United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
K. MAJZOUB MAGISTRATE JUDGE
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION (ECF #17); GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF #15); DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF #11)
Victoria A. Roberts United States District Judge
Marianne Henman (“Henman”) appealed the decision
of the Commissioner of Social Security denying her
application for disability benefits pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The Court
referred those motions to Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub
for a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”).
Magistrate Judge Majzoub recommends the Court grant the
Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment and deny
Henman's. Henman timely objected. The objections are
Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Majzoub's analysis and
ADOPTS the R&R. The Commissioner's
Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
Henman's Motion for Summary Judgment is
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3), a district judge is
required to determine de novo any part of a
magistrate judge's report and recommendation that has
been properly objected to. Id.; see also 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(C). This de novo review requires
the Court to re-examine all relevant evidence previously
reviewed by the magistrate judge to determine whether the
recommendation should be accepted, rejected, or modified, in
whole or in part. Cole v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.,
105 F.Supp.3d 738, 741 (E.D. Mich. 2015); 28 U.S.C. §
1. Henman's Objection is Rejected - the ALJ Gave
“Good Reasons” for the Weight Afforded to Dr.
Bell's Opinion and the Magistrate Judge Relied on
Appropriate Case Law
Henman frames her objection as attacking the Magistrate
Judge's reliance on two cases, she essentially makes two
objections: (1) to the Magistrate Judge's finding that
the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) provided the
requisite “good reasons” for affording her
treating physician, Dr. Randy Bell's, opinion little
weight; and (2) to the Magistrate Judge's reliance on two
cases to support that finding. Considering this, the Court
will address the Magistrate Judge's finding that the ALJ
provided the requisite “good reasons, ” and
whether that finding is supported by applicable case law.
parties do not dispute that Dr. Bell is a treating physician.
Under the treating physician rule, the ALJ must give a
treating physician's opinion controlling weight if it is
well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and
laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with
the other substantial evidence in the record. Sawdy v.
Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 436 Fed.Appx. 551, 553 (6th
Cir. 2011); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2),
the ALJ determines a treating physician's opinion is not
controlling, he then must determine how much weight to assign
the opinion by applying several factors: (1) length of the
treatment relationship and the frequency of the examination;
(2) nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3)
supportability of the opinion; (4) consistency of the opinion
with the record; (5) specialization of the treating source;
(6) other factors that tend to support or contradict the
opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2-6),
416.927(c)(2-6). The rule further requires the ALJ give
“good reasons” for the weight given to the
treating source's opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§
the ALJ gave Dr. Bell's opinion little weight because it
was not consistent with or supported by other evidence in the
In February 2017, Randy Bell, M.D., [Henman's] primary
care physician, gave [Henman] work preclusive limitations,
including missing more than four days per month of work,
sitting for about 2 hours in an 8-hour workday,
standing/walking 2 hours in an 8 hour workday, and needing
unscheduled breaks (internal citation omitted). This opinion
is not consistent with or supported by the medical reports.
Clinicians reported that claimant had normal gait, ...