- 1 - 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

MELISSA WATSON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 

Defendant. 

 / 

Case No. 14-cv-13481 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

GERSHWIN A. DRAIN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

CHARLES E. BINDER

OPINION AND ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS [23], ACCEPTING 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [22], GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT [19], DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT[17], AND AFFIRMING THE COMMISSIONER’S DECISION

I. INTRODUCTION

Melissa Watson (“Watson” or “Plaintiff”) brought this action against the Commissioner 

of Social Security (“the Commissioner” or “Defendant”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 

1383(c)(3) on September 8, 2014. See Dkt. No. 1. In the complaint, Watson challenged the 

Commissioner’s final decision denying her application for Supplemental Security Income 

(“SSI”) and Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) under the Social Security Act (“the Act”). 

This Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge David R. Grand on September 9, 2014. See

Dkt. No. 4. The case was reassigned to Magistrate Judge Charles E. Binder on March 30, 2015 

pursuant to Administrative Order 15-AO-027. 

Watson filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on February 11, 2015. See Dkt. No. 17. 

The Commissioner also filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on March 12, 2015. See Dkt. No. 

19. On May 18, 2015, Watson filed a “Reply Brief” to the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment. See Dkt. No. 21. 

2:14-cv-13481-GAD-CEB Doc # 26 Filed 07/22/15 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 1197
- 2 - 

On May 26, 2015, Magistrate Judge Binder determined the Administrative Law Judge’s 

(“ALJ”) decision was supported by substantial evidence, and that Watson retained the residual 

functional capacity for a limited range of sedentary work. See Dkt. No. 22. Accordingly, 

Magistrate Judge Binder recommended that the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [17] 

be denied and the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [19] be granted. See id.

On June 1, 2015 Watson submitted her “Objections to Magistrate’s Report and 

Recommendation.” See Dkt. No. 23. The Commissioner responded to Watson’s objections on 

June 4, 2015. See Dkt. Nos. 24, 25. After reviewing Watson’s Objections to Magistrate’s Report 

and Recommendation, the Court will OVERRULE Watson’s Objections [#23] and ACCEPT

Magistrate Judge Binder’s Report and Recommendation [#22]. 

II. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review 

Where a party has objected to portions of a Magistrate Judge’s Report and 

Recommendation, the Court conducts a de novo review of these portions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

72(b); Lyons v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 351 F.Supp.2d 659, 661 (E.D. Mich. 2004). In reviewing 

the findings of the ALJ, the Court is limited to determining whether the ALJ’s findings are 

supported by substantial evidence and made pursuant to proper legal standards. See 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 . . .”); Rogers v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 486 F.3d 234, 

241 (6th Cir. 2007). 

“A reviewing court will affirm the Commissioner’s decision if it is based on substantial 

evidence, even if substantial evidence would also have supported the opposite conclusion.” 

Gayheart v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 710 F.3d 365, 374 (6th Cir. 2013) (quoting Colvin v. Barnhart, 

475 F.3d 727, 730 (6th Cir. 2007). Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a 

2:14-cv-13481-GAD-CEB Doc # 26 Filed 07/22/15 Pg 2 of 7 Pg ID 1198
- 3 - 

reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Richardson v. Perales, 402 

U.S. 389, 401, 91 S.Ct. 1420, 28 L.Ed.2d 842 (1971) (internal quotations omitted); see also 

McGlothin v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 299 F. App’x 516, 522 (6th Cir. 2008) (recognizing that 

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.”) 

(internal quotations omitted). 

B. Legal Analysis 

Watson raises one objection with three different arguments in her “Objections to 

Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation.” See Dkt. No. 23 at 1. Watson objects, arguing that 

the Magistrate’s Report fails to address the following: (1) that the ALJ’s Decisions failed to give 

controlling weight to the opinions of treating physicians Dr. Akbar and Dr. Ahmed and treating 

psychiatrist Dr. Kondapaneni, (2) that the ALJ’s Decision failed to give good reasons for not 

giving those physicians’ opinions controlling weight, and (3) that the ALJ Decision failed to 

state what weight it did give to those physicians’ opinions. See Dkt. No. 23 at 1. 

As an initial matter, the Court notes that it is in agreement with Magistrate Judge 

Binder’s ultimate conclusion. When reviewing the decision of the ALJ pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

405(g), the district court is limited to determining whether the Commissioner’s findings are 

supported by substantial evidence and whether the ALJ employed the proper legal standards. 

Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. at 401. The Magistrate Judge acknowledged that there is 

medical evidence on both sides, but after review, the Magistrate Judge could not say that the 

Commissioner’s conclusion was not supportable. See Dkt. No 22 at 9. 

Specifically, Judge Binder found that “[g]iven the lack of objective clinical evidence of 

disability during the relevant period, the [ALJ] could reasonably find that Plaintiff’s impairments 

2:14-cv-13481-GAD-CEB Doc # 26 Filed 07/22/15 Pg 3 of 7 Pg ID 1199
- 4 - 

did not prevent her from performing a reduced range of sedentary work.” Id. at 9. In reaching 

that conclusion, the Magistrate Judge discussed two of the physicians specifically, and ultimately 

concluded that there was “substantial evidence on the record supporting the Commissioner’s 

conclusion that Plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity during the relevant period for a 

restricted range of sedentary work. . . .” Dkt. No 22 at 6; see also id. at 6-10 (explaining in detail 

the finding that the ALJ’s finding was supported by substnaial evidence.”). 

Notably, Watson does not point out any flaws in the reasoning of Magistrate Judge 

Binder’s Report and Recommendation. Instead, Watson reiterates arguments that were within her 

Motion for Summary Judgment [17] and her Reply Brief [21]. Compare Dkt. No. 23 (making the 

present argument), with Dkt. No. 17 at 8-25 (arguing the same in Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment), and Dkt. No. 21 (arguing the same in Plaintiff’s Reply Brief). 

