Henman v. Commissioner of Social Security

          MONA 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

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Plaintiff Marianne Henman (“Henman”) appealed the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying her application for disability benefits pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

         The 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 fully briefed.

         The 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 DENIED.

         II. DISCUSSION

         Under 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. § 636(b)(1).

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

         Although 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.

         The 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), 416.927(c)(2).

         When 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. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2).

         Here, the ALJ gave Dr. Bell's opinion little weight because it was not consistent with or supported by other evidence in the record:

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, ...