1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

GLORIA DENISE BEASLEY, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 14-cv-14386 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

COMMISSIONER OF 

SOCIAL SECURITY, 

 Defendant. 

_________________________________/ 

ORDER (1) OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO REPORT 

AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF #18), ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION (ECF #17), (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF #12), AND (3) GRANTING 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF #14) 

INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

On July 16, 2009, Plaintiff Gloria Denise Beasley (“Beasley”) filed 

applications for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Social Security 

Income Benefits (the “2009 Applications”). (See ECF #8-3 at 5, Pg. ID 120.) 

Beasley claimed that she became disabled on January 21, 2009, and that she 

suffered from, among other things, diabetes, degenerative disc disease, depression, 

and obesity. (See id.) The Social Security Administration initially denied the 2009 

Applications, and Beasley thereafter requested a hearing before an Administrative 

Law Judge. (See id.) That hearing was held on March 7, 2011. (See id.) Following 

2:14-cv-14386-MFL-MKM Doc # 20 Filed 03/21/16 Pg 1 of 13 Pg ID 546
2 

the hearing, the assigned Administrative Law Judge issued a written decision dated 

April 21, 2011. He concluded that Beasley was not disabled and was not entitled to 

benefits. (See id.) It does not appear that Beasley ever asked this Court to review 

that ruling. 

In October 2011, Beasley filed new applications for Disability Insurance 

Benefits and Supplemental Social Security Income Benefits (the “2011 

Applications”). (See ECF #8-5 at 2-14, Pg. ID 217-229.) In the 2011 Applications, 

Beasley asserted that her disability began on April 22, 2011 (the day after the 

Administrative Law Judge issued the adverse ruling on the 2009 Applications). 

(See id. at 2, 9, Pg. ID 217, 224.) Beasley further claimed that she had been unable 

to work due to the same conditions that were at issue in the 2009 Applications (i.e., 

diabetes, degenerative disc disease, and depression). (See ECF #8-6 at 6, Pg. ID 

243.) 

On December 21, 2011, the Social Security Administration denied Beasley’s 

claims for benefits in the 2011 Applications. (See ECF #8-3 at 17-38, Pg. ID 132-

153.) Beasley again requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge. 

That hearing was held before Administrative Law Judge Timothy C. Scallen (the 

“ALJ”) on April 18, 2013. (See Hearing Transcript, ECF #8-2 at 36-85, Pg. ID 66-

115.) In addition to holding a hearing, the ALJ also reviewed Beasley’s medical 

records and numerous submissions from physicians, including Dr. Alis Vidinas 

2:14-cv-14386-MFL-MKM Doc # 20 Filed 03/21/16 Pg 2 of 13 Pg ID 547
3 

(“Dr. Vidinas”), Beasley’s treating physician. Dr. Vidinas asserted that Beasley 

was disabled and was therefore “unable to work.” (ECF #8-7 at 2-4, Pg. ID 296-

98.) 

On July 2, 2013, the ALJ issued a written decision on Beasley’s claims of 

disability in the 2011 Applications. (See ECF #8-2 at 16-28, Pg. ID 46-58.) The 

ALJ concluded that Beasley was not disabled and was not entitled to benefits. (See 

id.) In his decision, the ALJ explained that he gave “little weight” to the opinion 

provided by Dr. Vidinas, “some weight” to the opinion provided by the 

consultative examiner, Dr. Jose Jurado, “significant weight” to the opinion 

provided by the state agency medical consultant Dr. Robert Roschmann (“Dr. 

Roschmann”), and “significant weight” to the opinion provided by the state agency 

psychological consultant, Dr. Michael McCarthy. (Id. at 24-26, Pg. ID 54-56.) 

Beasley then filed a request for review of the ALJ’s decision with the Social 

Security Administration’s Appeals Council (the “Appeals Council”). (See ECF #8-

2 at 12, Pg. ID 42.) The Appeals Council declined Beasley’s request for review on 

September 18, 2014. (See ECF #8-2 at 2-5, Pg. ID 32-35.) 

On November 14, 2014, Beasley filed this action in which she challenges the 

ALJ’s determination that she was not disabled and was not entitled to benefits. 

