Hoffman v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 20

Memorandum Opinion: Plaintiff's objections to the Report and Recommendation are overruled. The Report and Recommendation is accepted. Because the defendant's decision was supported by substantial evidence, that decision is affirmed, and this case is closed. (Related Doc. No. 17 ). Judge Sara Lioi on 7/24/2018. (P,J)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

THOMAS H. HOFFMAN,
PLAINTIFF,
vs.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
DEFENDANT.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:17-cv-1208
JUDGE SARA LIOI
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before the Court is the Amended Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 17 (“R&R”)) of
Magistrate Judge George J. Limbert with respect to plaintiff’s complaint for judicial review of
defendant’s denial of his application for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) and Supplemental
Insurance Income (“SSI”). Plaintiff filed objections to the R&R (Doc. No. 18 (“Obj.”)) and
defendant filed a response to the objections (Doc. No. 19 (“Resp.”)). Upon de novo review and for
the reasons set forth below, the Court hereby overrules plaintiff’s objections, accepts the R&R,
and dismisses this case.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed his applications for DIB and SSI on October 31, 2013. (Doc. No. 12
(Transcript [“Tr.”]) 255-63; 264-69.1) He alleged disability beginning March 31, 2009 (for DIB)
and October 4, 2013 (for SSI) due to issues with walking because of hip replacement surgery and
the inability to walk, stand, or sit for any length of time. (Id. 294.) The applications were denied
initially (id. 196-209), and upon reconsideration (id. 212-23). Plaintiff requested a hearing before

All page number references are to the page identification number generated by the Court’s electronic docketing
system.
1

an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). (Id. 226-28.) The hearing, at which plaintiff appeared
(represented by counsel), was conducted on February 10, 2016. The hearing transcript is in the
record. (Id. 108-47.) On March 10, 2016, the ALJ issued her decision, determining that plaintiff
was not disabled under the relevant statutes. (Id. 90-103.)
Plaintiff timely filed the instant action, seeking judicial review. Plaintiff, represented by
counsel, filed a statement of errors with supporting memorandum (Doc. No. 13 (“Pl. Br.”)), and
defendant filed a response brief on the merits (Doc. No. 14 (“Def. Br.”)).
On July 5, 2018, Magistrate Judge Limbert issued his R&R, recommending that
defendant’s decision be affirmed because it applied the appropriate legal standards and was
supported by substantial evidence.
II. DISCUSSION
A.

Standard of Review
This Court’s review of the Magistrate Judge’s R&R is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b),

which requires a de novo decision as to those portions of the R&R to which objection is made.
“An ‘objection’ that does nothing more than state a disagreement with a magistrate’s suggested
resolution, or simply summarizes what has been presented before, is not an ‘objection’ as that term
is used in this context.” Aldrich v. Bock, 327 F. Supp. 2d 743, 747 (E.D. Mich. 2004). See also
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“[t]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate
judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to[]”); Local Rule 72.3(b) (any objecting party
shall file “written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings,
recommendations, or report to which objection is made and the basis for such objections[]”).
Judicial review is limited to a determination of whether the ALJ applied the correct legal
standards and whether there is “substantial evidence” in the record as a whole to support the
2

decision. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Longworth v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 402 F.3d 591, 595 (6th Cir.
2005). “Substantial evidence is defined as ‘more than a scintilla of evidence but less than a
preponderance; it is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion.’” Rogers v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 486 F.3d 234, 241 (6th Cir. 2007) (quoting
Cutlip v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 25 F.3d 284, 286 (6th Cir. 1994)). If there is substantial
evidence to support the defendant’s decision, it must be affirmed even if the reviewing court might
have resolved any issues of fact differently and even if the record could also support a decision in
plaintiff’s favor. Crisp v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 790 F.2d 450, 453 n.4 (6th Cir. 1986);
Buxton v. Halter, 246 F.3d 762, 772 (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.”) (citations omitted).
B.

Analysis
Plaintiff raises a single objection to the R&R. He asserts that the R&R commits reversible

error by concluding that the ALJ attributed the appropriate weight to the three treating source
opinions of Dr. Louis Keppler. Plaintiff argues that the inconsistency and lack of support in the
doctor’s treatment records that was pointed out by the ALJ, and accepted by the R&R, are “trivial”
because “the longstanding clinical relationship between Dr. Keppler and the Plaintiff allowed Dr.
Keppler to bring to bear a level of knowledge not exhaustively detailed in his treatment records.”
(Obj. at 658.) Plaintiff argues that the ALJ and the R&R should have fully credited Dr. Keppler’s
conclusion that plaintiff “is unable to sustain a full eight hour workday[,]” (id.), and is, therefore,
disabled.
“The treating physician rule requires the ALJ to assign a treating physician’s opinion
controlling weight if it is ‘well-supported by medically acceptable clinic and laboratory diagnostic
3

techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case
record.’” Perry v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 17-4182, 2018 WL 2470915, at *3 (6th Cir. June 4,
2018) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)) (alteration in original) (further citation omitted). If the
ALJ does not assign controlling weight to a treating source opinion, he or she must give “good
reasons” for discounting the opinion. Biestek v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 880 F.3d 778, 785 (6th Cir.
2017) (cited by Perry). These reasons must be “sufficiently specific to make clear to any
subsequent reviewers the weight given to the treating physician’s opinion and the reasons for that
weight.” Austin v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 714 F. App’x 569, 573 (6th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted).
In addition, only medical opinions must be given controlling weight, not the treating
source’s opinion that one is “totally unable to work.” Andres v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 17-4070,
2018 WL 2017281, at *2 (6th Cir. Apr. 30, 2018); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1) (“Medical opinions
are statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity
of your impairment(s) . . . .”); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1) (“We are responsible for making the
determination or decision about whether you meet the statutory definition of disability. . . . A
statement by a medical source that you are ‘disabled’ or ‘unable to work’ does not mean that we
will determine that you are disabled.”).
Here, the R&R carefully examined the ALJ’s treatment of the three reports of Dr. Keppler,
in light of the entire medical record, ultimately concluding that the ALJ provided good reasons for
attributing less than controlling weight to each one. (See R&R at 642-46, discussing reports/letters

4

dated March 27, 2014,2 April 30, 2015,3 and May 18, 2015.4) Plaintiff points out no error in this
conclusion, nor does he point to any medical evidence in the record that would contradict, or call
into question, the ALJ’s (or the R&R’s) findings. He merely disagrees, primarily on the basis of
the longevity of his relationship with Dr. Keppler. This does not satisfy plaintiff’s burden.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, plaintiff’s objections to the R&R are overruled. The R&R
is accepted. Because the defendant’s decision was supported by substantial evidence, that decision
is affirmed, and this case is closed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 24, 2018
HONORABLE SARA LIOI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

The ALJ found the March 27, 2014 physical capacities evaluation to be “internally contradictory.” (Tr. 99.) The
evaluation first reports that plaintiff has no limitations with respect to upper extremities and can reach 100% of the
time, but later opines that plaintiff’s reaching is limited to no more than frequent. Given that there is no medical history
of receiving any treatment for any upper extremity condition, the ALJ discounted this opinion as having no basis in
the medical record. Although the R&R questions whether Dr. Keppler’s findings are necessarily inconsistent, it
ultimately acknowledges the additional “good reasons” offered by the ALJ for discounting the weight of the opinion.
In particular, the ALJ pointed out that there is no relationship established by the evaluation between the plaintiff’s
allegedly disabling conditions (“issues with walking due to hip replacement surgery” [Tr. 294]) and any restriction
with respect to upper extremities, much less the severe restrictions assigned by Dr. Keppler. Moreover, the ALJ noted
that this evaluation was made just four months after plaintiff’s hip surgery and could not, therefore, account for
subsequent improvements.
2

3

The ALJ found the April 30, 2015 letter from Dr. Keppler lacking because it included no actual functional
assessment. The letter “simply lists the claimant’s medical history and concludes the claimant is ‘totally disabled.’”
(Tr. 100.) The R&R concludes that the ALJ did not err because treatment notes show that plaintiff was doing fairly
well following his hip surgery and had actually been released to return to work. Further, the R&R concludes (as did
the ALJ) that a determination of disability is a matter reserved to the Commissioner, not to a treating source.
The ALJ found the May 18, 2015 evaluation to be inconsistent with Dr. Keppler’s own treatment records and,
specifically, that “[w]ithout explanation, the doctor now reports the claimant can stand and walk less but lift more.”
(Tr. 100.) With respect to the ALJ’s observation that Dr. Keppler’s conclusion was “without explanation,” the R&R
correctly points out a section of this evaluation that was left blank by Dr. Keppler -- the section requesting the diagnosis
and clinical findings, as well as objective test results and treatments. (R&R at 645-46.) This was a significant omission
by Dr. Keppler.
4

5