UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

DALLAS ROBERT MEDDAUGH, 

 Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 14-13131 

 Magistrate Judge David R. Grand 

 

v. 

COMMISSIONER OF 

SOCIAL SECURITY, 

 Defendant. 

__________________________________/ 

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING THE COMMISSIONER’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [24] AND DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [21] 

Plaintiff Dallas Robert Meddaugh (“Meddaugh”) brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§405(g), challenging the final decision of Defendant Commissioner of Social Security 

(“Commissioner”) denying his application for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) under the 

Social Security Act (the “Act”). Both parties filed summary judgment motions [21, 24], and 

have consented to the undersigned conducting all proceedings in this action, including the entry 

of a final judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73. [32]. 

For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that substantial evidence supports the 

Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) conclusion that Meddaugh is not disabled under the Act. 

Accordingly, the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment [24] is GRANTED, 

Meddaugh’s Motion for Summary Judgment [21] is DENIED, and, pursuant to sentence four of 

42 U.S.C. §405(g), the ALJ’s decision is AFFIRMED. 

 

2:14-cv-13131-DRG Doc # 33 Filed 12/04/15 Pg 1 of 17 Pg ID 657
2

II. REPORT 

A. Procedural History 

On June 20, 2011, Meddaugh filed an application for SSI, alleging a disability onset date 

of January 1, 2007. (Tr. 181-89). This application was denied initially on August 9, 2011. (Tr. 

100-03). Meddaugh filed a timely request for an administrative hearing, which was held on 

January 9, 2013, before ALJ James Gramenos. (Tr. 31-90). Meddaugh, who was represented by 

attorney John Paterson, testified at the hearing, as did vocational expert Lois Brooks. (Id.). On 

March 15, 2013, the ALJ issued a written decision finding that Meddaugh is not disabled under 

the Act. (Tr. 14-27). On June 12, 2014, the Appeals Council denied review. (Tr. 1-5). 

Meddaugh timely filed for judicial review of the final decision on August 14, 2014. (Doc. #1). 

B. Framework for Disability Determinations 

Under the Act, SSI is available only for those who have a “disability.” See Colvin v. 

Barnhart, 475 F.3d 727, 730 (6th Cir. 2007). The Act defines “disability” as the: 

inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any 

medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be 

expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last 

for a continuous period of not less than 12 months. 

42 U.S.C. §1382c(a)(3)(A). The Commissioner’s regulations provide that a disability is to be 

determined through the application of a five-step sequential analysis: 

Step One: If the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful 

activity, benefits are denied without further analysis. 

Step Two: If the claimant does not have a severe impairment or 

combination of impairments that “significantly limits . . . physical or 

mental ability to do basic work activities,” benefits are denied without 

further analysis. 

Step Three: If the claimant is not performing substantial gainful activity, 

has a severe impairment that is expected to last for at least twelve months, 

and the severe impairment meets or equals one of the impairments listed in 

2:14-cv-13131-DRG Doc # 33 Filed 12/04/15 Pg 2 of 17 Pg ID 658
3

the regulations, the claimant is conclusively presumed to be disabled 

regardless of age, education, or work experience. 

Step Four: If the claimant is able to perform his or her past relevant work, 

benefits are denied without further analysis. 

Step Five: Even if the claimant is unable to perform his or her past 

relevant work, if other work exists in the national economy that the 

claimant can perform, in view of his or her age, education, and work 

experience, benefits are denied. 

Scheuneman v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 2011 WL 6937331, at *7 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 6, 2011) (citing 

20 C.F.R. §404.1520); see also Heston v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 245 F.3d 528, 534 (6th Cir. 

2001). “The burden of proof is on the claimant throughout the first four steps .... If the analysis 

reaches the fifth step without a finding that claimant is not disabled, the burden transfers to the 

[defendant].” Preslar v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 14 F.3d 1107, 1110 (6th Cir. 1994). 

C. Background 

1. Meddaugh’s Reports and Testimony 

At the time of the administrative hearing, Meddaugh was 20 years old, and at 6’2” tall, 

weighed 158 pounds. (Tr. 48). He lived in a house with his girlfriend, their daughter, and his 

girlfriend’s family. (Tr. 54, 210). He completed high school but has had no further education. 