(See Complaint, ECF #1.) The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment 

(see ECF ## 12, 14) and, on January 5, 2016, the assigned Magistrate Judge 

2:14-cv-14386-MFL-MKM Doc # 20 Filed 03/21/16 Pg 3 of 13 Pg ID 548
4 

recommended that the Court deny Beasley’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF 

#12) and grant the Defendant Commissioner of Social Security's Motion for 

Summary Judgment (ECF #14) (the “R&R”). (See ECF #17.) 

In the R&R, the Magistrate Judge carefully and thoroughly examined 

Beasley’s claims that the ALJ erred when he found that she was not disabled. (See 

id. at 6-17, Pg. ID 514-525.) The Magistrate Judge first addressed Beasley’s 

argument that the ALJ should not have discounted the opinion of her treating 

physician, Dr. Vidinas. The Magistrate Judge concluded that the ALJ complied 

with the applicable regulations by providing “good reasons” for not giving 

“controlling weight” to the opinion of Dr. Vidinas. (Id. at 6-9, Pg. ID 514-517.) 

Specifically, the Magistrate Judge determined that the ALJ “supported his lengthy, 

well-reasoned assessment of Dr. Vidinas’s opinion by citing numerous specific 

examples of its inconsistency with Dr. Vidinas own treatment notes as well as the 

results of examinations conducted by [Beasley’s] neurosurgeon and the 

consultative examiner.” (Id. at 9, Pg. ID 517.) The Magistrate Judge then 

concluded that the ALJ did not err when he gave “significant weight” to the 

opinion of Dr. Roschmann (id. at 11-12, Pg. ID 519-520) and did not improperly 

assess Beasley’s credibility (id. at 12-16, Pg. ID 520-524). Beasley has now filed 

timely objections to the R&R (the “Objections”). (See ECF #18.) 

2:14-cv-14386-MFL-MKM Doc # 20 Filed 03/21/16 Pg 4 of 13 Pg ID 549
5 

ANALYSIS 

Beasley has not separately identified her objections to the R&R. Instead, 

she includes all of her objections in an unbroken six-page passage. The Court has 

done its best to identify and address below each of the grounds on which she 

objects. 

1. Beasley’s Objection Based on the ALJ’s Decision to Discount the 

 Opinion of Her Treating Physician 

Beasley argues that the ALJ should have given controlling weight to the 

opinion of her treating physician, Dr. Vidinas. (See Objections at 1-4, Pg. ID 527-

530.) A treating physician’s medical opinion is given “controlling weight” if the 

opinion “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory 

diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in 

[the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). An ALJ must provide “good 

reasons” for discounting the opinion of a disability applicant’s treating physician. 

See id.; see also Smith v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 482 F.3d 873, 875 (6th Cir. 2007). 

In this case, the ALJ declined to give Dr. Vidinas’s opinion controlling 

weight because the medical evidence in the record – including Dr. Vidinas’s own 

treatment notes – did not support Dr. Vidinas’s conclusion that Beasley was 

disabled: 

As for the opinion evidence, the undersigned has 

considered the opinion provided by the claimant’s 

treating physician, Dr. Alis Vidinas (Ex. B1F/1-3). The 

2:14-cv-14386-MFL-MKM Doc # 20 Filed 03/21/16 Pg 5 of 13 Pg ID 550
6 

undersigned gives Dr. Vidinas’ opinion little weight. 

While Dr. Vidinas treated the claimant during the period 

relevant to this decision, his opinion is inconsistent with 

his own treatment notes and the medical records as a 

whole. Dr. Vidinas concluded the claimant’s impairments 

prevented her from standing, walking or sitting more than 

one hour out of an eight-hour day and that the claimant 

was unable to work in any capacity because of her 

impairments (Ex. B1F/1-3).However, Dr. Vidinas’ 

treatment notes indicate that Dr. Vidinas only 

recommended exercise for the claimant’s back 

impairment (Ex. B1F; B3F). In addition, Dr. Vidinas’ 

treatment notes do not reflect the severe limitations 

included in hi[s] medical source statement. Dr. Vidinas’ 

treatment notes indicate the claimant had tenderness in 

her lumbar spine and slightly reduced strength in her 

right side, but do not indicate that the claimant had any 

difficulty walking during the appointments (Id.). In 

addition, despite the debilitating limitations in his 

medical source statement, Dr. Vidinas noted the 

claimant’s straight leg raise testing was negative 

bilaterally and she was non compliant with his 

recommendations (Ex. B1F/4-5; B3F/3; B7F/3). Dr. 

