UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

BROOKE ELENA TASKILA, 

 Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-12674 

 v. 

DISTRICT JUDGE NANCY G. EDMUNDS

MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES E. BINDER

COMMISSIONER OF 

SOCIAL SECURITY, 

 Defendant. 

_______________________/ 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

 

I. RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment should be DENIED, and that of Defendant

GRANTED, as there was substantial evidence on the record that claimant retained the

residual functional capacity for a limited range of sedentary work.

II. REPORT

A. Introduction and Procedural History

Plaintiff filed applications for Social Security Disability Income Benefits (DIB) and

Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits on June 28, 2011, alleging that she had been

disabled and unable to work since October 27, 2010, at age 31, due to neck and hand pain

secondary to a closed head injury. She also claimed she was disabled as a result of

2:14-cv-12674-NGE-CEB Doc # 15 Filed 08/05/15 Pg 1 of 10 Pg ID 561
depression and anxiety. Benefits were initially denied by the Social Security Administration.

A requested de novo hearing was held on December 4, 2012, before Administrative Law

Judge (ALJ) Patrick J. MacLean. The ALJ subsequently found that the claimant was not

entitled to disability benefits because she retained the ability to perform a limited range of

sedentary work. The Appeals Council declined to review that decision and Plaintiff

commenced the instant action for judicial review of the denial of benefits. The parties have

filed Motions for Summary Judgment and the issue for review is whether Defendant's denial

of benefits was supported by substantial evidence on the record. 

Claimant was 34 years old at the time of the administrative hearing (TR 34). She had

completed three years of course work at the University of Michigan, and had been employed

by during the relevant past as a fast food worker and classified advertisement clerk (TR 35,

53-54, 326). Plaintiff alleged that she had been disabled since October 2010, as a result of

severe neck and back pain, poor memory and emotional difficulties (TR 39-41, 52). She

could not pick up small objects due to bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome (TR 46). Pain

medications proved ineffective, and caused digestive problems (TR 39-41). Claimant

explained that her back, neck and hand pain prevented her from doing any housework. The

pain also interfered with her studies at college, and caused her grade point average to decline

(TR 37-38, 53-54). She asserted that she had no friends at school other than her roommate

(TR 37).

2

2:14-cv-12674-NGE-CEB Doc # 15 Filed 08/05/15 Pg 2 of 10 Pg ID 562
A Vocational Expert (VE), David Howorta, classified Plaintiff’s past work as

sedentary to light, skilled and unskilled activity (TR 61). The witness explained that there

would not be any jobs for claimant to perform if her testimony were fully accepted (TR 64). 1

If she were capable of sedentary work, however, there were numerous unskilled telephone

operator and system surveillance monitor jobs that she could still perform with minimal

vocational adjustment (TR 63-64). These jobs did not expose her to excessive vibrations,

unprotected heights ormoving machinery. She would be allowed a sit-stand option, provided

she was not off task more than 10 percent of the workday. The jobs involved performing

simple, routine and repetitive tasks free of fast paced production requirements. There would

be few workplace changes, and only occasional interaction with the public and co-workers

(TR 61, 63).

B. ALJ’s Findings

The Administrative Law Judge found that Plaintiff was impaired as a result of carpal

tunnel syndrome involving the right upper extremity, cervical spine radiculopathy, status post

closed head injury, an adjustment disorder with depressed mood and generalized anxiety.

Claimant did not have an impairment or combination of impairments severe enough to meet

or equal the Listing of Impairments. Nevertheless, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff

remained capable of performing a limited range of sedentary work providing a sit-stand

option every 15 minutes that would not expose her to excessive vibration, unprotected

The witness opined that Plaintiff’s alleged need to be off work for extended periods in order to go to the 1

doctor would preclude work activity (TR 64).

3

2:14-cv-12674-NGE-CEB Doc # 15 Filed 08/05/15 Pg 3 of 10 Pg ID 563
heights or moving machinery. The Law Judge found that claimant could not climb ladders

or reach with either arm. She was further limited to jobs where she would only have to

perform simple, routine tasks free of fast paced production requirements with no more than

occasional interaction with the public or co-workers. Despite these functional limitations, the

ALJ concluded that Plaintiffretained the residual functional capacity to performa significant

number of sedentary jobs, as identified by the Vocational Expert (TR 12-23). 

C. Standard of Review

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), this court has jurisdiction to review the

Commissioner's decisions. Judicial review of those decisions is limited to determining

whether her findings are supported by substantial evidence and whether she employed the

proper legal standards. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971). Substantial

evidence is more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance. It is such relevant evidence

as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. See Kirk v.

