Camp v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin.

1

ANGELA MARIE CAMP, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant.

No. 2:20-cv-12837

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

February 24, 2023

DENISE PAGE HOOD DISTRICT JUDGE

MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF No 19), GRANT DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF No. 21) and AFFIRM THE COMMISSIONER'S DECISION

ANTHONY P. PATTI UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

I. RECOMMENDATION: For the reasons that follow, it is RECOMMENDED that the Court DENY Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 19), GRANT Defendant's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 21), and AFFIRM the Commissioner's decision.

II. REPORT

Plaintiff Angela Marie Camp brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (Commissioner) denying her application for Supplemental Security Income (SSI). This matter is before the United States Magistrate Judge for a Report and Recommendation on Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 19), the Commissioner's crossmotion for summary judgment (ECF No 21), Plaintiff's reply (ECF No. 22), and the administrative record (ECF No. 15).

A. Background and Administrative History

1. Prior Claims

Plaintiff filed prior applications for disability insurance benefits (DIB) and SSI on September 4, 2007, and September 17, 2007, respectively. (See ECF No. 15-3, PageID.155.) “Those claims were denied initially, January 14, 2008, and after a hearing, December 9, 2010. The Appeals Council declined to review the prior decision and [Plaintiff] did not file an additional appeal.” (ECF No. 15-3, PageID.155.) Plaintiff again filed applications for DIB and SSI on October 12 and 14, 2016. (ECF No. 15-3, PageID.155; see also ECF No. 15-2, PageID.80.) A hearing regarding these prior claims was held on June 22, 2018, and on September 17, 2018, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Amy Rosenberg found that Plaintiff was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. (ECF No. 15-3, PageID.152-171; see also ECF No. 15-2, PageID.80.)

2. Current claim and appeal

In her September 25, 2018 application for SSI, Plaintiff alleges her disability began that very same day, and approximately one week after ALJ Rosenberg's denial of her previous applications, at the age of 43. (ECF No. 15-5, PageID.271- 276.) In her disability report, she lists degenerative disc disease, osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, chronic myofascial syndrome, depression and anxiety, chronic fatigue syndrome, insomnia, IBS, migraines, low function thyroid, carpal tunnel in both wrists, and surgery on both knees due to torn meniscus as limiting her ability to work. (ECF No. 15-6, PageID.196.) Her application was denied on November 7, 2018. (ECF No. 15-3, PageID.184-185.)

Plaintiff requested a hearing by an ALJ. (ECF No. 15-4, PageID.207-209.) On August 15, 2019, ALJ Lawrence Blatnik held a hearing at which Plaintiff and a vocational expert (VE), Heather Benton, testified. (ECF No. 15-2, PageID.94-127.) On November 22, 2019, ALJ Blatnik issued an opinion, which determined that Plaintiff was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act since September 25, 2018. (ECF No. 15-2, PageID.77-93.)^[1]

Plaintiff submitted a request for review of the hearing decision/order. (ECF No. 15-4, PageID.267-269.) However, on August 27, 2020, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review. (ECF No. 15-2, PageID.62-67.) Thus, ALJ Blatnik's decision became the Commissioner's final decision.

Plaintiff timely commenced the instant action on October 22, 2020. (ECF No. 1.)

B. Plaintiff's Medical History

The administrative record contains approximately 143 pages of medical records, which were available to the ALJ at the time of his November 22, 2019 decision. (ECF No. 15-7, PageID.350-524 [Exhibits C1F-C10F].) These materials will be discussed in detail, as necessary, below.

C. The Administrative Decision

Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4), at Step 1 of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since September 25, 2018, the application and alleged onset date. (ECF No. 15-2, PageID.83.) At Step 2, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: degenerative disc disease of the cervical and lumbar spine, status post cervical discectomy/fusion; degenerative joint disease of the bilateral knees; migraine headaches; hypothyroidism; obesity; depression; and anxiety disorder. (ECF No. 15-2, PageID.83-84.) At Step 3, the ALJ found Plaintiff did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled the severity of one of the listed impairments. (ECF No. 15-2, PageID.84-85, 87.)^[2] Between Steps 3 and 4 of the sequential process, the ALJ evaluated Plaintiff's residual functional capacity (RFC) and determined that Plaintiff had the RFC:

to perform sedentary work .... The claimant can lift or carry ten pounds occasionally and less than ten pounds frequently. She can sit for at least six hours, and stand and walk up to two hours; but would require the ability to change position every 20 to 30 minutes, for three to five minutes at a time. She can occasionally climb, balance, stoop, kneel, crouch and crawl. She can occasionally reach overhead with both arms. She can frequently handle, finger and feel with both hands. She must avoid all exposure to unprotected heights, moving mechanical parts and rough, uneven terrain. She can understand, remember and carry out simple, routine tasks and can make simple work-related decisions.