Vidinas’ opinion is also inconsistent with the other 

exams in the record. Dr. Vidinas opined that the claimant 

was unable to stand or walk for more than [a] few 

minutes at one time in December 2011 (Ex. B1F/1-3). 

However, on July 30, 2012, Neurosurgeon, Dr. Ian Lee, 

indicated that the claimant’s exam showed normal 

strength and sensation in her legs, she walked with a 

normal gait and she was alert and well oriented (Ex. 

B4F/3). In addition, the claimant’s consultative exam in 

December 2012 indicated there was no evidence of focal 

muscle atrophy in any extremity and no signs of muscle 

spasms in her lumbar spine and no tenderness in her 

lumbar spine (Ex. B5F/3). Her range of motion in her 

lumbar spine was normal except for a reduced range of 

flexion and extension with reports of pain (Ex. B5F/3, 6). 

She had a normal range of motion in her hips and all 

extremities (Ex. B5F/3, 6-7). Lastly, the undersigned has 

2:14-cv-14386-MFL-MKM Doc # 20 Filed 03/21/16 Pg 6 of 13 Pg ID 551
7 

given more weight to the opinions provided by the state 

agency medical consultant, Dr. Robert Roschmann (Ex. 

B2A/7-10). Unlike Dr. Vidinas, as a state agency medical 

consultant, Dr. Roschmann’s opinion is consistent with 

the medical record. 

(ECF #8-2 at 24, Pg. ID 54.) 

 Beasley argues that the ALJ’s analysis quoted above is flawed because the 

ALJ ignored substantial medical evidence in the record that supports Dr. Vidinas’s 

conclusions, including CT and MRI examinations from March 2011. (See id. at 2-

3, Pg. ID 528-529.) The Court disagrees. 

 As the Commissioner correctly notes (see ECF #19 at 2-3, Pg. ID 536-37), 

much of the evidence cited by Beasley in her criticism of the ALJ’s analysis relates 

to Beasley’s condition before her claimed current period of disability began on 

April 22, 2011. For example, Beasley says that the ALJ failed to account for (1) an 

observation by Dr. Vidinas on January 7, 2011, that Beasley’s back pain had 

worsened and that she was having difficulty walking and (2) test results from 

March 17 and March 26, 2011, that showed a bulging disc and compression of 

nerves in her back. (See Objection at 2, Pg. ID 528.) All of this evidence predates 

the current period of disability – which began in April 2011 – and thus does not 

undermine the ALJ’s decision to give less than controlling weight to Dr. Vidinas’s 

opinion that Beasley was disabled during the relevant time period. 

2:14-cv-14386-MFL-MKM Doc # 20 Filed 03/21/16 Pg 7 of 13 Pg ID 552
8 

 Moreover (and in any event), the ALJ did consider Beasley’s March 2011 

tests, and he explained why they supported his conclusion that Beasley was not 

disabled. For instance, the ALJ noted (see ECF #8-2 at 22, Pg. ID 52) that the 

March 26, 2011, MRI of Beasley’s lumbar spine showed that her condition had 

“not significantly changed from 2010” – a time during which it had been 

determined that Beasley was not disabled (ECF #8-3 at 5, Pg. ID 120) – and that 

her bulging disc had actually “improved.” (ECF #8-7 at 21-22, Pg. ID 315-16.)1

 

For all of these reasons, the Court rejects Beasley’s argument that the ALJ’s 

assessment of Dr. Vidinas’s opinion failed to account for important medical 

evidence. 

 Beasley further argues that the ALJ erred when he discounted Dr. Vidinas’s 

opinion on the ground that Dr. Vidinas “only recommended exercise” for 

Beasley’s “back impairment.” (ECF #8-2 at 24, Pg. ID 54.) But, as the quoted 

passage from the ALJ’s decision above makes clear, the ALJ’s reference to 

exercise was just one part of his lengthy analysis as to why he gave Dr. Vidinas’s 

opinion limited weight. (See ECF #8-2 at 24, Pg. ID 54.) Moreover, it was not 

necessarily unreasonable for the ALJ to conclude that there was an inconsistency 

between Dr. Vidinas’s exercise treatment recommendation and his conclusion that 

 

1

 Likewise, the ALJ explained (see ECF #8-2 at 23, Pg. ID 53) that an MRI of 

Beasley’s lumbar spine taken in July 2012 showed that Beasley’s condition had 

“not significantly changed” from when Beasley had her March 2011 exam. (ECF 

#8-7 at 63-64, Pg. ID 357-58.) 

