Vogel v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin.
| Decision Date | 25 July 2022 |
| Docket Number | 2:21-cv-10147 |
| Parties | JEFFREY VOGEL, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF No. 13), GRANT DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF No. 15) and AFFIRM THE COMMISSIONER'S DECISION
I. RECOMMENDATION: For the reasons that follow, it is RECOMMENDED that the Court DENY Plaintiff's amended motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 13), GRANT Defendant's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 15), and AFFIRM the Commissioner's decision.
II. REPORT
Plaintiff Jeffrey Vogel brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and 42 U.S.C. § 1383(c)(3) for review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (Commissioner) denying his application for Disability Insurance (DI) benefits. This matter is before the United States Magistrate Judge for a Report and Recommendation on Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 13), the Commissioner's cross-motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 15), Plaintiff's reply (ECF No. 16) and the administrative record (ECF No. 10).
Plaintiff filed prior claims for DI benefits and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) on April 28, 2016. (See ECF No. 10, PageID.98.) A hearing regarding these prior claims was held on November 1, 2016, and on January 19, 2018, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Virginia Herring found that Plaintiff was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. (ECF No. 10, PageID.95-113.) In so doing, ALJ Herring evaluated Plaintiff's residual functional capacity (RFC)[1] and determined that Plaintiff had the RFC:
to perform light work . . . except he must be able to change positions between sitting and standing every twenty to thirty minutes as needed. The claimant may climb ramps or stairs occasionally, but never climb ladders, ropes or scaffolds. Further, the claimant can occasionally balance, stoop, knee[l], crouch, or crawl. Lastly, the claimant must avoid dangerous machinery and unprotected heights.
In his March 20, 2019 application for disability insurance benefits (DIB), Plaintiff alleges his disability began on March 17, 2014, the same date alleged in his previous applications (see ECF No. 10, PageID.98), at the age of 48. In his disability report, he lists chronic pancreatitis, diabetes, cancer, and depression as limiting his ability to work. (ECF No. 10, PageID.262.) His application was initially denied on October 9, 2019 (ECF No. 10, PageID.160-176), and denied on reconsideration on January 9, 2020 (ECF No. 10, PageID.178-192).
Plaintiff requested a hearing by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). (ECF No. 10, PageID.193-194.) On May 19, 2020, ALJ Timothy Scallen held a hearing at which Plaintiff and a vocational expert (VE), Scott Silver, testified. (ECF No. 10, PageID.71-94.) On June 18, 2020, ALJ Scallen issued an opinion, which determined that Plaintiff was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act from January 20, 2018, the day after the prior unfavorable decision, through December 31, 2019, the date last insured (DLI).
Plaintiff submitted a request for review of the hearing decision/order. (ECF No. 10, PageID.220-222.) However, on November 23, 2020, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review. (ECF No. 10, PageID.39-44.) Thus, ALJ Scallen's decision became the Commissioner's final decision.
Plaintiff timely commenced the instant action on January 21, 2021. (ECF No. 1.)
The administrative record contains approximately 764 pages of medical records, which were available to the ALJ at the time of his June 18, 2020 decision. (ECF No. 10, PageID.355-1119 [Exhibits B1F-B22F].) These materials will be discussed in detail, as necessary, below.
Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4), at Step 1 of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since from January 20, 2018 through December 31, 2019, Plaintiff's DLI. (ECF No. 10, PageID.56.) At Step 2, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: alcohol-induced chronic pancreatitis, obesity, degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine, status-post open exploratory laparotomy/resection of gastrointestinal stromal tumor and small portion of the small bowel to which the tumor was attached with subsequent adjuvant therapy, and unspecified bipolar disorder with generalized anxiety disorder. (ECF No. 10, PageID.57.) At Step 3, the ALJ found Plaintiff did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled the severity of one of the listed impairments. (ECF No. 10, PageID.57-58.)
Between Steps 3 and 4 of the sequential process, the ALJ evaluated Plaintiff's residual functional capacity (RFC) and determined that Plaintiff had the RFC:
to perform light work . . . except occasional climbing of stairs and ramps but no ropes, ladders, or scaffolds; occasional balancing, stooping, kneeling, crouching, and crawling; avoid all unprotected heights and moving machinery; simple, routine, repetitive tasks; and occasional contact with the public.
(ECF No. 10, PageID.58-63.) At Step 4, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff was unable to perform any past relevant work. (ECF No. 10, PageID.63-64.) At Step 5, considering Plaintiff's age, education, work experience, and RFC, the ALJ determined that there were jobs that existed in significant numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff could perform, such as such as assembler-small parts, collator, and router. (ECF No. 10, PageID.64-65.) The ALJ therefore concluded that Plaintiff had not been under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, from January 20, 2018 through December 31, 2019. (ECF No. 10, PageID.65.)
The District Court has jurisdiction to review the Commissioner's final administrative decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). When reviewing a case under the Social Security Act, the Court “must affirm the Commissioner's decision if it ‘is supported by substantial evidence and was made pursuant to proper legal standards.'” Rabbers v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 582 F.3d 647, 651 (6th Cir. 2009) (quoting Rogers v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 486 F.3d 234, 241 (6th Cir. 2007)); see also 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (). Under this standard, “[s]ubstantial 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, 486 F.3d at 241 (quoting Cutlip v. Sec'y of Health and Human Servs., 25 F.3d 284, 286 (6th Cir. 1994)). In deciding whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ's decision, the Court does “not try the case de novo, resolve conflicts in evidence, or decide questions of credibility.” Bass v. McMahon, 499 F.3d 506, 509 (6th Cir. 2007); Rogers, 486 F.3d at 247 (“It is of course for the ALJ, and not the reviewing court, to evaluate the credibility of witnesses, including that of the claimant.”).
Although the substantial evidence standard is deferential, it is not trivial. The Court must “‘take into account whatever in the record fairly detracts from [the] weight'” of the Commissioner's decision. TNS, Inc. v. NLRB, 296 F.3d 384, 395 (6th Cir. 2002) (quoting Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 487 (1951)). Nevertheless, “if substantial evidence supports the ALJ's decision, this Court defers to that finding ‘even if there is substantial evidence in the record that would have supported an opposite conclusion.'” Blakley v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 581 F.3d 399, 406 (6th Cir. 2009) (quoting Key v. Callahan, 109 F.3d 270, 273 (6th Cir. 1997)). Finally, even if the ALJ's decision meets the substantial evidence standard, “‘a decision of the Commissioner will not be upheld where the SSA fails to follow its own regulations and where that error prejudices a claimant on the merits or deprives the claimant of a substantial right.'” Rabbers, 582 F.3d at 651 (quoting Bowen v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 478 F.3d 742, 746 (6th Cir. 2007)).
Plaintiff contends that the ALJ's decision is unsupported by substantial evidence and contains errors of law because the ALJ: (1) failed to include all of his limitations when formulating the RFC; (2) erred in finding that his cancer and intestinal resection did not amount to new evidence; (3) failed to properly evaluate his subjective symptoms under Social Security Ruling SSR 16-3p; and (4) improperly analyzed medical opinions. (ECF No. 13, PageID.1150, 1161-1173.)[2]The Commissioner opposes Plaintiff's motion, arguing that the ALJ: (1) properly determined Plaintiff's RFC; (2) properly evaluated the new and material evidence; and (3) appropriately evaluated the medical opinions and prior administrative medical findings. (ECF No. 15, PageID.1180, 1184-1202.) In reply, Plaintiff reiterates his argument and states further:
To continue reading
Request your trial