Jackson v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
17
OPINION AND ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 14 ; Judgment to issue; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, clb)
Case 1:19-cv-01039-JTN-PJG ECF No. 17 filed 10/14/20 PageID.793 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MARY ELIZABETH JACKSON,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:19-cv-1039
v.
HON. JANET T. NEFF
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of a final
decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration denying her claim for
Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB). 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 three 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), this Court has performed de novo review of the portions of the Report and
Recommendation to which Plaintiff objects. For the following reasons, the Court denies the
objections and issues this Opinion and Order.
Plaintiff first argues that the Magistrate Judge erred in concluding that substantial evidence
supports the ALJ’s decisions under the Listing of Impairments where the ALJ erroneously omitted
any consideration of her obesity with regard to whether her ankle impairment satisfies § 1.02(A)
Case 1:19-cv-01039-JTN-PJG ECF No. 17 filed 10/14/20 PageID.794 Page 2 of 3
(Pl. Obj., ECF No. 15 at PageID.783-784). The Magistrate Judge determined that “there is nothing
in the record suggesting that Plaintiff was considered obese prior to the expiration of her insured
status” (R&R, ECF No. 14 at PageID.779). While Plaintiff asserts that “[o]besity was a diagnosis
during … the insured period” (ECF No. 15 at PageID.783), Plaintiff’s references to the record do
not establish that she was considered obese during the relevant time period. Further, as Defendant
points out in response, Plaintiff does not address—let alone demonstrate error in—the Magistrate
Judge’s conclusion that “the record does not support Plaintiff’s argument that she lacked the ability
to ambulate effectively prior to the expiration of her insured status” (R&R, ECF No. 14 at
PageID.774). This objection is properly denied.
Second, Plaintiff argues that the Magistrate Judge also erred in concluding that substantial
evidence supports the ALJ’s decisions under the Listing of Impairments where the ALJ
“improperly disregarded” a diagnosis about her thumbs with regard to whether her thumb
impairments satisfy § 1.02(B) (Pl. Obj., ECF No. 15 at PageID.784-785). The Magistrate Judge
determined that Plaintiff’s doctor made the diagnosis of bilateral basilar joint arthritis “well after
the expiration of Plaintiff’s insured status” (R&R, ECF No. 14 at PageID.776). Plaintiff does not
dispute that the diagnosis was issued after the relevant time period and does not reference any
authority or develop any argument in support of the proposition that disregarding the diagnosis is
“error.” Plaintiff also wholly fails to address the Magistrate Judge’s additional conclusion that her
doctor “did not conclude or observe that Plaintiff’s ability to perform fine and gross movements
with her upper extremities was impaired” (id. at PageID.776). This objection is also properly
denied.
Last, Plaintiff briefly asserts that the Magistrate Judge erred in concluding that the record
supports the Residual Functioning Capacity (RFC) found by the ALJ where the ALJ failed to
2
Case 1:19-cv-01039-JTN-PJG ECF No. 17 filed 10/14/20 PageID.795 Page 3 of 3
consider her obesity (Pl. Obj., ECF No. 15 at PageID.785-786). Again, Plaintiff’s argument fails
to demonstrate any factual or legal error by the Magistrate Judge. Further, Plaintiff fails to address
the Magistrate Judge’s ultimate conclusion that “even if the Court assumes that Plaintiff was obese
prior to the expiration [o]f her insured status, the record does not support the argument that such
warranted a more restrictive RFC” (R&R, ECF No. 14 at PageID.780). This objection is also
properly denied.
Having denied the objections, the Court will adopt the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation as the Opinion of this Court and enter a Judgment consistent with this Opinion
and Order. See FED. R. CIV. P. 58. Accordingly:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Objections (ECF No. 15) are DENIED, the Report
and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 14) 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
Dated: October 14, 2020
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?