UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MARANDA JOHNSON,

CASE NO. 14-cv-14713

Plaintiff,

DISTRICT JUDGE STEPHEN J. MURPHY

v. MAGISTRATE JUDGE PATRICIA T. MORRIS

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

___________________________/

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CROSS 

MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Docs. 10, 11)

I. RECOMMENDATION

In light of the entire record in this case, I suggest that substantial evidence supports the 

Commissioner’s determination that Johnson is not disabled. Accordingly, IT IS 

RECOMMENDED that Johnson’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 10) be DENIED

and that the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 11) be GRANTED.

II. REPORT

A. Introduction and Procedural History

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(b)(3), and by Notice of 

Reference, this case was referred to this magistrate judge for the purpose of reviewing a final 

decision by the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying Plaintiff’s claims 

for the Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) program of Title XVI, 42 U.S.C. § 1381 et seq.

(Doc. 2; Tr. 1-3). The matter is currently before the Court on cross-motions for summary 

judgment. (Docs. 10, 11).

2:14-cv-14713-SJM-PTM Doc # 12 Filed 09/18/15 Pg 1 of 29 Pg ID 388
2

Plaintiff Maranda Johnson was twenty-eight years old when she applied for benefits on 

April 19, 2012, alleging that she became disabled on August 5, 2004. (Tr. 161). This 

application was denied on August 30, 2012. (Tr. 86-100). Johnson requested a hearing before 

an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), which took place before ALJ Jessica Inouye on May 

16, 2013. (Tr. 34-83). Johnson, who was represented by attorney Carl Anderson, testified, as 

did vocational expert (“VE”) James Lanier. (Id.). On August 16, 2013, the ALJ issued a written 

decision in which he found Johnson not disabled. (Tr. 14-33). On December 2, 2014, the 

Appeals Council denied review. (Tr. 1-6). Johnson filed for judicial review of that final 

decision on December 12, 2014. (Doc. 1). 

B. Standard of Review

The district court has jurisdiction to review the Commissioner’s final administrative 

decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The district court’s review is restricted solely to 

determining whether the “Commissioner has failed to apply the correct legal standard or has 

made findings of fact unsupported by substantial evidence in the record.” Sullivan v. Comm’r 

of Soc. Sec., 595 F. App’x 502, 506 (6th Cir. 2014) (internal citations 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). 

The Court must examine the administrative record as a whole, and may consider any 

evidence in the record, regardless of whether it has been cited by the ALJ. See Walker v. 

Secretary of Health and Human Services, 884 F.2d 241, 245 (6th Cir. 1989). The Court will 

not “try the case de novo, nor resolve conflicts in the evidence, nor decide questions of 

2:14-cv-14713-SJM-PTM Doc # 12 Filed 09/18/15 Pg 2 of 29 Pg ID 389
3

credibility.” Cutlip v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 25 F.3d 284, 286 (6th Cir. 1994). 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.” Id. at 286 (internal citations omitted).

C. Framework for Disability Determinations

Under the Act, “DIB and SSI are available only for those who have a ‘disability.’”

Colvin v. Barnhart, 475 F.3d 727, 730 (6th Cir. 2007). “Disability” means 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 [twelve] months.

42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(A) (DIB); 20 C.F.R. § 416.905(a) (SSI). The 

Commissioner’s regulations provide that 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 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.

2:14-cv-14713-SJM-PTM Doc # 12 Filed 09/18/15 Pg 3 of 29 Pg ID 390
4

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 

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

experience, benefits are denied.

20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. See also Heston v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 245 F.3d 528, 534 

(6th Cir. 2001). “Through step four, the claimant bears the burden of proving the existence and 

severity of limitations caused by [his or] her impairments and the fact that she is precluded 

from performing [his or] her past relevant work.” Jones v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 336 F.3d 469, 

474 (6th Cir. 2003). The burden transfers to the Commissioner if the analysis reaches the fifth 

step without a finding that the claimant is not disabled. Combs v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 459 

F.3d 640, 643 (6th Cir. 2006). At the fifth step, the Commissioner is required to show that 

“other jobs in significant numbers exist in the national economy that [the claimant] could 

perform given [his or] her RFC [residual functional capacity] and considering relevant 

vocational factors.” Rogers, 486 F.3d at 241 (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)(4)(v), (g)).

D. ALJ Findings

Following the five-step sequential analysis, the ALJ found Johnson not disabled under 

the Act. (Tr. 30). The ALJ found at Step One that Johnson had not engaged in substantial 

gainful activity since March 16, 2012, the application date. (Tr. 19). At Step Two, the ALJ 

concluded that Johnson had the following severe impairments: “seizures, left plantar fasciitis, 

obesity, and depression.” (Id.). At Step Three, the ALJ found that Johnson’s combination of 

impairments did not meet or equal one of the listings in the regulations. (Tr. 20). The ALJ then 

found that Johnson had the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform light work, except 

that Johnson

2:14-cv-14713-SJM-PTM Doc # 12 Filed 09/18/15 Pg 4 of 29 Pg ID 391
5

Can engage in occasional postural activities but no climbing of 

ladders, ropes, and scaffoldings. [sic] The claimant cannot be 

required to engage in bilateral foot controls. Further, the claimant 

should avoid all hazards of unprotected heights, moving dangerous 

machinery, and no commercial driving. The claimant should avoid 

concentrated exposure to extreme temperatures and pulmonary 

irritants. This work should be unskilled. 

