United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
DECISION AFFIRMING DENIAL OF BENEFITS I.
COHN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
a Social Security case. Plaintiff Kim Sims (Sims) appeals a
decision of the Commissioner of Social Security
(Commissioner) denying her application for disability
insurance benefits. Sims asserts physical impairments of
multiple sclerosis (MS) and degenerative disc disease with
suing under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking reversal of the
Commissioner's decision. Sims filed a motion for summary
judgment, (Doc. 16). The Commissioner filed a cross motion
for summary judgment, (Doc. 19). The motions were referred to
a magistrate judge who reported and recommended, (Doc. 20),
that the Court deny Sims's motion, grant the
Commissioner's motion, and affirm the denial of benefits.
Sims objected, (Doc. 21), and the Commissioner responded,
Court has considered the report and recommendation (R&R)
and Sims's objections, and conducted a de novo
review of the record regarding the objections. The Court
agrees with the magistrate judge's conclusions and
objections to the R&R, (Doc. 21), are OVERRULED, the
R&R, (Doc. 20), is ADOPTED, Sims's motion for summary
judgment, (Doc. 16), is DENIED, the Commissioner's motion
for summary judgment, (Doc. 19), is GRANTED, and the
agency's denial of benefits is AFFIRMED.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
does not object to the R&R's recitation of the facts
and procedural history. (Docs. 20, 21). The Court
incorporates the report as its findings and conclusions.
(See Doc. 20).
seeks review of the agency's determination of her
residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform sedentary work
with restrictions. Sims challenges the Administrative Law
Judge (ALJ)'s decision not to accord significant weight
to the opinion of Dr. Martin Belkin, her treating neurologist
of 10 years, as to her functional limitations.
says the ALJ (1) wrongly inferred from Dr. Belkin's
treatment notes that her symptoms of fatigue and pain were
minor because they were managed by medication “as
needed, ” (2) incorrectly construed Dr. Belkin's
notations that her MS was clinically “stable” to
mean it was not debilitating, and (3) failed to consider
factors supporting Dr. Belkin's functional assessment
such as length of treatment and his specialization.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Court must review de novo parts of an R&R to
which a party objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court
“may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part,
the findings or ...