). The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and
Recommendation (R&R), recommending that this Court affirm the decision of the Administrative
Law Judge (ALJ) rendered on behalf of the Commissioner. The matter is presently before the Court
on Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and Recommendation. Defendant filed a response to the
objections. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3), the Court has
performed de novo consideration of the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which
Plaintiff objects. The Court denies the objections and enters this Opinion and Order.
The ALJ issued a decision finding that Plaintiff was not disabled. Plaintiff argued, in
pertinent part, that the decision should be overturned because the ALJ “erred in failing to consider
functional limitations established by treating and examining sources” (Dkt 15, Pl. Br. at 7).
Specifically, she argued that the ALJ failed to give adequate weight to a residual functional capacity
(RFC) questionnaire completed by a nurse practitioner (id. at 9).
The Magistrate Judge rejected Plaintiff’s argument, determining that the ALJ considered the
nurse practitioner’s opinions and found that they were entitled to little weight because the nurse
practitioner ignored the evidence that Plaintiff was malingering and accepted all of Plaintiff’s
complaints without questioning her secondary gain motive (R&R, Dkt 23 at 10). The Magistrate
Judge found that “[t]he record shows that the ALJ was justified in placing little weight on the RFC
questionnaire, as it was not well supported and conflicted with more substantial evidence, as shown
below” (id. at 7). The Magistrate Judge concluded that the ALJ “did not commit error when he gave
greater weight to the opinions of two physicians and a psychologist, because they possessed greater
expertise and their opinions were consistent with the record as a whole” (id. at 11).
In her objections to the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff restates the arguments she
presented to the Magistrate Judge, asserting that the opinions of a consulting examiner and the
treating psychological nurse practitioner are not inconsistent (Objs., Dkt 24 at 2-3) and that the nurse
practitioner’s opinion was given insufficient weight (id. at 4-6). In response, Defendant asserts that
Plaintiff “simply rehashes her previous arguments” (Dkt 25 at 1). Defendant argues that the ALJ
properly gave less weight to the nurse practitioner’s opinion than to the opinions of the consultative
examiner and the State agency nonexamining medical consultants (id. at 3). Defendant rejects
Plaintiff’s assertion that the opinion of the consultative examiner who examined Plaintiff in March
2010 and conducted a mental status examination supported, rather than contradicted, the nurse
practitioner’s assessment, opining that the consultative examiner’s examination was merely “benign”
(id. at 5-6).
Plaintiff’s discussion of the testimony and evidence does not demonstrate any factual or legal
error by the Magistrate Judge in his review. The Magistrate Judge properly determined that the
2
ALJ’s reconciliation and weighing of the opinions was supported by substantial evidence in the
record. That Plaintiff disagrees, for various reasons, with the construction and weight the ALJ gave
the nurse practitioner’s opinion does not demonstrate error requiring reversal. See Buxton v. Halter,
246 F.3d 762, 772-73 (6th Cir. 2001) (“The findings of the Commissioner are not subject to reversal
merely because there exists in the record substantial evidence to support a different conclusion.”).
Accordingly:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Objections (Dkt 24) are DENIED, the Report and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt 23) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the Opinion
of the Court, and the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is AFFIRMED. A Judgment
will be entered consistent with this Opinion and Order.
Dated: April 3, 2014
/s/ Janet T. Neff
JANET T. NEFF
United States District Judge
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?