(Tr. 40, 197). He has never held a job for longer than five months. (Tr. 49). 

Meddaugh alleges disability as a result of complex partial seizures, with which he was 

first diagnosed at age 14. (Tr. 39, 196). He testified that, while in high school (up until June 

2010), he experienced five seizures per month and was not permitted to play sports.1

 (Tr. 40). 

At the time of the hearing, he claimed he was continuing to experience two seizures per month. 

(Tr. 42). In various reports, and in his hearing testimony, Meddaugh also indicated that his 

                                                            

1

 At doctors’ visits during this period of time, however, Meddaugh reported playing football and 

excelling at sports. (Tr. 484, 491, 493). 

2:14-cv-13131-DRG Doc # 33 Filed 12/04/15 Pg 3 of 17 Pg ID 659
4

seizure medication (Lamictal) causes side effects such as dizziness, blurred vision, headaches, 

nausea, and hand tremors. (Tr. 48, 217, 236). 

When asked how his seizure disorder limits his ability to work, Meddaugh stated: 

I am not allowed to work around grills, large machinary [sic], and I cannot 

drive. Resturants [sic] don’t want me to wait tables, in case I have a 

seizure and drop the prepared food or dishes. I am also not allowed to 

work with anything sharp. 

(Tr. 210). He testified that he attempted to work at a camp during the summer of 2012 (picking 

up leaves and garbage), through the Michigan Works Program, but “had seizures throughout the 

whole times [he] was working” and was “forced to stop” by his physician. (Tr. 42-43). 

According to Meddaugh, working outside, in the heat, put extra strain on his body, causing these 

seizures. (Tr. 43). Meddaugh further testified that he has been advised not to lift more than ten 

pounds because he could “injure or kill” himself or others if he has a seizure while doing so. (Tr. 

44). He has difficulty using his hands because he has a tremor. (Tr. 215). In addition, he 

testified that he has difficulty concentrating and should not stare at computers, televisions, or 

video games for more than 60-90 minutes at a time. (Tr. 46). 

Meddaugh has never had a driver’s license because he is “not approved by [his] doctor to 

drive.” (Tr. 36). He is able to care for his young daughter (change her diaper, feed her, play 

with her, put her to sleep, etc.). (Tr. 51-52, 63, 211). He has no difficulties with personal care 

and is able to prepare meals, perform housework (such as cleaning and laundry), shop in stores, 

and perform yard work. (Tr. 51, 63, 65, 211-13). He enjoys drawing, watching television, 

playing sports (though he indicated in a June 14, 2011 self-report that he has been unable to play 

sports since his condition began)2

, and likes to “just hang out” with others. (Tr. 214). 

                                                            

2

 In a July 15, 2011 report completed by Meddaugh’s girlfriend, she wrote that Meddaugh “can 

not play sports besides just for fun with friends and family.” (Tr. 229). She also indicated that 

2:14-cv-13131-DRG Doc # 33 Filed 12/04/15 Pg 4 of 17 Pg ID 660
5

2. Medical Evidence

On July 27, 2007, Meddaugh presented to the emergency room after a single syncope 

episode. (Tr. 367-70). Except for some mild anxiety, Meddaugh’s objective exam findings 

(including a CT scan of his head and a chest x-ray) were all normal. (Tr. 367-73). On October 

6, 2007, Meddaugh returned to the emergency room after experiencing a brief seizure. (Tr. 271-

74). Again, his objective exam findings and a CT scan of his brain were normal. (Tr. 274-75). 

Meddaugh began treatment at the Michigan Institute for Neurological Disorders 

(“MIND”) in February 2008. At his initial examination, Dr. Eileen McCormick noted that 

Meddaugh had been diagnosed with epilepsy after experiencing five paroxysmal “events” 

between November 2006 and December 2007, but that Meddaugh had not experienced any 

further “spells” after starting to take Lamictal around late December 2007. (Tr. 492). His MRI 

and MRA of the brain, two EEGs, blood work, and echocardiogram were all within normal 

limits. (Tr. 493). Meddaugh and his father reported that his school performance had not 

declined, and he excelled in sports. (Id.). On examination, Meddaugh’s mental status, cranial 

nerves, motor findings, sensory findings, and reflexes were all normal. (Tr. 494). Dr. 

