Flanagan v. Commissioner of Social Security
Memorandum Opinion: Plaintiff's "objection" is not properly filed within the meaning of Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) and, therefore, is overruled. The Court accepts the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge. (Doc. No. 16 .) The Commissioner's decision to deny plaintiff's application for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income benefits is affirmed. Judge Sara Lioi on 7/21/2017. (P,J)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
PEGGY JOYCE FLANAGAN,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
CASE NO. 5:16-cv-1506
JUDGE SARA LIOI
This matter is before the Court on the objection of plaintiff to the Report and
Recommendation of Magistrate Judge David A. Ruiz1 regarding plaintiff Peggy Flanagan’s
(“plaintiff” or “Flanagan”) request for judicial review of defendant Commissioner of Social
Security’s (“Commissioner”) denial of her applications for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”)
and Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) under Title II and Title XVI of the Social Security
Act (Doc. No. 16 [“R&R”]). (Doc. No. 17 [“Obj.”].) The R&R finds that the Commissioner’s
decision is supported by substantial evidence, and recommends that the decision be affirmed.
The Commissioner responded to plaintiff’s objection. (Doc. No. 18 [“Resp.”].)
For the reasons that follow, plaintiff’s objection is overruled and the Commissioner’s
decision is affirmed.
This matter was automatically referred to the magistrate judge for a report and recommendation pursuant to Local
Rule 72.2. (See Automatic Reference dated June 17, 2016.)
A. Personal and Medical
Plaintiff was born on April 20, 1977, and has a high school education and past
relevant work as a fast food worker. (R&R at 831.2) The plaintiff’s medical background is
extensively detailed by the magistrate judge and, there being no objection to that portion of the
R&R, the Court adopts the same.3 For purposes of context, however, the Court will provide a
Flanagan has a longstanding history of back, neck, and shoulder pain. (See id. at 833.)
Her primary care doctor, Christopher Stetler, DO, referred her to the Pain Center at Affinity
Medical Center where she was seen by Dr. Batalla on February 8, 2011. (Id.) She reported to Dr.
Batalla that she had previously been diagnosed with fibromyalgia.4 (Id.) Dr. Batalla advised
Flanagan at the time that her pain “is most likely multifactorial with fibromyalgia contributing to
most of it.” He recommended pain medication, regular sleep, physical therapy, exercise,
cessation of smoking, weight loss, and a follow-up visit in one month. (Id. at 834.)
All references to page numbers are to the page identification numbers generated by the Court’s electronic filing
Flanagan has not objected to the R&R with respect to the procedural history (Section I), plaintiff’s personal
background information (Section II), relevant medical evidence (Section III), testimony of the vocational expert
(Section IV), the ALJ’s decision (Section V), the disability standard (Section VI), or the standard of review of the
Commissioner’s decision (Section VII). The failure to file written objections to the R&R of a magistrate judge
constitutes a waiver of a de novo determination by the district court of an issue covered in the report. Thomas v. Arn,
728 F.2d 813, 815 (6th Cir. 1984), aff’d, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); see United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50
(6th Cir. 1981). Accordingly, there being no objection, the Court adopts Sections I-VII of the R&R.
Plaintiff’s medical records are unclear regarding the original diagnosis and Flanagan cannot recall the name of the
doctor who provided that diagnosis. The Commissioner, however, does not contest that Flanagan was diagnosed
with fibromyalgia. (R&R at 833 n.2 and 848.)
On September 26, 2011, she sought treatment from Dr. Stetler for an infection, and
advised the nurse that she had back pain and was experiencing severe anxiety. (Id.) Under
“History of Present Illness,” his treatment notes state that “[f]ibromyalgia is the main cause of
much of her pain.” (Id.) On January 15, 2012, plaintiff presented at Mercy Medical Center for
coughing and back pain, and Dr. Arpad Batizy treated her chest cold. (Id.) On May 19, 2012, Dr.
Batizy saw plaintiff again for lower back pain triggered by bending over the bathtub and she was
provided medication with instructions to follow-up with Dr. Stetler. (Id.) Plaintiff saw Dr. Stetler
on May 21, 2012, still complaining of pain and pressure in her lower back, and pain in the front
of her legs. He prescribed medication and provided plaintiff with a note excusing her from work
(without explanation) at McDonald’s from May 21-June 14, 2012. (Id. at 834-35.) Plaintiff
began physical therapy, but reported that her back pain was worse with therapy and that her
medications were ineffective. Dr. Stetler adjusted her medications and extended her work excuse
twice until July 12, 2012. (Id. at 835.) Plaintiff sought an additional extension until a scheduled
appointment with the pain center on July 24, 2012, which Dr. Stetler provided. (Id.)
