UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MARANDA JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL

SECURITY,

Defendant.

 /

Case No. 14-cv-14713

HONORABLE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III

ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS (document no. 13), ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION (document no. 12), DENYING JOHNSON’S MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (document no. 10), GRANTING COMMISSIONER’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (document no. 11), AND DISMISSING CASE

The Social Security Administration (“SSA”) denied the application of Maranda

Johnson (“Johnson”) for supplemental security income (“SSI”) in a decision issued by an

Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). See Administrative Record (“A.R.”) 14, ECF No. 6-2.

After the SSA Appeals Council declined to review the ruling, Johnson appealed. The Court

referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris, and the parties filed crossmotions for summary judgment. See Mots. Summ J., ECF Nos. 10, 11. The magistrate

judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) suggesting the Court deny

Johnson’s motion and grant the Commissioner’s motion. Report, ECF No. 12. Johnson

filed timely objections to the Report. Obj., ECF No. 13. 

After examining the record and considering Johnson's objections de novo, the Court

concludes that her arguments do not have merit. Accordingly, the Court will adopt the

Report's findings, deny Johnson's motion for summary judgment, grant the Commissioner's

motion for summary judgment, and dismiss the complaint.

2:14-cv-14713-SJM-PTM Doc # 15 Filed 10/15/15 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 431
BACKGROUND

The Report properly details the events giving rise to Johnson's action against the

Commissioner. Report 5–15, ECF No. 12. The Court will adopt that portion of the Report.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Civil Rule 72(b) governs the review of a magistrate judge's report. A District Court’s

standard of review depends upon whether a party files objections. The Court need not

undertake any review of portions of a Report to which no party has objected. Thomas v.

Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). De novo review is required, however, if the parties "serve

and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations." Fed.

R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). In conducting a de novo review, "[t]he district judge may accept, reject,

or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to

the magistrate judge with instructions." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).

When reviewing a case under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the Court "must affirm the

Commissioner's conclusions absent a determination that the Commissioner has failed to

apply the correct legal standards or has made findings of fact unsupported by substantial

evidence in the record." Longworth v. Comm'r Soc. Sec. Admin., 402 F.3d 591, 595 (6th

Cir. 2005) (quotations omitted). Substantial evidence consists of "more than a scintilla of

evidence but less than a preponderance" such that 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) (quotations omitted). An ALJ may consider the entire body of evidence without

directly addressing each piece in his decision. Kornecky v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 167 F.

App'x 496, 508 (6th Cir. 2006). "Nor must an ALJ make explicit credibility findings as to

each bit of conflicting testimony, so long as his factual findings as a whole show that he

2

2:14-cv-14713-SJM-PTM Doc # 15 Filed 10/15/15 Pg 2 of 7 Pg ID 432
implicitly resolved such conflicts." Id.

DISCUSSION

Johnson objected to three parts of the Report: (1) the consideration of Johnson’s

credibility in light of medical evidence showing disability; (2) the finding that the ALJ’s

decision was supported by substantial evidence; and (3) the reliance on the ALJ’s credibility

analysis. Because Johnson’s first and third objections center on the ALJ's assessment of

Johnson’s credibility, the Court will evaluate them together.

First, Johnson argues that the ALJ incorrectly found her not credible because her

complaints of pain were inconsistent with medical evidence. Obj. 1–3, 5–6, ECF No. 15.

When considering the claimant's complaints of pain, "an ALJ may properly consider the

credibility of the claimant. Furthermore, an ALJ's findings based on the credibility of the

applicant are to be accorded great weight and deference, particularly since an ALJ is

charged with the duty of observing a witness's demeanor and credibility." Walters v.

Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 127 F.3d 525, 531 (6th Cir. 1997) (internal citations omitted). 

Citing discrepancies between the medical evidence offered and Johnson’s testimony

at the administrative hearing, including the “intensity, persistence and limiting effects of

[Johnson’s] symptoms” and Johnson’s recollection of the frequency and severity of her

seizures, the ALJ concluded that Johnson’s descriptions were “inconsistent and

unpersuasive.” A.R. 23, 28, ECF No. 6-2. Regarding the limiting effects of Johnson’s

symptoms, the ALJ found that Johnson’s daily activities—including the physically and

emotionally demanding work of taking care of her three young children—are not limited “to

the extent one would expect given the complaints of disabling symptoms and limitations.”

Id. at 27. Even if Johnson’s recollection of her limitations was accurate, she stated that she

3

2:14-cv-14713-SJM-PTM Doc # 15 Filed 10/15/15 Pg 3 of 7 Pg ID 433
did not take her prescribed medication regularly. The ALJ rightly concluded that “[s]uch

discrepancies diminish the persuasiveness of [Johnson’s] subjective complaints and

alleged functional limitations.” Id. at 28. 

Regarding her seizures, Johnson first testified that she was experiencing 8 to 9

seizures a year, later testified that she was experiencing 8 to 9 seizures a month, and

eventually stated that she had 8 to 9 “episodes in a current month, otherwise she had 2 to

3 seizures a month.” Id. At a July 2012 medical exam, however, she reported that her last

seizure was in 2011. Id. She testified that she received treatment and medication for these

seizures but could not remember the names or addresses of the treating physicians, much

less provide documentation of that treatment. Id. at 27. The ALJ correctly found that

Johnson’s testimony about her seizures was inconsistent.