McCormick concluded that Meddaugh had “normal growth and development to date with 

paroxysmal events ....” (Tr. 495). 

Meddaugh did not have another seizure until March 3, 2008 (Tr. 463) and then had only 

two seizures, in May 2008 and December 2008, though records related to both mention 

Meddaugh’s noncompliance with medication (Tr. 441 (“States that he forgot to take his lamictal 

at least for today”), 490 (“most recent seizure may indeed be secondary to noncompliance with 

medication”). 

                                                                                                                                                                                               

Meddaugh “likes sports, video games, [and] movies,” and engages in those activities “every 

day.” (Id.). 

2:14-cv-13131-DRG Doc # 33 Filed 12/04/15 Pg 5 of 17 Pg ID 661
6

After December 2008, Meddaugh had no seizures for approximately eighteen months. 

(Tr. 248, 441). Throughout his junior year in high school, Meddaugh repeatedly reported that he 

did well in school, was able to focus and concentrate, and got his work done. (Tr. 486, 488). On 

January 30, 2009, and April 29, 2009, his objective exam findings were all normal, except for a 

mild tremor in his left hand. (Tr. 486, 488-89). At a follow-up visit to MIND in August 2009, 

Meddaugh’s objective findings were completely normal, and he reported having recently started 

football practice. (Tr. 484-85). 

Throughout his senior year of high school, Meddaugh reported that he was able to focus 

and pay attention, was doing well academically, and had no medication side effects. (Tr. 478, 

480, 482). On March 15, 2010, Dr. McCormick and Nurse Practitioner Anne Marie Michon 

opined that Meddaugh’s EEG was “much improved.” (Tr. 478). On examination, Meddaugh 

had a “very slight” left hand tremor, but his rapid alternating hand movements were intact, and 

his gait and reflexes were within normal limits. (Id.). 

On June 1, 2010, Meddaugh had a mild seizure. (Tr. 248). At a follow-up examination 

at MIND on June 3, 2010, Meddaugh admitted that he had failed to take three medication doses 

before this seizure. (Tr. 268). Meddaugh’s general health was good at this visit, and his exam 

findings were all normal, except for a very slight left hand tremor. (Tr. 268-69). 

On September 13, 2010, Dr. McCormick and NP Michon noted that Meddaugh had not 

had any seizures since June and was experiencing no side effects from his medication. (Tr. 266). 

They “encouraged him strongly to get back into some type of [] school program or try to look for 

some type of job,” noting that he “might be working with his uncle at a heating and cooling 

company.” (Tr. 267). 

On November 4, 2010, Meddaugh had a “staring spell,” but admitted that he had not 

2:14-cv-13131-DRG Doc # 33 Filed 12/04/15 Pg 6 of 17 Pg ID 662
7

taken his medication the day before. (Tr. 471). After this November 2010 spell, Meddaugh was 

seizure-free for almost two years.3

 (Tr. 508). 

On March 2, 2012, Meddaugh indicated that he planned to participate in job training 

through Michigan Works. (Tr. 467). Again, Meddaugh’s general health was good, and he 

reported no medication side effects. (Id.). Except for dysmetria with a bilateral hand tremor, 

Meddaugh had all normal exam findings, including a normal gait and full muscle strength. (Id.). 

It was not until mid-2012 that Meddaugh had another seizure. (Tr. 508). On September 

15, 2012, Dr. Susan Smietana and NP Michon noted that he had recently had two seizures, and 

they adjusted his medication. (Id.). Dr. Smietana and NP Michon opined that, “He cannot work 

around power tools, industrial cleaners, deep fryers or cooking grills or other hot stoves, and he 

cannot be climbing on ladders and/or be off the ground.” (Id.). Aside from these restrictions, 

however, they indicated: “We have no difficulty allowing him to work as long as this 

information is taken into consideration to help promote his safety and prevent him from incurring 

injury should a seizure occur.” (Id.). 