Nearly eighteen months after her first visit to the pain center on February 8, 2011,
Flanagan returned for a second visit on July 24, 2012. (Id.) Dr. Batalla noted that plaintiff had
not taken two of the three medications he had prescribed. The working diagnosis from the first
visit was shoulder pain and fibromyalgia. At her first visit, plaintiff was not willing to consider
Lyrica because of possible side effects, but indicated a change of mind at the second visit. When
Flanagan asked Dr. Batalla “what about work?” he told her that he was not in a position to give
her any work restrictions as this was only the second time he had seen her “and we still have not
optimized [your]” condition.” Dr. Batalla recommended a follow-up visit in 1-2 moths. (Id. at
836; (Doc. No. 12 (Transcript of Proceedings before the Social Security Administration [“Tr.”])
On July 25, 2012, Dr. Stetler extended plaintiff’s work excuse until August 12, 2012,
indicating she could return to work without restrictions at that time. (R&R at 836.) On August
10, 2012, she was seen for a follow-up regarding “back issues, medications and about work[.]”
She also reported muscle cramps and weakness and that she had trouble gripping objects with
her hands. Dr. Stetler adjusted her medications, extended her work excuse for two more weeks,
and told her to increase activity to reduce pain symptoms. (R&R at 836.)
During an office visit with Dr. Stetler on July 19, 2014 for anxiety, plaintiff reported she
had been fired from work due to pain with standing, and that she missed work due to difficulties
with her children. (Tr. at 617.) At that same visit, “Flanagan indicated that she needed to find a
doctor to treat fibromyalgia and back pain[.]” (Doc. No. 13 at 793; Tr. at 617.)
Plaintiff continued to report lower back and shoulder pain, was diagnosed with left L5-S1
stenosis and radiculopathy, left L5 and S1; degenerative lumbar disc disease, L5-S1 with
foraminal disc protrusion, left L5-S1; and low back pain and degenerative disc disease with
foraminal stenosis, left L5 and S1. Plaintiff ultimately had back surgery on July 24, 2013. (R&R
at 836-37.) She began physical therapy in August 2013, but told the physical therapist on
September 13, 2016 that she was having difficulty with the exercises because of increased
fibromyalgia symptoms. Plaintiff did not appear for physical therapy appointments on September
16, 18, and 20, 2013. (Id. at 837.) Plaintiff continued to report lower back and leg pain through
March 6, 2014. (Id.) Flanagan saw Dr. Stetler again on August 6, 2014 and reported
improvement in back pain with medication. (Id. at 838.)
Plaintiff’s medical records also reflect that she suffers from obesity and depression,
among other conditions. (See id. at 833.) Plaintiff’s medical conditions are not contested.
B. Social Security Administration Proceedings
On July 30, 2012, Flanagan applied for DIB, and applied for SSI on August 6, 2012. (Id.
at 830.) She listed “mild degenerative disc disease, bulging disc, fibromyalgia, osteoarthritis” as
the conditions that limited her ability to work. (Id. 832.) Her applications were denied initially
and upon reconsideration. (Id. at 830.) Plaintiff requested a hearing before an administrative law
judge (“ALJ”) where she was represented by counsel and testified. A vocational expert also
attended the hearing and testified. (Id. at 831.) At the hearing, Flanagan testified that her most
significant problem was pain and pressure in her back, and that the surgery did not alleviate her
condition. (Id. at 832.) Plaintiff’s chronic back condition causes her to experience anxiety
because she can no longer perform her normal activities. (Id.) Plaintiff also testified that she
suffers from asthma, depression, and fibromyalgia. With respect to the fibromyalgia, plaintiff
testified that she has had fibromyalgia for twenty years, but the condition has become worse
since about 2007. When she has a fibromyalgia “attack,” plaintiff testified that she has difficulty
with her hands, that her hands and muscles ache, and she cannot squeeze or hold anything.
Flanagan’s fibromyalgia symptoms occur a couple of times a week in warm weather, but almost
daily in cold weather. (Id. at 832-33, 849.)
