White v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
25
MEMORANDUM ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 22 affirming Commissioner's decision; signed by Judge Gordon J. Quist (Judge Gordon J. Quist, jmt)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
__________________________
BYRON AMEER WHITE,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 1:13-CV-172
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
HON. GORDON J. QUIST
Defendant.
____________________________________/
MEMORANDUM ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff has filed Objections to Magistrate Judge Joseph G. Scoville’s Report and
Recommendation (R & R), issued on January 16, 2014, which recommends that the Court affirm
the Commissioner’s decision denying Plaintiff’s claim for supplemental security income (SSI)
benefits. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court is required to review de novo those portions
of the R & R to which specific objections have been made. The Court may accept, reject, or
modify any or all of the magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations. Id. After reviewing the
R & R, Plaintiff’s Objections, and the pertinent portions of the administrative record, the Court will
overrule Plaintiff’s Objections and adopt the R & R as the opinion of the Court.
Plaintiff’s objections relate to the R & R’s conclusion that the Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ) properly considered the psychiatric evidence. In his first objection, Plaintiff argues that the
magistrate judge should have followed Boruff v. Astrue, 648 F. Supp. 2d 932, 943-44 (E.D. Mich.
2009), in which the court held that the ALJ erred in finding that the GAF score provided by a
consultative psychologist was not consistent with the medical evidence. Id. As the magistrate judge
correctly noted, however, the facts in Boruff are distinguishable from those of this case. While the
plaintiff in Boruff received virtually identical GAF scores from five different experts, id. at 193-94,
Plaintiff’s GAF scores in this case were all over the map, ranging from15 to 60. Moreover, Boruff
is not binding on this Court. Rather, this Court must follow the dictates of the Sixth Circuit, which
has explicitly rejected the proposition that an ALJ should determine disability based solely on the
unsupported, subjective determination of a GAF score. Rutter v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 95-5772,
1996 WL 379424, at *2 (6th Cir. July 15, 1996). See also Kornecky v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 167
Fed. App’x 496, 511 (6th Cir. 2006) (noting that there is no “statutory, regulatory, or other authority
requiring the ALJ to put stock in a GAF score in the first place”). Accordingly, the magistrate judge
did not err in refusing to follow Boruff.
Plaintiff next objects to the magistrate judge’s use of the term “overwhelming” to describe
the evidence demonstrating that Plaintiff’s improved mental condition was at odds with the lowest
of his GAF scores. Even if Plaintiff were correct that the term did not accurately characterize the
evidence, it would be of no moment. The ALJ was not bound to rely on Plaintiff’s GAF scores in
determining disability. See Rutter, 1996 WL 379424 at *2. The ALJ did examine those scores,
however, along with evidence that Plaintiff’s condition was improving, and determined that the
higher GAF scores better reflected Plaintiff’s condition. Even if the evidence of Plaintiff’s
improvement was not “overwhelming,” the ALJ did not err in making that determination. See
Johnson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 535 Fed. App’x 498, 508 (6th Cir. 2013) (“[N]o particular amount
of weight is required to be placed on a GAF score.”).
Finally, Plaintiff objects to the ALJ’s conclusion that Plaintiff’s daily activities belied his
assertions of complete disability. Plaintiff cites the ALJ’s finding that, although Plaintiff could take
care of his own personal hygiene, he often chose not to do so. Plaintiff ignores the other activities
2
cited by the ALJ, which include weekly shopping, fishing, and learning to cook. Although Plaintiff
is correct that these activities might not represent an “idyllic” life, they support the ALJ’s
determination that Plaintiff was not completely disabled.
Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation
issued January 16, 2014 (dkt. # 22), is ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court, and the decision of
the Commissioner denying benefits to Plaintiff is AFFIRMED.
A separate judgment will issue.
Dated: March 17, 2014
/s/ Gordon J. Quist
GORDON J. QUIST
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?