On December 18, 2012, NP Michon opined that Meddaugh’s impairment does not affect 

his standing, walking, sitting, reaching, handling, feeling, pushing/pulling, seeing, hearing, or 

speaking. (Tr. 514-15). She further opined that Meddaugh can work a full eight-hour day, does 

not need any substantial amount of rest that would prevent him from working, and that his pain is 

a 1/10 on the pain scale. (Tr. 516). NP Michon opined that Meddaugh can lift under ten pounds 

1/4 to 1/3 of an eight-hour day; can stoop crouch, kneel, and crawl as tolerated; can never climb, 

be off the ground, or balance with more than ten pounds in his hand; cannot work with power 

                                                            

3

 At a March 28, 2011 exam, Meddaugh said he had experienced episodes where he would get a 

dazed look in his eyes, but he explained that he had not been sleeping well because he had a new 

baby. (Tr. 471). His objective exam findings were all normal at this visit, except for a slight 

hand tremor, greater on the left than the right. (Id.). 

2:14-cv-13131-DRG Doc # 33 Filed 12/04/15 Pg 7 of 17 Pg ID 663
8

tools; and is restricted from heights, moving machinery, temperature extremes, chemicals, dust, 

noise, fumes, humidity, vibration, cooking grills, and grease. (Tr. 514-16). 

3. Vocational Expert’s Testimony 

Lois Brooks testified as an independent vocational expert (“VE”) at the administrative 

hearing. (Tr. 76-89). The ALJ asked the VE to imagine a hypothetical individual of 

Meddaugh’s age, education, and work experience with the vocational profile described infra at 

8-9. (Tr. 78-81). The VE testified that the hypothetical individual would be capable of working 

in the jobs of document preparer (3,200 jobs in southeast Michigan), order clerk (1,200 jobs), 

and surveillance system monitor (500 jobs). (Tr. 82-83). 

Upon further questioning by Meddaugh’s attorney, the VE testified that she could not 

answer the question of whether an individual who experiences one or two grand mal epileptic 

seizures per week without advance warning would be employable. (Tr. 85-86). She further 

testified that such a condition would be work preclusive if the individual could work only two to 

four hours per day, three days per week. (Tr. 86). Additionally, the VE testified that it also 

would be job preclusive if the hypothetical individual could concentrate for no more than one 

hour at a time, after which he would be unable to concentrate for two hours. (Id.). 

D. The ALJ’s Findings 

The ALJ first found that Meddaugh had not attained age 22 as of January 1, 2007, his 

alleged onset date. (Tr. 16). At Step One of the five-step sequential analysis, the ALJ found that 

Meddaugh has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since January 1, 2007 (the alleged 

onset date). (Tr. 17). At Step Two, the ALJ found that Meddaugh has the severe impairment of 

partial complex epilepsy. (Id.). At Step Three, the ALJ found that Meddaugh’s impairments, 

2:14-cv-13131-DRG Doc # 33 Filed 12/04/15 Pg 8 of 17 Pg ID 664
9

whether considered alone or in combination, do not meet or medically equal a listed impairment. 

(Id.). 

The ALJ then found that Meddaugh retains the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to 

perform sedentary work with the following limitations: 

(1) [a]ble to occasionally lift and/or carry weights, defined as up to 1/3rd 

of the normal 8 hour work period at least up to 5 pounds of weight; (2) 

able to frequently lift and or carry weights, defined as up to 2/3rds of the 

work period, up to at least 5 pounds of weight; (3) able to engage in the 

positions of standing and/or walking in the work place, assuming normal 

periods of breaks, for an overall total of up to at least 6 hours during a 

normal 8 hour work period; (4) assuming normal breaks in any work 

setting, during any normal 8 hour work period, has the functional abilities 

to engage in sitting positions for periods of time of at least an overall 

period of 6 hours when performing work activity; (5) eliminate from 

consideration jobs that would have extremes of cold or heat; extremes of 

wetness and/or humidity; (6) requires a work environment that does not 

allow for an exposure to high levels of dusts, fumes, gases, or similar 

environmental conditions such as would exist in occupations such as 

farmer, road construction worker or welder; (7) eliminate jobs and 

claimant’s presence in work around deep fryers, cooking grills or other hot 

devices including cooking stoves; (8) eliminate jobs that have a noise 

intensity level above the moderate level of noise intensity as that term 

“noise” is defined in the publications entitled Selected Characteristics of 

Occupations, and the Revised Dictionary of Occupational Titles [SOC]; 

(9) SOC defines moderate noise intensity as the noise intensity level in 

places such as a business office, department store, grocery store and 

similar places of business; (10) has the functional ability to engage in 

unskilled work activity that does not require exposure to high levels of 

stress; (11) I define high levels of stress such as would be expected in jobs 

that require working in-person with the general public, or as a team 

member performing work at an actual moving assembly line job, and not a 

bench assembly type job; and (12) eliminate from consideration jobs that 

have unprotected hazards in any work-setting from unprotected areas of 

moving machinery, heights, ramps, ladders, scaffolding and similar areas 

of danger. 