The ALJ accepted Flanagan’s fibromyalgia diagnosis, but found that her fibromyalgia
(among other diagnosed conditions) was a non-severe impairment and imposed only minimal
limitations on Flanagan’s ability to perform basic work activities.5 (Id. at 842.). The ALJ
nevertheless incorporated the limitations caused by fibromyalgia and plaintiff’s other non-severe
conditions into the residual functional capacity analysis. (Id.) The ALJ applied the standard fivestep disability analysis and determined that Flanagan was not disabled. The Appeals Council
denied plaintiff’s request for review of the ALJ’s decision, thus rendering the ALJ’s decision the
Commissioner’s final decision. (Id. at 831.)
C. Plaintiff’s Challenge to Commissioner’s Decision
Plaintiff’s complaint in this Court challenges the Commissioner’s denial of benefits,
claiming that: (1) the ALJ erred by failing to adequately account for the effect of fibromyalgia in
Flanagan’s functional abilities; (2) the ALJ erred by rejecting the opinion of plaintiff’s treating
physician, Dr. Stetler; and (3) the ALJ’s credibility determination is not supported by substantial
evidence. (Id.) Plaintiff does not challenge the ALJ’s specific finding that her fibromyalgia is a
A. Standard of Review
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), “[a] judge of the court shall make a de novo determination
of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which
objection is made.” Powell v. United States, 37 F.3d 1499 (Table), 1994 WL 532926, at *1 (6th
Cir. Sept. 30, 1994) (“Any report and recommendation by a magistrate judge that is dispositive
of a claim or defense of a party shall be subject to de novo review by the district court in light of
The ALJ found that Flanagan had the following severe impairments: obesity, disc herniation with neural
compression, tendonitis of the left shoulder, personality disorder, and depression. (R&R at 842.))
specific objections filed by any party.”) (citations omitted); Orr v. Kelly, No. 1:14-cv-2302, 2015
WL 5316216, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 11, 2015) (citing Powell, 1994 WL 532926, at *1); Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b)(3). After review, the district judge “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended
disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with
instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
“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”); LR 72.3(b) (an 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”); Aladimi v. Hamilton Cty. Justice Ctr., No. 1:09-CV-398, 2012 WL 529585, at *5
(S.D. Ohio Feb. 17, 2012) (collecting cases). “[O]bjections must be clear enough to enable the
district court to discern those issues that are dispositive and contentious.” Miller v. Currie, 50
F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). “‘[O]bjections disput[ing] the correctness of the
magistrate’s recommendation but fail[ing] to specify the findings . . . believed [to be] in error’
are too general.” Spencer v. Bouchard, 449 F.3d 721, 725 (6th Cir. 2006) (quoting Miller, 50
F.3d at 380), abrogated on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 127 S. Ct. 910, 166 L.
Ed. 2d 798 (2007). The Court need not conduct a de novo review of objections that are not
properly filed within the meaning of Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Kinstle v. Bunting, No.
3:13CV998, 2015 WL 6561243, at *3 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 29, 2015).
In the R&R, the magistrate judge found that: (1) substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s
evaluation of Flanagan’s fibromyalgia impairment (R&R at 850); (2) the ALJ’s decision
concerning the weight given to Dr. Stetler’s opinion was supported by good reasons and
substantial evidence (id. at 856); and (3) the ALJ properly evaluated the credibility of plaintiff’s
subjective complaints (id. at 860). On this basis, the magistrate judge recommended that the
Commissioner’s decision be affirmed. (Id. at 861.)
In her cursory objection, plaintiff argues that the magistrate judge’s assertion in the R&R
that plaintiff “‘fails to cite any medical evidence or any treating source which would demonstrate
that her fibromyalgia causes significant functional work limitations’ is simply not true”6 and that,
to the contrary, she “‘clearly spoke’ in her brief about the opinion evidence from treating primary
doctor, Dr. Christopher Stetler.”7 (Obj. at 863 (emphasis added).) Plaintiff then proceeds to
reassert the arguments in her original brief that “the ALJ completely failed to discuss any
evidence related to Flanagan’s fibromyalgia which was inconsistent with the applicable legal
the ALJ decision unsupported by substantial evidence. It further plagued the
analysis of treating physician Dr. Stetler’s opinion, which Plaintiff maintains was
highly supported by his own treatments and the other treatments of record. . . .
The ALJ could not have provided “good reasons” for rejecting Dr. Stetler’s
opinion considering the ALJ misanalysed a significant component of Plaintiff’s
Plaintiff claims that this objection covers both the magistrate judge’s finding related to fibromyalgia, and “also
affects plaintiff’s treating physician argument.” (Obj. at 862.) Plaintiff, however, makes no specific objection to the
R&R in that regard.