Secretary, 667 F.2d 524, 535 (6th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 957 (1983). This court

does not try the case de novo, resolve conflicts in the evidence, or decide questions of

credibility. See Brainard v. Secretary, 889 F.2d 679, 681 (6th Cir. 1989); Garner v. Heckler,

745 F.2d 383, 387 (6th Cir. 1984).

In determining the existence of substantial evidence, the court must examine the

administrative record as a whole. Kirk, 667 F.2d at 536. If the Commissioner's decision is

supported by substantial evidence, it must be affirmed even if even substantial evidence also

4

2:14-cv-12674-NGE-CEB Doc # 15 Filed 08/05/15 Pg 4 of 10 Pg ID 564
supports the opposite conclusion, Mullen v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 535, 545 (6th Cir. 1986) (en

banc), Casey v. Secretary, 987 F.2d 1230 (6th Cir. 1993), and even if the reviewing court

would decide the matter differently, Kinsella v. Schweiker, 708 F.2d 1058, 1059 (6th Cir.

1983).

Plaintiff maintains that substantial evidence does not support a conclusion that she

remains capable of performing a limited range of sedentary work activity. She also argues

that the ALJ improperly discounted her allegations of disabling functional limitations, given

the medical evidence of record. Defendant counters that the claimant retains the residual

functional capacity for a reduced range of sedentary work because the objective clinical

evidence of record did not confirm the disabling nature of her joint pain or mental

difficulties. 

D. Discussion and Analysis

After review of the record, I suggest that there is substantial evidence in the record

supporting the Commissioner's conclusion that Plaintiff retains the residual functional

capacity for a restricted range of sedentary work. The medical evidence, as a whole, fails to

provide objective support for claimant’s allegations ofsevere and totallydisabling functional

limitations stemming from her joint pain or emotional difficulties.

Review of the medical evidence of record reveals that the claimant injured her back

and neck in three separate automobile accidents. Following the most recent accident in

October 2010, Dr. Eric Clark, a primary care physician, indicated that Plaintiff had enjoyed

5

2:14-cv-12674-NGE-CEB Doc # 15 Filed 08/05/15 Pg 5 of 10 Pg ID 565
good results fromphysical therapy prescribed to help alleviate upper back and neck pain (TR

294, 301-302, 335-380). 

A treating neurologist, Dr. Karim Fram, reported in July 2011, that his clinical

examination found that claimant could walk with a normal gait, and that she exhibited normal

muscle tone and strength (TR 283). A cervical MRI conducted a month later revealed just

mild to moderate abnormalities (TR 422, 425). Dr. Fram described as “minimal” any disc

protrusions (TR 280). The physician recommended that Plaintiff avoid repetitive use of her

hands or working above shoulder level. He encouraged her to walk and exercise regularly

to help reduce her back discomfort (TR 280). Dr. Clark stated in a letter dated August 2012,

that Plaintiff continued to complain of back pain, memory problems and depression., Spinal

X-rays, however, showed only minimal back abnormalities (TR 333). 2

In light of this evidence, I suggest that the ALJ properly discounted Plaintiff’s

allegations of debilitating back, neck and hand symptoms because they conflicted with her

reported activities. As the ALJ noted, the claimant indicated that she purchased and prepared

all her own meals, as she was a vegetarian (TR 234-235). She stated that she did her own

laundry and dishes, and kept her room clean (TR 234). Plaintiff admitted that her hobbies

included “reading, studying for college, writing/drawing/art, playing my guitar, listening to

music, [and] spending time with my animals” (TR 236). She added that she spent time with

While Dr. Clark did indicate a month later that Plaintiff was disabled (TR 334), the ALJ properly gave

2

this statement little weight since the doctor failed to submit corroborating clinical evidence supporting his

opinion and was inconsistent with the rest of the medical record.

6

2:14-cv-12674-NGE-CEB Doc # 15 Filed 08/05/15 Pg 6 of 10 Pg ID 566
friends and her boyfriend “regularly” (TR 236). Although she testified that she could perform

these activities with breaks and the help from others, the ALJ reasonably concluded that they

conflicted with her alleged inability to do anything with her hands and arms. 

I further suggest that substantial evidence supports the finding that the claimant did

not suffer from disabling depression or anxiety. A mental status evaluation in October 2011,

by Dr. Christian Barrett, Ph.D., noted no significant psychological symptoms, disturbance

of thought, or problems with concentration or attention that would affect the ability to

perform work at a sustained pace (TR 328). Dr. Barrett determined that Plaintiff had some

mild limitations with complex instructions, but she remained out-going and sociable (TR

330). The psychologist measured her Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) at between

65 and 70, indicating just mild symptoms or limitations (TR 331).