(Tr. 18). 

At Step Four, the ALJ determined that Meddaugh has no past relevant work. (Tr. 24). At 

Step Five, the ALJ concluded, based in part on the VE’s testimony, that Meddaugh is capable of 

2:14-cv-13131-DRG Doc # 33 Filed 12/04/15 Pg 9 of 17 Pg ID 665
10

performing a significant number of jobs that exist in the national economy. (Tr. 25-27). As a 

result, the ALJ concluded that Meddaugh is not disabled under the Act. (Tr. 27). 

E. Standard of Review 

The District Court has jurisdiction to review the Commissioner’s final administrative 

decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §405(g). Judicial review under this statute is limited in that the 

court “must affirm the Commissioner’s conclusions absent a determination that the 

Commissioner has failed to apply the correct legal standard or has made findings of fact 

unsupported by substantial evidence in the record.” Longworth v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 402 F.3d 

591, 595 (6th Cir. 2005) (internal citations omitted); Rabbers v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 582 F.3d 

647, 654 (6th Cir. 2009) (“[I]f an agency has failed to adhere to its own procedures, we will not 

remand for further administrative proceedings unless the claimant has been prejudiced on the 

merits or deprived of substantial rights because of the agency’s procedural lapses.”) (internal 

quotations omitted). Substantial evidence is “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 v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 486 F.3d 234, 241 (6th Cir. 2007) 

(internal quotations omitted). 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.”). 

When reviewing the Commissioner’s factual findings, the court is limited to an 

examination of the record and must consider the record as a whole. Bass, 499 F.3d at 512-13; 

Wyatt v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 974 F.2d 680, 683 (6th Cir. 1992). The court “may 

2:14-cv-13131-DRG Doc # 33 Filed 12/04/15 Pg 10 of 17 Pg ID 666
11

look to any evidence in the record, regardless of whether it has been cited by the Appeals 

Council,” or in this case, the ALJ. Heston, 245 F.3d at 535; Walker v. Sec’y of Health & Human 

Servs., 884 F.2d 241, 245 (6th Cir. 1989). There is no requirement, however, that either the ALJ 

or this court discuss every piece of evidence in the administrative record. See Kornecky v. 

Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 167 F. App’x 496, 508 (6th Cir. 2006) (“[A]n ALJ can consider all 

evidence without directly addressing in his written decision every piece of evidence submitted by 

a party.”) (internal quotations omitted). If the Commissioner’s decision is supported by 

substantial evidence, “it must be affirmed even if the reviewing court would decide the matter 

differently and even if substantial evidence also supports the opposite conclusion.” Cutlip v. 

Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 25 F.3d 284, 286 (6th Cir. 1994) (internal citations omitted);

Blakley v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 581 F.3d 399, 406 (6th Cir. 2009) (“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’”). 

F. Analysis 

In his motion for summary judgment, Meddaugh argues that the ALJ erred in failing to 

adequately assess the credibility of his subjective complaints and, as a result, in determining his 

RFC. (Doc. #21 at 9-13). The Court disagrees. 

As the Sixth Circuit has held, determinations of credibility related to subjective 

complaints of pain rest with the ALJ because “the ALJ’s opportunity to observe the demeanor of 

the claimant ‘is invaluable, and should not be discarded lightly.’” Kirk v. Sec’y of Health & 

Human Servs., 667 F.2d 524, 538 (6th Cir. 1981) (quoting Beavers v. Sec’y of Health, Ed. & 

Welfare, 577 F.2d 383, 387 (6th Cir. 1978)). Thus, an ALJ’s credibility determination will not 

be disturbed “absent compelling reason.” Smith v. Halter, 307 F.3d 377, 379 (6th Cir. 2001). 

