United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
DECISION AFFIRMING DENIAL OF BENEFITS
COHN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
a Social Security case. Plaintiff Dawn Spuhler (Spuhler)
appeals a decision of the Commissioner of Social Security
(Commissioner) denying her application for disability
insurance benefits. Spuhler asserts a physical impairment of
plantar fasciitis (foot inflammation) and mental impairments
of depression and anxiety.
is suing under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking reversal of
the Commissioner's decision. Spuhler filed a motion for
summary judgment, (Doc. 10). The Commissioner filed a cross
motion for summary judgment, (Doc. 12). The motions were
referred to a magistrate judge who reported and recommended,
(Doc. 15), that the Court deny Spuhler's motion, grant
the Commissioner's motion, and affirm the denial of
benefits. Spuhler objected, (Doc. 16), and the Commissioner
responded, (Doc. 18).
Court has considered the report and recommendation (R&R)
and Spuhler's objections, and conducted a de
novo review of the record pertaining to the objections.
The Court agrees with the magistrate judge's conclusions
objections to the R&R, (Doc. 16), are OVERRULED, the
R&R, (Doc. 15), is ADOPTED and INCORPORATED as the
Court's findings and conclusions, Spuhler's motion
for summary judgment, (Doc. 10), is DENIED, the
Commissioner's cross motion, (Doc. 12), is GRANTED, and
the denial of benefits is AFFIRMED.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
did not object to the R&R's recitation of the facts
and procedural history. (Docs. 15, 16). The Court will not
GROUNDS FOR REVIEW
seeks review of the agency's determination of her
residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform sedentary work
with restrictions on various grounds.
the functional assessments of her treating and examining
physicians were deficient because the assessments did not
exhaust every work-related function. Second, the
administrative law judge (ALJ) did not properly analyze RFC
because the ALJ's written decision did not itemize
limitations “function by function” and apply them
to every work-related activity. Third, the ALJ invoked the
wrong standard for determining RFC in citing to the criteria
for rating the severity of mental impairments under 20 C.F.R.
§§ 404.1520a, 416.920a. Fourth, the ALJ failed to
recontact Dr. Daniel Zahari, her treating podiatrist, under
20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1512(e)(1), 416.912(e)(1) (2012)
regarding a discrepancy in two functional reports he issued.
Last, the ALJ gave no “good reasons” for
according marginal weight to Dr. Zahari's opinion as to
her functional limitations.
STANDARD OF REVIEW