Nor, I suggest, is there objective medical evidence suggesting that she suffered severe

side effects from pain medications, or that she needed to rest frequently throughout the day.

The ALJ also took into consideration claimant’s objectively proven functional limitations by

restricting her to simple, routine jobs that did not require frequent climbing, exposure to

unprotected heights, or having much interaction with co-workers and the general public.

It is the rare case, indeed, the exception, in which every piece of evidence points

incontrovertibly toward a decision to deny benefits. There was evidence in the record which,

taken in isolation, might suggest that the Plaintiff was totally disabled and that her testimony

was fully credible. However, special deference is owed to the credibility findings of the ALJ,

7

2:14-cv-12674-NGE-CEB Doc # 15 Filed 08/05/15 Pg 7 of 10 Pg ID 567
who was the only one who had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witness,

evaluate what was said and how it was said, and to consider how that testimony fit in with

the rest of the medical evidence. Such observation is invaluable and should not be discarded

lightly. Beavers v. Secretary, 577 F.2d 383 (6th Cir. 1978). See also Williamson v.

Secretary, 796 F.2d 146, 150 (6th Cir. 1986).

By establishing that she could not return to her past relevant work, the Plaintiff here

effectively shifted to the Commissioner the burden of proving that she had the vocational

qualifications to perform alternative jobs in the economy, notwithstanding her various

impairments. The Commissioner, however, met her burden of proving the existence of jobs

which accommodated claimant's known restrictions. In response to a hypothetical question

that took into consideration claimant's educational and vocational background, along with

her significant impairments , the Vocational Expert testified that there were numerous 3

unskilled callout operator and system surveillance monitor jobs that she could still perform

with minimal vocational adjustment (TR 63-64). These jobs did not expose her to excessive

vibrations, unprotected heights or moving machinery. She would be allowed a sit-stand

option provided she was not off task more than 10 percent of the workday. The jobs

The Administrative Law Judge’s hypothetical questions to the Vocational Expert (VE) accurately 3

described Plaintiff’s moderate limitations caused by her joint pain and emotional difficulties. The ALJ

reasonably determined that claimant’s on-going joint discomfort limited her to jobs that did not involve

frequent climbing, or doing any overhead reaching. She was also limited to simple tasks that did not require

complex thinking to accommodate hermental problems (TR 15). The Sixth Circuit has held that hypothetical

questions to experts are not required to included lists of claimant’s medical conditions. Webb v.

Commissioner, 368 F.3d 629, 633 (6 Cir. 2004). Under these circumstances, the ALJ’s hypothetical th

question accurately portrayed Plaintiff’s impairments.

8

2:14-cv-12674-NGE-CEB Doc # 15 Filed 08/05/15 Pg 8 of 10 Pg ID 568
involved simple, routing and repetitive tasks free of fast paced production requirements. 

There would be few, if any, workplace changes, and only occasional interaction with the

public and co-workers (TR 61, 63). Given the objective clinical findings of the examining

physicians of record during the relevant period, substantial evidence existed on the record

that Plaintiff retained the residual functional capacityfor a restricted range ofsedentarywork

activity. 

In sum, the Commissioner's decision to deny benefits was within the range of

discretion allowed by law and there is simply insufficient evidence for the undersigned to

find otherwise. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment should be denied,

that of Defendant granted and the instant Complaint dismissed. 

III. REVIEW

The parties to this action may object to and seek review of this Report and

Recommendation, but are required to act within fourteen (14) days of service of a copy

hereof as provided for in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Failure to file specific objections constitutes

a waiver of any further right of appeal. United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir.

1981), Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985), Howard v. Secretary of HHS, 932 F.2d 505 (6th

Cir. 1991). Filing of objections which raise some issues but fail to raise others with

specificity, will not preserve all the objections a party might have to this Report and

Recommendation. Smith v. Detroit Fed'n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th

Cir. 1987), Willis v. Secretary of HHS, 931 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 1991). Pursuant to Rule

9

2:14-cv-12674-NGE-CEB Doc # 15 Filed 08/05/15 Pg 9 of 10 Pg ID 569
72.1 (d)(2) of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of

Michigan, a copy of any objections is to be served upon this Magistrate Judge.

Within fourteen (14) days of service of any objecting party's timely filed objections,

the opposing party may file a response. The response shall address specifically, and in the

same order raised, each issue contained within the objections.

 s/ Charles`E Binder 

CHARLES E. BINDER 

Dated: August 5, 2015 United States Magistrate Judge

10

2:14-cv-12674-NGE-CEB Doc # 15 Filed 08/05/15 Pg 10 of 10 Pg ID 570