2:14-cv-13131-DRG Doc # 33 Filed 12/04/15 Pg 11 of 17 Pg ID 667
12

The ALJ is not simply required to accept the testimony of a claimant if it conflicts with medical 

reports and other evidence in the record. See Walters v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 127 F.3d 525, 531 

(6th Cir. 1997). Rather, when a complaint of pain is in issue, after the ALJ finds a medical 

condition that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s alleged symptoms, he 

must consider “the entire case record, including the objective medical evidence, the individual’s 

own statements about symptoms, statements and other information provided by treating or 

examining physicians . . . and any other relevant evidence in the case record” to determine if the 

claimant’s claims regarding the level of his pain are credible. Soc. Sec. Rul. 96-7, 1996 WL 

374186, *1 (July 2, 1996); see also 20 C.F.R. §416.929. 

In this case, after finding at Step Two that Meddaugh suffers from the severe impairment 

of partial complex epilepsy (Tr. 17), the ALJ concluded that he nevertheless retains the residual 

functional capacity to perform a reduced range of sedentary work (Tr. 18-24). In reaching this 

conclusion, the ALJ specifically referenced Meddaugh’s testimony that he cannot work because 

he suffers grand mal seizures twice a month, without warning, and experiences dizziness, 

drowsiness, and hand tremors as a result of the medication he takes. (Tr. 19). However, the ALJ 

found that while Meddaugh’s condition could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged 

symptoms, his statements about the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of those symptoms 

were not entirely credible to the extent they conflicted with the RFC assessment. (Tr. 20-24). In 

reaching this conclusion, the ALJ specifically considered Meddaugh’s activities of daily living, 

prior statements and reports contained in the record, the objective medical evidence, and 

Meddaugh’s lack of adherence to prescribed treatment, and he gave good reasons for discrediting 

Meddaugh’s allegations of work-preclusive limitations. (Id.). 

2:14-cv-13131-DRG Doc # 33 Filed 12/04/15 Pg 12 of 17 Pg ID 668
13

As an initial matter, the ALJ properly considered the objective medical evidence when 

evaluating Meddaugh’s credibility. Specifically, the ALJ noted that the treatment notes in the 

record “significantly contradict” Meddaugh’s testimony that he suffers from two seizures per 

month. (Tr. 24). Indeed, the evidence indicates that Meddaugh’s seizures are, for the most part, 

well-controlled with medication. After he began treatment at MIND in February 2008, he 

suffered only four seizures, each of which was attributed to his noncompliance with treatment4 or 

to sleep deprivation stemming from having a new baby. (Tr. 23-24 (citing Tr. 441, 471, 490, 

508)). Between 2008 and 2012, Meddaugh twice went extended periods of time – once 

approximately eighteen months, and again almost two years – without any seizures whatsoever.5

 

(Tr. 248, 441, 508). And, as the ALJ noted, the record does not evidence the significantly 

limited ability to focus, concentrate, or learn; evidence of brain damage; history of physical 

injuries; or neurological deficits that are typically associated with intense and disabling seizure 

activity. (Tr. 23). Such objective evidence is a “useful indicator” for an ALJ to use when 

evaluating the credibility of a claimant’s symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. §416.929(c)(2) (“Objective 

medical evidence of this type is a useful indicator to assist us in making reasonable conclusions 

                                                            

4

 The ALJ also considered Meddaugh’s “lack of adherence to prescribed treatment” in 

concluding that his symptoms “may not be as severe as alleged.” (Tr. 24). This is a proper 

consideration. See Sias v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 861 F.2d 475, 480 (6th Cir. 1988) 

(concluding that the ALJ properly discounted the claimant’s credibility where he failed to follow 

prescribed treatment); Soc. Sec. Rul. 96-7p, 1996 WL 374186, at *8 (noting that “the individual’s 

statements may be less credible if ... the medical reports or records show that the individual is 

not following the treatment as prescribed and there are no good reasons for this failure.”). 

5

 In his reply brief, Meddaugh asserts that he was not “completely seizure free for almost two 

years” because “EEGs show[ed] seizures appearing within the testing and the potential of the 

seizures continuing ....” (Doc. #27 at 8-9). Meddaugh is correct – and the ALJ acknowledged – 

that EEGs performed between November 2010 and September 2012 showed some sub-clinical 

seizure activity. (Tr. 21). However, throughout this entire period of time, Dr. McCormick and 

NP Michon continued to note “no overt signs or symptoms of seizures.” (Tr. 467). 