2:14-cv-14386-MFL-MKM Doc # 20 Filed 03/21/16 Pg 8 of 13 Pg ID 553
9 

Beasley suffered from a total disability. See, e.g., Helm v. Comm’r v. Soc. Sec., 405 

Fed. App’x 997, 1001 (6th Cir. 2011) (fact that plaintiff’s treating physician treated 

plaintiff’s pain with medication alone was a “good reason” for discounting 

physician’s opinion that plaintiff suffered from “total disability”); Myatt v. Comm’r 

v. Soc. Sec., 251 Fed. App’x 332, 334-35 (6th Cir. 2007) (finding plaintiff’s 

“modest treatment regimen...inconsistent with a diagnosis of total disability”). 

 Finally, Beasley argues that the ALJ’s decision to discount Dr. Vidinas’s 

opinion is inconsistent with the Sixth Circuit’s decision in Gayheart v. Comm’r of 

Soc. Sec., 710 F.3d 365 (6th Cir. 2013) (holding that ALJ lacked good reasons to 

reject treating physician’s opinion). However, the ALJ in Gayheart failed to 

“identify the substantial evidence that [was] purportedly inconsistent” with the 

treating physician’s conclusion that the plaintiff was disabled. Id. Here, as 

described above, the ALJ did identify specific and objective evidence in the record 

that demonstrated that Dr. Vidinas’s opinion was not consistent with the doctor’s 

own treatment notes and with Beasley’s medical records. 

2. Beasley’s Objection Related to the ALJ’s Credibility Determination 

Beasley next objects to the ALJ’s conclusion that her testimony about her 

symptoms and her condition was not fully credible. (See Objections at 4, Pg. ID 

530.) Beasley says the ALJ’s conclusions with respect to her credibility were not 

2:14-cv-14386-MFL-MKM Doc # 20 Filed 03/21/16 Pg 9 of 13 Pg ID 554
10 

“supported by substantial evidence.” (Objections at 5-6, Pg. ID 531-532.) The 

Court overrules this objection. 

The ALJ provided multiple specific reasons, supported by citations to the 

record and medical evidence, to support his conclusion that Beasley was not fully 

credible when she claimed she suffered from multiple disabling conditions: 

The undersigned has considered the testimony and 

written statements provided by the claimant. The 

undersigned finds her statements less than fully credible. 

The medical record does not support the severity of the 

claimant’s allegations. While the record indicates the 

claimant consistently reported low back pain, it also 

indicates that the claimant’s treating physician, Dr. 

Vidinas, never recommended more than exercise and 

physical therapy for the claimant’s back pain after the 

claimant’s alleged onset date (Ex. B1F/4-5; B3F; B7F). 

Dr. Vidinas also indicated that the claimant was noncompliant with his recommendations and there is no 

indication in the record that the claimant sought or 

received any physical therapy for her back impairment 

after her alleged onset date (Ex. B6F/35). The claimant 

testified that she could only lift three or four pounds 

because of pain and weakness in her upper extremities. 

However, her consultative exam in December 2012 

indicated that she had a full range of motion in her upper 

extremities and no atrophy in the muscles in her upper 

extremities (Ex. B5F). While the claimant demonstrated 

zero grip strength in her right hand, the report indicates 

that she had no difficulty performing tasks that required 

fine and gross manipulation bilaterally and the record 

indicates that she never sought or received treatment for 

any problems with her right hand (Ex. B5F/3, 7-8). The 

claimant also testified that she was unable to stoop, 

kneel, crouch or crawl. However, her consultative exam 

indicated that she had a full range of motion in her lower 

extremities and retained sixty degrees of flexion, fifteen 

2:14-cv-14386-MFL-MKM Doc # 20 Filed 03/21/16 Pg 10 of 13 Pg ID 555
11 

degrees of extension and a full range of lateral extension 

in her lumbar spine (Ex. B5F/6). In addition, while Dr. 

