Waitman v. Commissioner of Social Security
OPINION AND ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 16 ; Judgment to issue; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, clb)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
DAVID FORREST WAITMAN,
Case No: 1:14-cv-162
HON. JANET T. NEFF
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff seeks judicial review of a decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration, denying Plaintiff’s claim for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) under Title XVI
of the Social Security Act. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge,
who issued a Report and Recommendation (R & R) (Dkt 16), recommending that this Court affirm
the Commissioner’s decision. The matter is presently before the Court on Plaintiff’s Objection to
the Report and Recommendation (Dkt 17). Defendant has filed a detailed Response to Plaintiff’s
arguments (Dkt 18). 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 those portions of the Report and Recommendation
to which objections have been made. The Court denies the objections and issues this Opinion and
Plaintiff, who is an admitted alcoholic (Dkt 17 at p. ID# 861), raises two objections to the
Report and Recommendation based on the Magistrate Judge’s analysis of his substance abuse and
her determination that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) was not required to issue a subpoena.
Both objections are without merit for the reasons well-stated in Defendant’s Response (Dkt 18).
In short, the Magistrate Judge properly deferred to the ALJ’s determination that Plaintiff
would not be disabled in the absence of his substance abuse. The Magistrate Judge correctly
determined that the ALJ was justified in not crediting treating psychologist Maureen Fabiano’s
assessment of Plaintiff’s functioning in the absence of substance abuse. The Magistrate Judge’s
determination was based on an accurate review of the record, which revealed that “‘during the
majority of the time period presently at issue, Plaintiff was unable to both maintain sobriety and take
his prescribed medication’” (Response at p. ID# 868, quoting R&R at p. ID# 856). Further, when
Plaintiff remained sober and took his medication, his ability to function was greatly improved and
was consistent with the RFC determination (id.; R&R at p. ID# 857). The ALJ’s analysis of this
issue also has additional support in the record (see Response at p. ID# 868-69). This objection is
Second, the Magistrate Judge properly determined that the ALJ’s failure to issue a subpoena
to Dr. Shy does not warrant remand, because (1) Plaintiff waived the issue by failing to raise it before
the ALJ; and even if not waived, (2) any error was harmless, as Plaintiff’s interrogatories to Dr. Shy
did not address the question of his abilities in the absence of substance abuse, but rather, merely
addressed his functioning in general (Response at p. ID# 869-70; R&R at p. ID# 857-59). Plaintiff
presents no specific argument or evidence to undermine the Magistrate Judge’s finding of harmless
error. Plaintiff’s objection regarding the subpoena is denied.
Having found Plaintiff’s objections without merit, the Court will adopt the Report and
Recommendation, and affirm the decision of the Commissioner. Judgment will be entered consistent
with this Opinion.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Objection (Dkt 17) is DENIED, the Report and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt 16) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the Opinion
of the Court, and the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is AFFIRMED.
/s/ Janet T. Neff
JANET T. NEFF
United States District Judge
Dated: March 31 , 2015
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?