2:14-cv-13131-DRG Doc # 33 Filed 12/04/15 Pg 13 of 17 Pg ID 669
14

about the intensity and persistence of your symptoms and the effect those symptoms, such as 

pain, may have on your ability to work.”). 

In addition, in assessing the credibility of Meddaugh’s allegations, the ALJ noted that, 

despite his allegations of disabling symptoms, he engages in extensive daily activities. 

Specifically, the ALJ noted that Meddaugh’s daily activities include playing sports for fun,6

attending to his personal needs, caring for his young daughter, preparing meals, grocery 

shopping, walking, picking up the yard, doing laundry, playing video games, watching movies 

and television, cleaning, interacting with others, managing his financial affairs, and attending 

appointments. (Tr. 24, 51-52, 63, 65, 211-14). Moreover, as the ALJ noted, Meddaugh 

repeatedly reported that he was doing well in school and was able to concentrate. (Tr. 24, 478, 

480, 482, 486, 488, 493). It was entirely appropriate for the ALJ to consider the fact that 

Meddaugh’s ability to perform daily activities is less limited than one would expect, given his 

allegations of disabling symptoms. See Walters, 127 F.3d at 532 (an ALJ may consider 

household and social activities in evaluating the credibility of the claimant’s allegations of 

disabling symptoms). 

Finally, in evaluating Meddaugh’s credibility the ALJ noted that there were 

inconsistencies between his hearing testimony and both his and his girlfriend’s prior statements. 

(Tr. 24). For example, the ALJ noted that Meddaugh testified that he was prohibited from 

playing contact sports (Tr. 24, 65), but the treatment notes contain no such restriction. Indeed, as 

the ALJ noted, Meddaugh reported to Dr. McCormick and NP Michon that he played hockey and 

                                                            

6

 As noted above, supra at 4, Meddaugh’s assertion that he could no longer play sports in light of 

his condition is contradicted by his girlfriend’s virtually contemporaneous assertion that he still 

plays sports, albeit “just for fun.” (Tr. 229). Even if Meddaugh can no longer engage in 

competitive athletics, his ability to play sports “just for fun” is still inconsistent with the extent of 

disability he alleges. 

2:14-cv-13131-DRG Doc # 33 Filed 12/04/15 Pg 14 of 17 Pg ID 670
15

football in high school. (Tr. 24, 445, 484). In addition, while Meddaugh testified at the hearing 

that his medication causes side effects such as dizziness, blurred vision, and headaches (Tr. 48), 

treatment notes indicate that he routinely denied such side effects (Tr. 266, 467, 478, 480, 482, 

486, 488). Again, the inconsistencies between these statements were appropriate considerations 

in evaluating Meddaugh’s credibility. See Hairston v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 2015 WL 4633935, 

at *7 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 3, 2015) (factors relevant to credibility include “the consistency of the 

claimant’s statements, both internally and with other information in the record”). 

In sum, the ALJ recognized the duty imposed upon him by the regulations and, contrary 

to Meddaugh’s assertions, did far more than merely rely “upon a preconceived notion that [he] 

lacked credibility ....” (Doc. #21 at 11). Rather, in assessing Meddaugh’s credibility, the ALJ 

properly considered his activities of daily living, prior statements and reports, the objective 

medical evidence, and his lack of adherence to prescribed treatment. Thus, the ALJ’s credibility 

determination is supported by substantial evidence and should not be disturbed. 

In addition to challenging the ALJ’s credibility determination, Meddaugh also vaguely 

disputes the ALJ’s conclusion that he retains the RFC to perform a reduced range of sedentary 

work. (Doc. #21 at 10-12). But, the ALJ’s RFC finding is supported by the various pieces of 

medical evidence discussed above, including: (1) evidence that, since beginning treatment in 

February 2008, Meddaugh has suffered only four seizures, each of which was attributed to his 

noncompliance with treatment (Tr. 441, 471, 490, 508); (2) evidence that, between 2008 and 

2012, Meddaugh twice went extended periods of time – once approximately eighteen months, 

and again almost two years – without any seizures whatsoever (Tr. 248, 441, 508); (3) evidence 

that, on examination, Meddaugh’s mental status, cranial nerves, motor findings, sensory 

findings, and reflexes were consistently normal, with the exception of a mild tremor in his left 