Vidinas concluded the claimant could never stoop and 

the claimant said she could never stoop, she also said that 

she drove a car on a regular basis. The diagnostic 

imaging in the record does not support the severity of the 

claimant’s impairments. While the imaging in the record 

showed degenerative disc disease at multiple levels of the 

claimant’s lumbar spine, it did not show any nerve root 

compression or disc herniations (Ex. B1F/20-21; B3F/24-

25). The claimant also alleged disability based on 

depression. However, when the claimant sought 

treatment for depression, her mental status exams 

indicated her ability to concentrate, her memory and her 

psychomotor activity was normal (Ex. B2F/3-7). The 

claimant’s activities of daily living do not support the 

severity of her impairments. While the claimant alleged 

disabling physical and mental limitations, she testified 

that she went outside regularly, drove a car, went to the 

store and went to band concerts at WSU and liked to 

bake. 

(ECF #8-2 at 26-27, Pg. ID 56-57.) 

 Beasley specifically takes issue with ALJ’s criticism that she failed to 

comply with Dr. Vidinas’s treatment plan on one occasion. (See Objections at 5-6, 

Pg. ID 531-532.) But as the passage quoted above makes clear, the ALJ did not 

base his credibility determination on that one example of non-compliance, standing 

alone. He also cited specific examples of how Beasley’s claims were inconsistent 

with the medical record. This case therefore stands in contrast to Rogers v. 

Comm’r v. Soc. Sec., 486 F.3d 234 (6th Cir. 2007), on which Beasley relies. In 

Rogers, the Sixth Circuit faulted an ALJ for finding a claimant to be not credible 

2:14-cv-14386-MFL-MKM Doc # 20 Filed 03/21/16 Pg 11 of 13 Pg ID 556
12 

without providing “specific reasons for the finding on credibility, supported by the 

evidence in the case record.” Id. at 249. The ALJ here did not commit that error. 

3. Beasley’s Objection Based Upon the ALJ’s Reliance on the Opinion of 

 the Reviewing Physician Over That of the Treating Physician 

 Beasley’s final objection relates to the ALJ’s reliance on the opinion of Dr. 

Roschmann, the state agency medical consultant who never examined Beasley. 

(See ECF #5-6, Pg. ID 531-532.) Beasley argues that Dr. Roschmann reviewed her 

case file in December 2011 and thus failed to consider substantial medical 

evidence that came into existence after that time. (See id.) Beasley insists that Dr. 

Roschmann’s opinion cannot “be relied upon in the face of clear [conflicting] 

opinions from both a treating and consultative physician, both of which considered 

far more evidence.” (Id. at 5, Pg. ID 531.) This objection fails for two reasons. 

 First, Beasley has failed to explain how the medical evidence that came into 

existence after Dr. Roschmann’s December 2011 review shows that her condition 

has substantially changed since that time. Indeed, as discussed above, much of the 

evidence she did identify in the Objections shows no such change or worsening in 

Beasley’s condition. The ALJ reasonably concluded that Dr. Roschmann’s 

testimony was supported by evidence in the case record. See, e.g., Helm, 405 Fed. 

App’x at 1002 (“There is no categorical requirement that the non-treating source’s 

opinion be based on a complete or more detailed and comprehensive case record. 

2:14-cv-14386-MFL-MKM Doc # 20 Filed 03/21/16 Pg 12 of 13 Pg ID 557
13 

The opinions need only be supported by evidence in the case record”) (internal 

quotation marks omitted). 

 Second, it was reasonable for the ALJ to adopt Dr. Roschmann’s opinion 

over the competing opinion of Dr. Vidinas because, as explained in detail above, 

the ALJ reasonably concluded that Dr. Vidinas’s opinion was inconsistent with the 

medical evidence. 

CONCLUSION 

For all of the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 

Plaintiff Gloria Beasley’s Objections to the R&R (ECF #18) are OVERRULED, 

and the Magistrate Judge’s R&R (ECF #17) is ADOPTED as the Opinion of this 

Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, for the reasons stated in the R&R, that (1) 

Beasley’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF #12) is DENIED and (2) 

Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF #14) is GRANTED. 

       s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: March 21, 2016 

 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the 

parties and/or counsel of record on March 21, 2016, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (313) 234-5113 

2:14-cv-14386-MFL-MKM Doc # 20 Filed 03/21/16 Pg 13 of 13 Pg ID 558