(ECF No. 15-2, PageID.86-89.) At Step 4, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff was unable to perform any past relevant work. (ECF No. 15-2, PageID.89.) At Step 5, considering Plaintiff's age, education, work experience, and RFC, the ALJ determined that there were jobs that existed in significant numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff could perform, such as information clerk, office clerk, and interviewer. (ECF No. 15-2, PageID.89-90.) The ALJ therefore concluded that Plaintiff had not been under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, since September 25, 2018. (ECF No. 15-2, PageID.90.)

D. Standard of Review

The District Court has jurisdiction to review the Commissioner's final administrative decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). When reviewing a case under the Social Security Act, the Court “must affirm the Commissioner's decision if it ‘is supported by substantial evidence and was made pursuant to proper legal standards.'” Rabbers v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 582 F.3d 647, 651 (6th Cir. 2009) (quoting Rogers v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 486 F.3d 234, 241 (6th Cir. 2007)); see also 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (“The findings of the Commissioner of Social Security as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive ....”). Under this standard, “[s]ubstantial evidence is defined as ‘more than a scintilla of evidence but less than a preponderance; it is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.'” Rogers, 486 F.3d at 241 (quoting Cutlip v. Sec'y of Health and Human Servs., 25 F.3d 284, 286 (6th Cir. 1994)). In deciding whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ's decision, the Court does “not try the case de novo, resolve conflicts in evidence, or decide questions of credibility.” Bass v. McMahon, 499 F.3d 506, 509 (6th Cir. 2007); Rogers, 486 F.3d at 247 (“It is of course for the ALJ, and not the reviewing court, to evaluate the credibility of witnesses, including that of the claimant.”).

Although the substantial evidence standard is deferential, it is not trivial. The Court must “‘take into account whatever in the record fairly detracts from [the] weight'” of the Commissioner's decision. TNS, Inc. v. NLRB, 296 F.3d 384, 395 (6th Cir. 2002) (quoting Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 487 (1951)). Nevertheless, “if substantial evidence supports the ALJ's decision, this Court defers to that finding ‘even if there is substantial evidence in the record that would have supported an opposite conclusion.'” Blakley v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 581 F.3d 399, 406 (6th Cir. 2009) (quoting Key v. Callahan, 109 F.3d 270, 273 (6th Cir. 1997)). Finally, even if the ALJ's decision meets the substantial evidence standard, “‘a decision of the Commissioner will not be upheld where the SSA fails to follow its own regulations and where that error prejudices a claimant on the merits or deprives the claimant of a substantial right.'” Rabbers, 582 F.3d at 651 (quoting Bowen v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 478 F.3d 742, 746 (6th Cir. 2007)).

E. Analysis

Plaintiff argues that the ALJ's decision is unsupported by substantial evidence and, thus, reversal or remand is required. (ECF No. 19, PageID.532, 550; ECF No. 22, PageID.591.) Specifically, she asserts that: (1) the ALJ erred at Step 3 by determining that she does not meet or medically equal Listing 1.04(A); (2) the ALJ erred at Step 5 because the RFC fell short of including all of her documented limitations; and (3) the ALJ failed to properly consider the medical opinions from PAC Maria Thelen. (ECF No. 19, PageID.537-550; ECF No. 22, PageID.582-591.) The Commissioner opposes Plaintiff's motion, arguing that substantial evidence supported the ALJ's decision. (ECF No. 21.) For the reasons that follow, I agree with the Commissioner.

1. The Court should find that the ALJ did not err at Step 3

Plaintiff challenges the ALJ's determination that her impairments did not meet or medically equal Listing 1.04A. (ECF No. 19 PageID.539-544 (citing ECF No. 15-2, PageID.84).) In his decision, the ALJ stated, “The claimant's impairments do not meet or equal the...