2:14-cv-13131-DRG Doc # 33 Filed 12/04/15 Pg 15 of 17 Pg ID 671
16

hand7 (Tr. 268-69, 467, 478, 484-86, 488-89, 494); and (4) evidence that Meddaugh’s treating 

practitioners believed him capable of working (and, indeed, encouraged him to do so) (Tr. 267, 

508, 514-16). Meddaugh does not point to any specific medical evidence in challenging the 

ALJ’s RFC finding, nor does he explain what additional limitations should have been imposed. 

For all of these reasons, the ALJ’s RFC finding is supported by substantial evidence.8

Meddaugh briefly raises two other arguments, neither of which have merit. First, he 

argues that he should be found disabled based on a speculative concern that employers “will be 

reluctant to hire an individual with a seizure disorder.” (Doc. #21 at 11). The Sixth Circuit, 

however, has long held that “the Secretary does not consider employability when determining 

whether a claimant qualifies as disabled.” Odle v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 788 F.2d 

1158, 1161 (6th Cir. 1985) (citing 20 C.F.R. §404.1566(c)(3)9

). And, in his reply brief, 

Meddaugh suggests that he cannot obtain any of the jobs identified by the VE (order clerk, 

document preparer, or surveillance system monitor) because the “Michigan Secretary of State 

                                                            

7

 Without specifying any error on the part of the ALJ, Meddaugh asserts in his brief that he “is 

already experiencing hand tremors.” (Doc. #21 at 10). This fact is not in dispute, however. 

Citing to Meddaugh’s testimony, treatment notes, treating physician’s opinion, and various 

reports, the ALJ found that Meddaugh’s hand tremor has only a minimal effect on his ability to 

do basic work activities and, thus, is not a severe impairment. (Tr. 17 (citing Tr. 210-17, 225-32, 

264, 434-35, 514-16)). Substantial evidence supports this finding: in particular, NP Michon 

opined that Meddaugh has no limitations in reaching, handling, feeling, pushing, or pulling. (Tr. 

515). 

8

 At one point in his motion, Meddaugh notes that the VE could not answer whether one to two 

seizures without warning per week would present an employability issue, and testified that it 

would be work-preclusive if an individual would require a two-hour break after one hour of 

concentration. (Doc. #21 at 10 (citing Tr. 86-88)). Apparently, Meddaugh believes the ALJ 

should have included these self-reported limitations in the RFC and found him disabled. (Id.). 

But, nothing supports these limitations, aside from Meddaugh’s own testimony, which the ALJ 

properly found not credible. Thus, this argument is without merit. 

9

 This statute provides, in pertinent part, “We will determine that you are not disabled if your 

residual functional capacity and vocational abilities make it possible for you to do work which 

exists in the national economy, but you remain unemployed because of ... (1) Your inability to 

get work;...(3) The hiring practices of employers; ... (7) You would not actually be hired to do 

work you could otherwise do...”). 

2:14-cv-13131-DRG Doc # 33 Filed 12/04/15 Pg 16 of 17 Pg ID 672
17

has denied him a driver’s license as a result of his medical condition and he lives in a rural town 

at least two (2) hours from a major city.” (Doc. #27 at 4). Again, however, this argument is at 

odds with the applicable regulations, which focus on the number of jobs available in the regional 

economy, regardless of the unavailability of work “in the immediate area” in which the claimant 

lives. 20 C.F.R. §404.1566(a)(1). 

For all of the above reasons, and upon an independent review of the entire record, the 

Court concludes that the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence. 

III. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the Commissioner’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment [24] is GRANTED, Meddaugh’s Motion for Summary Judgment [21] is 

DENIED, and the ALJ’s decision is AFFIRMED. 

Dated: December 4, 2015 s/David R. Grand 

Ann Arbor, Michigan DAVID R. GRAND 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record 

and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF System to their respective email or First Class 

U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on December 4, 2015. 

 s/Eddrey O. Butts 

 EDDREY O. BUTTS 

 Case Manager 

2:14-cv-13131-DRG Doc # 33 Filed 12/04/15 Pg 17 of 17 Pg ID 673