Dr. Stetler’s opinion regarding plaintiff’s residual functional capacity identifies diagnoses of lumbago and
radiculopathy, fibromyalgia, shoulder and neck pain, and depression, producing symptoms of pressure in the back
and numbness down the left leg and into the groin; shoulder pain with “Trap” spasm with snapping and popping of
shoulder; generalized “acheyness” which is increased in cold weather; and anxiety in stressful situation. Based on
these diagnoses and symptoms, Dr. Stetler opined that plaintiff was limited to “far less than sedentary work.” (See
Obj. at 8663; Tr. at 526-27.)
pain, a component Dr. Stetler relied upon in determining Plaintiff’s functional
(Id. (citing Doc. No. 13).)
In opposition, the Commissioner argues that Flanagan’s (improper) objection constitutes
nothing more than disagreement with the R&R, and simply reiterates the arguments in her brief
regarding the shortcomings of the ALJ’s evaluation of plaintiff’s fibromyalgia and the reasons
advanced by the ALJ for not giving controlling weight to the opinion of plaintiff’s treating
physician. (Resp. at 866-67.)
Flanagan’s objection is insufficient in that it simply summarizes prior arguments and/or
asserts disagreement with the magistrate judge’s recommendation. Plaintiff’s reassertion of the
arguments from her original brief is “tantamount to a complete failure to object.” Langford v.
Caruso, No. 11-10219, 2011 WL 3034539, at *2 (E.D. Mich. July 25, 2011) (citing Mira v.
Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir. 1986) (per curiam)); Aldrich, 327 F. Supp. 2d at 747.
Plaintiff’s disagreement with the magistrate judge that plaintiff failed to point to evidence
from a treating source that fibromyalgia causes significant functional work-related limitations
was an issue addressed in her brief. There she argued that Dr. Stetler’s opinion “is much more
significantly limiting than the RFC.” (Doc. No. 13 at 799.) But both the ALJ and the magistrate
judge specifically considered Dr. Stetler’s opinion regarding plaintiff’s residual functional
capacity based upon plaintiff’s conditions, which included fibromyalgia. (See R&R at 838-39;
Tr. at 101-102.) Flanagan’s “objection” does nothing more than express disagreement with the
R&R finding and the ALJ’s decision that Dr. Stetler’s opinion does not support a conclusion that
plaintiff’s fibromyalgia causes significant functional limitations.
In her objection, Flanagan points to no error in the R&R. She does not contest the legal
standard applied by the magistrate judge regarding consideration of fibromyalgia in a disability,8
nor does she contest the standard the magistrate judge applied in his analysis regarding the
treating physician’s testimony or the analysis of plaintiff’s credibility. Likewise plaintiff does not
disagree with the magistrate judge that the mere diagnosis of fibromyalgia is not equivalent to a
finding of disability, says nothing about the severity of the impairment, and does not change
plaintiff’s burden to establish that her fibromyalgia causes significant work-related limitations.
(R&R at 848 (citations omitted).) See also Torres v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 490 F. App'x 748, 754
(6th Cir. 2012) (There is “an important distinction between, on one hand, diagnosing
fibromyalgia and finding it to be a severe impairment and, on the other, assessing a claimant’s
physical limitations due to the impairment.”).
After thoroughly and exhaustively considering all of the evidence, including Dr. Stetler’s
opinion regarding plaintiff’s work-related limitations, the magistrate judge found that the ALJ’s
determination that plaintiff’s non-severe impairment of fibromyalgia (along with her other
conditions) did not result in significant functional work-related limitations was supported by
substantial evidence. Although plaintiff disagrees with that conclusion, mere disagreement with
the thoughtful and thorough R&R, in which the magistrate judge carefully analyzes the issues,
does not constitute a proper objection to the R&R. Aldrich, 327 F. Supp. 2d at 747.
R&R at 848 (citing Davila v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 993 F. Supp. 2d 737, 754 (N.D. Ohio 2014) (citing Rogers v.
Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 486 F.3d 234, 243 (6th Cir. 2007)) and Swain v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 297 F. Supp.2d 986, 990
(N.D. Ohio 2003)).
For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s “objection” is not properly filed within the
meaning of Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) and, therefore, is overruled. The Court accepts the report and
recommendation of the magistrate judge. The Commissioner’s decision to deny plaintiff’s
application for DIB and SSI benefits is affirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 21, 2017
HONORABLE SARA LIOI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?