Opinion
Case No. 00-73260
February 28, 2002
OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
At a session of said Court, held in the U.S. Courthouse, Detroit, Michigan on February 28, 2002
On September 20, 2001, Magistrate Judge Wallace Capel, Jr. issued a Report and Recommendation ("R R") recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff Dorisene Camper's Motion for Summary Judgment and grant the Defendant Commissioner of Social Security's Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff filed objections to the R R on October 5, 2001. The Court has now reviewed the parties' motions, the R R, Plaintiffs objections, and the other materials in the record. For the reasons discussed briefly below, the Court agrees with the thorough analysis of the Magistrate Judge, and adopts the R R in its entirety.
Plaintiff has raised only a single objection to the R R, premised upon the award of Social Security disability benefits to her for a closed period only, from April 30, 1990 until August 2, 1992. Specifically, given the determination by the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") that Plaintiff was disabled as of April of 1990, Plaintiff surmises that there necessarily must be evidence of some improvement in her condition in order to sustain the ALJ's further conclusion that she was no longer disabled as of August 2, 1992. Plaintiff submits that the evidence in the record is insufficient to support this laffer conclusion. While Plaintiffs logic is impeccable, her view of the record is flawed.
As noted by the ALJ, the onset of Plaintiffs period of disability was April 30, 1990, when she sought emergency treatment for injuries suffered in an automobile accident. (See Admin. Record at 18.) From a review of the various administrative rulings in this case, it is evident that the condition that was deemed disabling as a result of this accident was the injury she sustained to her right wrist. (See, e.g, id. at 234; id at 287.) As explained by the Magistrate Judge, Plaintiff underwent two procedures on this wrist during the period of disability: an arthroscopic surgery on October 24, 1991, and an arthrodesis (fusion) and bone graft on April 2, 1992. (See R R at 15; see also Admin. Record at 229.) The end of the closed period of disability, August 2, 1992, was based upon a 3-month period of healing and one month of physical therapy following the second of these two procedures. (See Admin. Record at 230.)
In contrast, Plaintiffs neck and back conditions have been determined not to be disabling, even within the closed period for which benefits have been awarded. See, e.g., id. at 230.)
Thus, there is no mystery as to the particular medical improvement relied upon by the ALJ in awarding disability benefits for a closed period ending in August of 1992. Nor is it especially remarkable that a condition might be found to be improved following surgery. There remains only the question whether the ALJ's finding of such an improvement is supported by substantial evidence in the record. Although nothing in the administrative record before the Court precisely addresses the condition of Plaintiffs wrist on the exact date of August 2, 1992, the Court wholly concurs in the Magistrate Judge's analysis of the evidence of Plaintiffs wrist condition during the period surrounding this date, and need not repeat it here. (See R R at 15-17.) It suffices to note, as the Magistrate Judge did, that the ALJ's finding of an improvement in Plaintiffs wrist condition is sustainable on the basis of the medical evidence from two specialists, Dr. Jeffrey M. Hall and Dr. Joseph C. Honet, both of whom reported on this condition as of March of 1993. ( See id. at 15-16.)
As observed in the R R, the ALJ was entitled to credit this evidence over the opinion of Plaintiffs non-specialist treating physician, Dr. Richard Freeman. ( See id. at 17.) Consequently, the Court rejects Plaintiffs challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence in support of the ALJ's finding of a closed period of disability terminating on August 2, 1992.
Indeed, in a statement dated October 12, 1992, Dr. Freeman reported having seen Plaintiff on September 3, 1992, but he offered no opinion as to the condition of Plaintiffs wrist, acknowledging that this injury "was treated and evaluated elsewhere." (Admin. Record at 199.) Thus, Plaintiffs reliance on the opinion of her treating physician is wholly unavailing on the issue that Plaintiff herself has identified as controlling here: namely, whether there is substantial evidence in the record to sustain the ALJ's determination that Plaintiffs disabling condition had improved sufficiently by August 2, 1992 to render her no longer disabled. Moreover, even as to Plaintiffs other claims of disability, Dr. Freeman's October 12, 1992 statement suggests a degree of improvement in or around September of 1992, as he opined that Plaintiff had "reached a stable level in regard to neck and lumbar spine." (Id.)
For these reasons,
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's September 20, 2001 Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED by the Court in its entirety. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, for the reasons stated in the R R, Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED, and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.