Opinion
Case No. 00-CV-10219-BC
February 18, 2003
The plaintiff filed the present action on June 20, 2000 seeking review of the Commissioner's decision denying the plaintiff's claim for a period of disability, disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Charles E. Binder by this Court's predecessor, the Honorable Victoria A. Roberts pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(b)(3). Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment seeking a reversal of the Commissioner's decision and a grant of disability benefits. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment requesting that the complaint be dismissed and the decision of the Commissioner be affirmed.
Magistrate Judge Binder filed a Report and Recommendation on December 19, 2000 recommending that plaintiff's motion for summary judgment be denied, defendant's motion for summary judgment be granted and that the findings of the commissioner be affirmed. The plaintiff filed timely objections to the Report and Recommendation, to which the defendant responded, and this matter is now before the Court.
The Court has reviewed the file, the Report and Recommendation and the objections thereto, and has made a de novo review of the administrative record in light of the objections filed. In her objections, the plaintiff states a basic disagreement with the conclusions of the Magistrate Judge, contending that the Magistrate Judge's review of the administrative record was inadequate, and that proper weight was not given to the opinions of treating physicians finding that the plaintiff was disabled.
The plaintiff in this case is now fifty-three years old and, until April 1996, worked as a cook at a private country club where she had been employed for sixteen years. Her application for Social Security Disability and Supplemental Security Income benefits was denied initially and on reconsideration, and on January 7, 1998 she appeared with counsel for a hearing before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) John A. Ransom. She filed suit after ALJ Ransom determined that she was not disabled in a decision dated March 13, 1998.
The plaintiff is obese and suffers from diabetes mellitus, which has generated related ailments which include peripheral neuropathy and blurred vision cased by diabetic retinopathy. The peripheral neuropathy causes pain in the plaintiff's joints, and including legs, wrists, knees and low back.
After reviewing the record and conducting a hearing, the ALJ, applying the five-step sequential analysis prescribed by the Secretary of Health Human Services, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520, 416.920, concluded at step five that the plaintiff was able to perform a limited range of sedentary work. After finding that there were numerous jobs within this limitation available in the national and regional economy, the ALJ concluded that the plaintiff was not disabled.
In attacking the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that this finding is supported by substantial evidence in the whole record, which, of course, describes the scope of review in this Court, see 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the plaintiff points to the Magistrate Judge's incomplete summary of the plaintiff's daily activity sheets, and cites a passage from the Report and Recommendation in which the Magistrate Judge referred to page 125 of the Administrative Record as supporting his conclusion that the plaintiff's blood sugar readings were improving with treatment. The plaintiff also claims that statements of two treating physicians, Dr. Vijay Chaku and Dr. James Faoust, should have been given controlling weight. Both of those physicians wrote reports stating, in identical language:
"She continues to have significant weakness and probable diabetic neuropathy and is unable to work due to the above noted medical problems." Tr. at 135, 147.
With respect to the Magistrate Judge's mistaken citation to the record, the Court observes that the proper reference should have been to page 135, not 125. Likely, this was a typographical error in the Report and Recommendation.
With respect to the failure to place controlling weight on the opinions of the two physicians, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge's analysis found at pages 13 through 14 of his Report and Recommendation is persuasive. The opinions of treating physicians are entitled to deference and, in some circumstances, controlling weight, when they are phrased in medical terms or describe a patient's physical limitations. See Young v. Secretary of Health Human Services, 925 F.2d 146, 151 (6th Cir. 1990); Casey v. Secretary of Health Human Services, 987 F.2d 1230, 1234-35 (6th Cir. 1993). In this case, both of the physicians concluded only that the plaintiff was "unable to work." There is no analysis in their medical reports of the plaintiff's physical limitations, and how those physical limitations might affect or prevent certain specific types of work. For instance, there is no opinion that the plaintiff was unable to lift a certain amount, walk a certain distance, or sit still during a certain portion of the day. Although a treating physician's conclusion that a patient is "disabled" is not necessarily disqualifying or subject to rejection by a Court when that conclusion is at the end of an analysis which touches upon the physical requirements of a job and the corresponding limitations of the patient, when the conclusion is all there is, it is subject to the rule in Casey as described by the Magistrate Judge.
Finally, the failure of the Magistrate Judge to describe in exquisite detail the contents of the daily activity sheets is not necessarily erroneous. Nor is the corresponding failure of the ALJ to do so defective. It is enough to conclude that these judicial officers reviewed the materials and rejected them for sound reasons. In this case, the ALJ stated that the plaintiff's complaints of pain and physical limitations were not "fully credible," and then applied the appropriate rules to support that conclusion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). Citing Walters v. Commissioner of Social Security, 127 F.3d 525, 531 (6th Cir. 1997), the Magistrate Judge concluded that there was substantial evidence in the record to support the ALJ's credibility determination. Although the Court may have concluded otherwise, that is not the standard of review in this case; the Magistrate Judge applied the proper standard of review in concluding that the findings of the ALJ were within the so-called "zone of choice." See Mullen v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 535, 545 (6th Cir. 1986) (en banc).
After a de novo review of the entire record and the materials submitted by the parties, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge properly reviewed the Administrative Record and applied the correct law in reaching his conclusion.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED.
It is further ORDERED that the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment [dkt #9] is DENIED.
It is further ORDERED that the defendant's motion for summary judgment [dkt #12] is GRANTED. The findings of the Commissioner are AFFIRMED, and the complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice.