Detzler v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., Case No. 12-14133

• Decision Date: 16 December 2013
• Docket Number: Case No. 12-14133
• Parties: MARY A. DETZLER, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan

MARY A. DETZLER, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.

Case No. 12-14133

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Dated: December 16, 2013

Hon. Patrick J. Duggan

Magistrate Judge Mona K. Mazjoub

OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff filed a Title II application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits as well as a Title XVI application for supplemental security income on July 22, 2009 alleging that she became disabled on July 21, 2009 due to bipolar disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder. The Social Security Administration denied Plaintiff's applications for benefits initially on September 17, 2009. Upon Plaintiff's request, Administrative Law Judge Peter N. Dowd ("ALJ") conducted a de novo hearing on February 18, 2011. The ALJ issued a decision on April 11, 2011, finding Plaintiff not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act and therefore not entitled to benefits. The ALJ's decision became the final decision of the Social Security Commissioner ("Commissioner") on June 14, 2012, when the Social Security Appeals Council denied review.Plaintiff initiated the instant suit seeking judicial review of the Commissioner's unfavorable decision on September 18, 2012.

Both parties filed motions for summary judgment, which this Court referred to Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub for all pretrial matters proceedings, including a hearing and determination of all non-dispositive matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and/or a report and recommendation ("R&R") on all dispositive matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). On Septmber 30, 2013, Magistrate Judge Majzoub filed her R&R recommending that this Court deny Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and grant Defendant's Motion. At the conclusion of the R&R, Magistrate Judge Majzoub advises the parties that they may object to and seek review of the R&R within fourteen days of service upon them. Plaintiff filed objections to the R&R on October 14, 2013.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g):

Any individual, after any final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security made after a hearing to which he was a party . . . may obtain a review of such decision by a civil action . . . The court shall have power to enter . . . a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing. The findings of the Commissioner of Social Security as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive . . .

42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (emphasis added); see also Boyes v. Sec'y of Health & HumanServs., 46 F.3d 510, 511-512 (6th Cir. 1994). 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." Cutlip v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 25 F.3d 284, 286 (6th Cir. 1994). Courts are to review the entire administrative record to determine whether the ALJ's decision is supported by substantial evidence, but may "not reconsider facts, re-weigh the evidence, resolve conflicts in evidence, decide questions of credibility, or substitute its judgment for that of the ALJ." Reynolds v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 424 F. App'x 411, 414 (6th Cir. 2011) (citing Youghiogheny & Ohio Coal Co. v. Webb, 49 F.3d 244, 246 (6th Cir. 1995)). Thus, so long as the Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial evidence, it must be upheld even if substantial evidence exists in the record that might support an opposite conclusion. McClanahan v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 474 F.3d 830, 833 (6th Cir. 2006). However, where the ALJ failed to follow the Social Security Act's procedural regulations, the ALJ's decision must be reversed even if the decision is supported by substantial evidence. Wilson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 378 F.3d 541, 544 (6th Cir. 2004).

The Court reviews de novo the parts of an R&R to which a party objects. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Thomas v. Halter, 131 F. Supp. 2d 942, 944 (E.D. Mich.2001). However, the Court "is not required to articulate all the reasons it rejects a party's objections." Id.

ANALYSIS

Under the authority of the Social Security Act, the Social Security Administration has established a five-step sequential evaluation process for determining whether an individual is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). If an ALJ determines that the claimant is or is not disabled at a step of the evaluation process, the evaluation does not proceed to the next step. Id. However, if the ALJ does not find that the claimant is disabled or not disabled at a step, the ALJ must proceed to the next step. Id. "The burden of proof is on the claimant through the first four steps . . . If the analysis reaches the fifth step without a finding that the claimant is not disabled, the burden transfers to the [defendant]." Preslar v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 14 F.3d 1107, 1110 (6th Cir. 1994); see also Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146 n.5, 107 S. Ct. 2287, 2294 n.5 (1987).

