United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER
(1) OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS (ECF #24) TO THE
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF #23),
(2) ADOPTING THE DISPOSITION RECOMMENDED BY THE MAGISTRATE
JUDGE, (3) GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT (ECF #21), AND (4) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF #16)
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
In this
action, Plaintiff Michael Martin Barnhart challenges the
denial of his application for supplemental security income
(“SSI”) due to disability. (See Compl.,
ECF #1.) Both parties have moved for summary judgment.
(See Motions, ECF ##16, 21.) On June 24, 2019, the
assigned Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation
in which she recommends that the Court grant the Commissioner
of Social Security's motion and deny Barnhart's
motion (the “R&R, ” ECF #23). Barnhart has
now filed timely objections to the R&R (the
“Objections”). (See Objections, ECF
#24). For the reasons explained below, the Court
OVERRULES the Objections,
ADOPTS the disposition recommended by the
Magistrate Judge, GRANTS the
Commissioner's motion for summary judgment (ECF #21), and
DENIES Barnhart's motion for summary
judgment (ECF #16).
I
A
The
issue Barnhart raises in the Objections is straightforward
and does not require a detailed discussion of the factual or
procedural background of this action. The essential
background is as follows.
In the
social security disability benefits context, the term
“date last insured” means “the date on
which [a claimant] ceased to be covered by social security
disability insurance.” Williams v. Colvin, 757
F.3d 610, 615 (7th Cir. 2014). In this case, Barnhart's
date last insured was December 31, 2013. Thus, in order to
establish his entitlement to disability benefits, Barnhart
must show that he was disabled as of December 31, 2013.
Barnhart
claims that as of December 31, 2013, he had several medically
determinable impairments, including fibromyalgia, and that
these impairments rendered him disabled. To support that
contention during the administrative proceedings in this
action, Barnhart offered, among other evidence, a disability
statement completed by Dr. James Teener, one of
Barnhart's treating physicians. (See Teener
Statement, ECF #10-16 at Pg. ID 602-06.) In that statement,
Dr. Teener opined that Barnhart suffered from a number of
symptoms consistent with fibromyalgia before December 31,
2013. Barnhart contends that Dr. Teener's statement, when
considered in conjunction with the other evidence in the
record, established that Barnhart suffered from fibromyalgia
prior to December 31, 2013.
The
Administrative Law Judge who presided over Barnhart's
evidentiary hearing (the “ALJ”) disagreed. The
ALJ determined that while Barnhart had a number of
medically-determinable impairments before December 31, 2013,
fibromyalgia was not one of those impairments.
In
reaching that conclusion, the ALJ assigned no weight to Dr.
Teener's opinion. The ALJ found Dr. Teener's
statement unpersuasive as to whether Barnhart suffered from
fibromyalgia prior to December 31, 2013, because the
statement (1) lacked a firm diagnosis of fibromyalgia and (2)
failed to explain how Dr. Teener, who did not begin treating
Barnhart until 2015, had a basis to opine as to
Barnhart's symptoms and condition prior to December 31,
2013. (See ALJ Decision, ECF #10-2 at Pg. ID 49.)
The ALJ assessed Dr. Teener's statement as follows:
Dr. Teener's recent statement that the claimant was
disabled from fatigue, myofascial pain, arthralgias, and
medication side effects, is not entitled to any weight. This
doctor did not start seeing the claimant until 2015, long
after his insured status had expired, and he was not even
sure if the claimant met the diagnostic criteria for
fibromyalgia. This assessment does not give a firm diagnosis
and is well after 2013. It appears to have been generated in
an effort to bolster the claimant's case, and the
undersigned discounts it accordingly.
(See ALJ Decision, ECF #10-2 at Pg. ID 49.)
The ALJ
ultimately concluded that Barnhart was not disabled because
even though Barnhart could not perform his past work as a
security guard, he could perform several other jobs in the
national economy that involved a ...