UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

THOMAS J. ALLEN, 

 Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 14-CV-11644 

 

v. Honorable Patrick J. Duggan 

COMMISSIONER OF 

SOCIAL SECURITY, 

 

 Defendant. 

_______________________/ 

OPINION AND ORDER (1) ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, (2) OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S 

OBJECTIONS, (3) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT, and (4) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

This is a social security case. Plaintiff Thomas J. Allen appeals from the 

final determination of the Commissioner of Social Security that he is not disabled 

and, therefore, not entitled to supplemental security income. The matter was 

referred to Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford for all pretrial proceedings. The 

parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. On June 15, 2015, Magistrate 

Judge Stafford issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending 

that Defendant’s motion be granted and that Plaintiff’s motion be denied. Plaintiff 

filed objections to the R&R and Defendant has filed a response. The Court 

2:14-cv-11644-PJD-EAS Doc # 19 Filed 07/31/15 Pg 1 of 6 Pg ID 1041
2

reviews de novo those portions of the R&R to which a specific objection has been 

made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). 

Plaintiff advances two objections to the R&R, both of which encompass 

multiple arguments. The Court addresses the second objection first. 

 Plaintiff raises three separate arguments in his second objection, all of 

which the Court rejects because they were adequately addressed by the Magistrate 

Judge in her R&R and Plaintiff fails to explain why he believes her recommended 

resolution of those arguments is erroneous. See VanDiver v. Martin, 304 F. Supp. 

2d 934, 937 (E.D. Mich. 2004) (An objection “that merely restates the arguments 

previously presented is not sufficient to alert the court to alleged errors on the part 

of the magistrate judge.”). First, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred in concluding 

that Plaintiff had “experienced no episodes of decompensation,” ALJ Decision at 5 

(ECF No. 9-2), in light of evidence that Plaintiff had been hospitalized for five 

days in March/April 2008 following a suicide attempt. However, the Magistrate 

Judge addressed and rejected this argument in her R&R: 

While Allen’s five-day hospitalization was a period of 

decompensation, the listing requires that he have shown either marked 

limitations in two areas of mental functioning, or one marked 

limitation coupled with “repeated episodes of decompensation, each 

of extended duration.” 20 C.F.R. § 404, Appx. 1, 12.04(B). The 

regulations define “extended duration,” as lasting “at least 2 weeks,” 

and define “repeated” as “three episodes within 1 year, or an average 

of once every 4 months.” 20 C.F.R. § 404, Appx. 1, 12.00(C)(4). 

Allen’s episode does not meet this definition. While the regulation 

also allows ALJs to “use judgment” to determine if shorter, more 

2:14-cv-11644-PJD-EAS Doc # 19 Filed 07/31/15 Pg 2 of 6 Pg ID 1042
3

frequent episodes qualify, (id.), Allen offers no evidence to support 

his testimony that he experienced more than one episode of 

decompensation. Therefore, his argument fails. 

R&R at 10-11 (ECF No. 16). 

Second, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ improperly discounted a low Global 

Assessment of Functioning (“GAF”) score that he received upon discharge from 

his March/April 2008 hospitalization. However, the Magistrate Judge addressed 

and rejected this argument, as well, noting that although one of the reasons given 

by the ALJ for discounting the score “appears speculative and outside of the ALJ’s 

ken,” R&R at 11, the score was properly discounted on other, independently 

sufficient grounds. See R&R at 11-12. 

 Finally, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ should not have discounted his 

credibility based on the fact that he was noncompliant with a prescribed treatment 

plan without first considering whether the noncompliance was excusable due to 

Plaintiff’s mental illness. Once again, the Magistrate Judge addressed and rejected 

this argument in the R&R, and Plaintiff does not acknowledge the Magistrate 

Judge’s rationale for doing so in his objections. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge 

noted that Plaintiff “has offered no evidence that his failure to comply with his 

mental health treatment was because symptoms associated with his condition 

prevented him from doing so” and, in any event, “the ALJ relied on other factors to 

conclude that Allen was only partially credible.” R&R at 13-14. Because Plaintiff 

2:14-cv-11644-PJD-EAS Doc # 19 Filed 07/31/15 Pg 3 of 6 Pg ID 1043
4

does not explain why he believes the Magistrate Judge erred in her analysis of this 

argument, the Court overrules this aspect of Plaintiff’s second objection. 

 Turning now to his first objection, Plaintiff’s argument, boiled down, is that 

the ALJ failed to incorporate into the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) 

assessment limitations resulting from his precordial chest pain and closed-head 

injury. Regarding the chest pain, Plaintiff claims that he experienced this pain for 

“several months” and contends that it should have been considered in combination 

with his other impairments. Pl. Objection at 2 (ECF No. 17). However, despite 

extensive questioning by both Plaintiff’s attorney and the ALJ about Plaintiff’s 

medical conditions, Plaintiff did not mention chest pain during the hearing before 

the ALJ. Moreover, Plaintiff points to only two medical documents that reference 

complaints of chest pain, one dated February 15, 2008 and the other dated March 

14, 2008, both of which note complaints of “occasional” chest pain. See Treatment 

Notes of Dr. M. Mong (ECF No. 9-7 Page ID 814-15). Unlike the consistent 

records and diagnoses of back pain, migraine headache, closed head injury, 

depression, and abdominal laceration, Plaintiff’s complaints of chest pain span just 

one month, and there are no prior or subsequent records to suggest any further 

problems. In short, there is no evidence that Plaintiff’s brief complaints of chest 

pain impacted his ability to work. Because there is no evidence that Plaintiff’s 

2:14-cv-11644-PJD-EAS Doc # 19 Filed 07/31/15 Pg 4 of 6 Pg ID 1044
5

chest pain resulted in any work-related restrictions, the Court rejects his argument 

that the RFC assessment was faulty on that basis. 

 Plaintiff also argues that the ALJ disregarded the effects of his memory 

impairments from two separate head injuries. This is not true. The ALJ 

considered Plaintiff’s memory-related limitations and incorporated them into the 

RFC assessment. Specifically, the ALJ acknowledged Plaintiff’s “history of 

closed head injury with contusion and residual headaches,” ALJ Decision at 5, and 

ascribed “significant weight” to the medical opinion of a state agency consultant, 

Dr. Rom Kriauciunas, Ph.D., who determined that Plaintiff had “moderate 

limitations in the ability to understand, remember, and carryout detailed 

instructions.” Id. at 9. The ALJ incorporated his findings in Plaintiff’s RFC 

assessment by limiting Plaintiff to “simple tasks in a low stress environment 

requiring only occasional decision-making and only occasional[] changes in the 

work setting.” ALJ Decision at 5. Plaintiff does not explain why these limitations 

do not adequately account for any cognitive impairments stemming from his 

closed-head injuries. For all these reasons, the Court overrules Plaintiff’s first 

objection. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s R&R adopted; 

2:14-cv-11644-PJD-EAS Doc # 19 Filed 07/31/15 Pg 5 of 6 Pg ID 1045
6

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objections to the Magistrate 

Judge’s R&R are overruled; 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for summary 

judgment is granted; 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for summary 

judgment is denied. 

Dated: July 31, 2015 s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Copies to: 

Ronald D. Glotta, Esq. 

D. Rick Martin, Esq. 

Laura A. Sagolla, Esq. 

Lucy A. Bezdek, Esq. 

2:14-cv-11644-PJD-EAS Doc # 19 Filed 07/31/15 Pg 6 of 6 Pg ID 1046