Magistrate Judge Binder likely did not specifically address these arguments made by 

Watson, because it is readily apparent from the record that they lack merit. Watson’s arguments 

can best be summed up as follows: (1) the ALJ did not give “good reasons” for not giving the 

opinions of Dr. Akbar, Dr. Ahmed, and Dr. Kondapaneni controlling weight, and (2) the ALJ 

“failed to state what weight it did give to those physicians opinions.” But a review of the record 

shows that the ALJ did give “good reasons” for not giving those physicians opinions controlling 

weight, and did state exactly what weight was given. 

With respect to Dr. Akbar’s opinion, for example, the ALJ explained: “I have given it 

some weight.” Dkt. No. 12-2 at 37. The ALJ did not give Dr. Akbar’s opinion controlling weight 

because the ALJ found that “the claimant’s consistently normal gait and functional range of 

motion weighs against a finding that she would need to alternate between sitting and standing.” 

2:14-cv-13481-GAD-CEB Doc # 26 Filed 07/22/15 Pg 4 of 7 Pg ID 1200
- 5 - 

Id. The ALJ concluded “the record as a whole, including the claimant’s daily activities, 

precludes this opinion’s entitlement to controlling weight.” Id. 

For Dr. Ahmed’s opinion, the ALJ specifically stated: “I have given this opinion little 

weight.” Dkt. No. 12-2 at 38. The ALJ noted that “although Dr. Ahmed has been treating the 

claimant for approximately one year, there is no evidence that he has performed a comprehensive 

physical examination, including assessment of her lumbar spine and peripheral joints.” Id. at 37. 

The ALJ gave a particular emphasis to the fact that the findings “reported by other physicians . . . 

do not support the extreme exertional limitations Dr. Ahmed describes.” Id. at 38. 

Lastly, the ALJ specifically noted that “Dr. Kondapaneni’s opinion is entitled to some 

weight[.]” Dkt. No. 12-2 at 38. However, the ALJ specified that Dr. Kondapaneni’s opinion was 

only entitled to some weight “to the extent it is consistent with the residual functional 

capacity[.]” Id. The ALJ did not give Dr. Kondapaneni’s assessment controlling weight for two 

reasons: (1) because it could not “be readily translated into a residual functional capacity 

determination,” id., and (2) because the ALJ noted that the opinion was “not fully consistent 

with Dr. Kondapaneni’s records, which generally showed intact thought processes, normal 

speech, and euthymic mood.” Id. 

The Court emphasizes that the “ALJ need not set forth an exhaustive ‘factor-by-factor’ 

analysis as long as the ALJ gives ‘good reasons’ for the weight assigned to the treating sources 

opinion.” Flowers v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 13-11457, 2014 WL 4855037, at *4 (E.D. Mich. 

Sept. 30, 2014) (quoting Francis v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 414 F. App’x 802, 805 (6th Cir. 2011). 

“[T]he treating-source rule is not ‘a procrustean bed, requiring an arbitrary conformity at all 

times[.]’” Francis, 414 F. App’x at 805 (quoting Friend v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 375 F. App’x. 

543, 551 (6th Cir. 2010) (per curiam)). It is enough that “the decision permits the claimant and a 

2:14-cv-13481-GAD-CEB Doc # 26 Filed 07/22/15 Pg 5 of 7 Pg ID 1201
- 6 - 

reviewing court a clear understanding of the reasons for the weight given a treating physician’s 

opinion[.]” Friend, 375 F. App’x at 551. 

Here, the ALJ’s decision gives the claimant and this court a clear understanding of the 

reasons for the weight given to the opinions of Dr. Akbar, Dr. Ahmed, and Dr. Kondapaneni. See 

Dkt. No. 12-2 at 37-38. The ALJ gave reasoning for his findings and explained the weight given 

to the opinions. Thus, the ALJ gave the “procedural safeguard of reasons—meeting the goal of 

the regulation—and the only true disagreement lies within the merits of the reasons themselves.” 

Francis, 414 F. App’x at 805. 

To the extent, Watson challenges the merits of the ALJ’s “good reasons” this Court finds 

the challenge to be without merit. The ALJ deemed the opinions of Dr. Akbar, Dr. Ahmed, and 

Dr. Kondapaneni to be unsupported by substantial evidence, and cited specific inconsistencies 

between each of the doctors’ opinions and Watson’s objective clinical findings in the record. Put 

differently, the ALJ identified the opinions as being “incompatible” with the record and 

identified “the specific discrepancies [] to explain why it is the treating physician’s conclusion 

that gets the short end of the stick.” Friend, 375 F. App'x at 552. This being the case, this Court 

finds that the ALJ set forth “good reasons” for not giving controlling weight to the opinions of 

Dr. Akbar, Dr. Ahmed, and Dr. Kondapaneni. Because there was substantial evidence to support 

the decision of the ALJ, the Court will OVERRULE Watson’s Objection. 

 

2:14-cv-13481-GAD-CEB Doc # 26 Filed 07/22/15 Pg 6 of 7 Pg ID 1202
- 7 - 

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed, the Court HEARBY OVERRULES Plaintiff’s Objections 

[23]; ACCEPTS Magistrate Judge Binder’s Report and Recommendation [22]; GRANTS

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [19]; DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment [17], and AFFIRMS the Commissioner’s Decision. 

SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 22, 2015 /s/Gershwin A Drain 

 Hon. Gershwin A. Drain 

 United States District Court Judge

2:14-cv-13481-GAD-CEB Doc # 26 Filed 07/22/15 Pg 7 of 7 Pg ID 1203