Second, Johnson asserts that the ALJ “misconstrued medical evidence and testimony

that ultimately, resulted in an inadequate [residual functional capacity (“RFC”)] to address

Plaintiff’s multiple severe medical conditions (specifically, “seizures, left plantar fasciitis,

obesity and depression).” Obj. 3–4, ECF No. 15. The ALJ found that Johnson has the RFC

to perform light unskilled work; can engage in “occasional postural activities but no climbing

of ladders, ropes, and scaffoldin[g]”; cannot be required to “engage in bilateral foot

controls”; and should avoid hazards of unprotected heights, moving dangerous machinery,

commercial driving, and “concentrated exposure to extreme temperatures and pulmonary

irritants.” A.R. 21, ECF No. 6-2.

The ALJ considered the following medical and opinion evidence: (1) a 2008 mental

status exam by Dr. Nick Boneff who diagnosed Johnson with a cognitive disorder

secondary to seizures and traumatic brain injury; (2) a 2008 consultative exam with Dr.

4

2:14-cv-14713-SJM-PTM Doc # 15 Filed 10/15/15 Pg 4 of 7 Pg ID 434
Cynthia Shelby-Lane who concluded that Johnson could lift 20 pounds occasionally and

stand or walk 6 hours in an 8-hour day; (3) a 2011 consultative exam by Dr. Kenneth

McCoy who diagnosed Johnson with major depressive disorder, but said that Johnson’s

performance “was an under-estimation of her true abilities”; (4) a 2012 consultative

evaluation with Dr. Shelby-Lane who opined that Johnson would benefit from a weightreduction program, lifestyle changes, and ongoing mental health care; (5) a 2012

consultative exam with Dr. Atul Shah who diagnosed Johnson with major depressive

disorder, recurrent with psychotic features in partial remission, and chronic panic disorder;

(6) a 2012 opinion from state agency medical consultant Dr. Tariq Mahmood, who said that

Johnson “could perform work at light exertional level[s],” and “could engage in other

postural activities without limitations”; and (7) an opinion from state agency consultant Dr.

Zahra Yousuf, who said that Johnson “did not have memory and understanding limitations,”

and Johnson “retained mental capacity to meet the basic demands for simple, unskilled

work.” Id. at 23–28. 

An ALJ must give “good reasons” for the weight accorded to a treating source. Smith

v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 482 F.3d 873, 875 (6th Cir. 2007). If a source is not given

controlling weight, an ALJ must determine what weight to give it in light of the length,

frequency of examination, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; supportability

of the opinion and its consistency with the record as a whole; and the specialization of the

treating source. Wilson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 378 F.3d 541, 544 (6th Cir. 2004).

The ALJ assigned (1) no weight to Dr. Boneff’s exam because it was issued four

years before Johnson’s alleged onset date, and the findings were inconsistent with

Johnson’s daily activities and other medical evidence; (2) limited weight to Dr. Shelby5

2:14-cv-14713-SJM-PTM Doc # 15 Filed 10/15/15 Pg 5 of 7 Pg ID 435
Lane’s 2008 evaluation because it was issued four years before Johnson’s alleged onset

date; (3) limited weight to Dr. McCoy’s evaluation because it was issued prior to Johnson’s

alleged onset date, and Johnson’s performance was an under-estimation of her abilities;

(4) great weight to Dr. Shelby-Lane’s 2012 evaluation because “her findings and opinion

are consistent with the medical evidence of the record and subjective testimony of the

claimant”; (5) limited weight to Dr. Shah’s evaluation because it was inconsistent with other

medical evidence and he relied heavily on, and uncritically accepted as true, most of

Johnson’s subjective report of symptoms; and (6–7) great weight to the opinions of Drs.

Mahmood and Yousuf because of their expertise in the Social Security disability programs,

specifically the evaluation of the medical issues in disability claims. Id. at 25–27. 

The ALJ concluded that an RFC of “light work” is supported by the medical findings

and Johnson’s testimony, including admitted daily activities “that are not limited to the

extent one would expect given the complaints of disabling symptoms and limitations.” Id. at

27. The ALJ also concluded that Johnson’s impairments are “well controlled to the extent

that she complies with advised treatment,” and the medical evidence and other factors do

not support Johnson’s credibility “to the extent that greater limitations should be

incorporated in the residual functional capacity.” Id. The Court agrees. The fact that

Johnson’s admitted daily activities include the demanding work of raising three young

children supports the ALJ’s RFC determination that she is capable of light, unskilled work.

The ALJ gave “good reasons” when according various weight to the medical evidence

regarding Johnson’s condition, including giving little or no weight to evaluations conducted

before Johnson’s alleged onset date. And the ALJ properly granted greater weight to the

opinions of the state agency consultants given their expertise. Accordingly, the Court finds

6

2:14-cv-14713-SJM-PTM Doc # 15 Filed 10/15/15 Pg 6 of 7 Pg ID 436
that the ALJ’s decision was supported by substantial evidence.

CONCLUSION

The Court has carefully reviewed the parties' motions, the Report, and Johnson's

objections. The Court finds Johnson's objections unconvincing, and agrees with the

Report's recommendation to grant the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment and

deny Johnson's motion for summary judgment.

ORDER

WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that the magistrate judge's Report and

Recommendation (document no. 12) is ADOPTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Johnson's Motion for Summary Judgment (document

no. 10) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment

(document no. 11) is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

SO ORDERED.

s/Stephen J. Murphy, III 

STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III

United States District Judge

Dated: October 15, 2015

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or

counsel of record on October 15, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Carol Cohron 

Case Manager

7

2:14-cv-14713-SJM-PTM Doc # 15 Filed 10/15/15 Pg 7 of 7 Pg ID 437