The ALJ's five-step process is as follows:

1. At the first step, the ALJ considers whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity.¹ 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i).

2. At the second step, the ALJ considers whether the claimant has a severe medically determinable physical or mental impairment that meets theduration requirement of the regulations and which significantly limits the claimant's ability to do basic work activities.² 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii) and (c).

3. At the third step, the ALJ again considers the medical severity of the claimant's impairment to determine whether the impairment meets or equals an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). If the claimant's impairment meets any Listing, he or she is determined to be disabled regardless of other factors.³Id.

4. At the fourth step, the ALJ assesses the claimant's residual functional capacity and past relevant work to determine whether the claimant can perform his or her past relevant work.⁴ 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv).

5. At the fifth step, the ALJ considers the claimant's residual functional capacity, age, education, and past work experience to see if he can do other work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1420(a)(4)(v). If there is no such work that the claimant can perform, the ALJ must find that he or she is disabled.⁵ Id.

Plaintiff raises two general arguments in support of her objections. First, she claims that the ALJ failed to give proper weight to the medical evidence and opinions of record. Second, Plaintiff contends that the ALJ failed to create an accurate RFC assessment.

Objection #1:

Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ and Magistrate Judge Majzoub failed to give proper weight to the opinions of Plaintiff's treating medical sources and the opinions of record. These medical sources and opinions refer to that of Dr. Tadeo and Nurse Practitioner Sweet, both of whom Plaintiff classifies as treating medical providers, as well as the opinion of the consultative examiner, Dr. Brady, who met with and examined Plaintiff at the request of the Social Security Administration. Specifically, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ failed to build a "logical bridge" between the evidence submitted by the aforementioned medical sources and his ultimate conclusion thus mandating that the ALJ's decision be overturned. (Pl.'s Obj. 2(citing Hall v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 8-CV-13330, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82445 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 13, 2009) (unpublished).) Plaintiff also charges the ALJ with engaging in improper "pick[ing] and choos[ing]" of the medical records in order to gather supporting evidence for his decision to deny benefits while "disregarding other aspects of the same report." (Id. at 5.)

As Magistrate Judge Majzoub explained in the R&R, an "ALJ must give a treating physician's opinion complete deference if it is supported by clinical and laboratory diagnostic evidence and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record." (R&R 10 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).) Further, "[i]f the opinion of a treating source is not afforded controlling weight, an ALJ must apply certain factors in determining what weight to give the opinion, including the length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability of the opinion, consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and the specialization of the treating source." (Id. at 11 (citing Wilson v. Comm'r, 378 F.3d 541, 544 (6th Cir. 2004) (citing Social Security Ruling (SSR) 96-2p).) Magistrate Judge Majzoub's R&R thoroughly analyzes the ALJ's decision and carefully demonstrates that the ALJ did, in fact, consider the medical opinions Plaintiff claims were not given proper weight. Further, the R&R details the reasons provided by the ALJ for not according these opinions controlling weight.

The Court finds no error in the ALJ's or Magistrate Judge Majzoub's analysis of Dr. Tadeo and Nurse Practioner Sweet's opinion.⁶ Although the reports submitted by these sources make Plaintiff's mental work-related limitations out to be more serious than the ALJ ultimately determined, the ALJ acknowledged the evidence but gave it little weight due to his belief that the opinions contained therein lacked a foundation, were internally inconsistent, failed to account for the treatment notes recounting Plaintiff's improvement when on a regular medication regimen, and were generally inconsistent with the other record evidence. (ECF No. 10-2 at Pg ID 72.) The Court finds substantial support in the record for this finding, both in Nurse Practitioner Sweet's records and the other record evidence regarding Plaintiff's work and treatment history. Contrary to Plaintiff's assertions, the ALJ was not displacing the findings of Dr. Tadeo and Nurse Practitioner Sweet with his own...