(Tr. 21-28). At Step Four, the ALJ noted that Johnson has no past relevant work. (Tr. 28). At 

Step Five, the ALJ found that a significant number of jobs exist which Johnson could perform 

despite her limitations. (Tr. 28-29). As a result, the ALJ found Johnson not disabled under the 

Act. (Tr. 30). 

E. Administrative Record

1. Medical Evidence

Johnson’s medical record contains only one record produced by a treating physician, 

and the balance of the record is comprised of consultative examinations. Her first record was 

created at an August 16, 2008, request for a mental status examination with Doctor of 

Psychology Nick Boneff. (Tr. 215-18). Dr. Boneff recorded that Johnson, then twenty-four 

years old, alleged “disability secondary to a seizure disorder with an onset in 2004,” 

accompanied by migraines. (Tr. 215). Johnson stated that her seizures result in “a period of 

unresponsiveness, urinary incontinence, biting of the tongue, and right sided-numbness.” (Id.). 

She also stated that the severity and frequency of her seizures mandated that she “never [be] 

left alone,” and required assistance from her family to perform all household chores. (Id.). On 

examination, Dr. Boneff found that Johnson was appropriately groomed and clothed, but that 

her speech was “extremely slow, at times mildly slurred and mumbled” but was “generally 

understandable; he further noted that her “gait was also markedly slow and there was a 

2:14-cv-14713-SJM-PTM Doc # 12 Filed 09/18/15 Pg 5 of 29 Pg ID 392
6

significant and overall psychomotor retardation” with “very poor eye contact” and a general 

sense of being “preoccupied and anxious.” (Tr. 216). Johnson was “tearful several times during 

the exam” and admitted to thoughts of dying but said she would “never try” to commit suicide. 

(Id.). Dr. Boneff surmised that Johnson “did not appear to be malingering or exaggerating her 

symptoms,” and noted that she was “clearly despondent.” (Id.). Her stream of mental activity 

was “very disorganized, [and] at times confused;” her affect was “constricted, [but] generally 

appropriate to the content of the interview;” her mood was “mildly anxious, and very 

depressed,” she was oriented to place, but did not know the current year and “struggled to 

recall the birthdates of her children and very slowly recalled the name of the current president.” 

(Tr. 216-17). Tests of Johnson’s memory, ability to process calculations, and abstract thinking 

showed substantial impairment. (Tr. 217). Dr. Boneff diagnosed “cognitive disorder secondary 

to seizures, traumatic brain injury,” assigned a Global Assessment Functioning (“GAF”) score 

of 45,1 stated that Johnson was unable to “manage her own funds at this time,” and noted that 

his prognosis was “very guarded.” (Tr. 217-18). 

On September 30, 2008, Johnson underwent a physical assessment at the hands of Dr. 

Cynthia Shelby-Lane. (Tr. 220-23). Johnson reported that she experienced seizures two days 

 1 A GAF score represents “the clinician’s judgment of the individual's overall level of 

functioning.” American Psychiatric Assoc., Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental 

Disorders (“DSM-IV”) (4th ed., text rev. 2000). The GAF score is taken from the GAF scale, 

which “is to be rated with respect only to psychological, social, and occupational functioning.” 

Id. The GAF scale ranges from 100 (superior functioning) to 1 (persistent danger of severely 

hurting self or others, persistent inability to maintain minimal personal hygiene, or serious 

suicidal act with clear expectation of death). Id. at 34. A GAF score of 45 indicates serious 

symptoms (e.g., suicidal ideation, severe obsessional rituals, frequent shoplifting) or any 

serious impairment in social, occupational, or school functioning (e.g., no friends, unable to 

keep a job, cannot work). Id.

2:14-cv-14713-SJM-PTM Doc # 12 Filed 09/18/15 Pg 6 of 29 Pg ID 393
7

prior to the exam, had never taken medication, and had been seen by doctors but did not 

receive treatment. (Tr. 220). Johnson was “positive for headaches, memory problems, and 

dizziness,” but did not suffer from blurred vision. (Tr. 221). She was oriented to time, place, 

and person, and responded to questions “fairly well.” (Id.). Dr. Shelby-Lane noted a history of 

hypothyroidism without treatment, hypertension, and obesity. (Tr. 223). Dr. Shelby-Lane thus 

drafted the following RFC assessment: 

Based upon the exam, the examinee is able to occasionally lift 20 

pounds. She is able to stand or walk six hours in an eight hour 

[workday] with normal breaks. She is able to sit about six hours in 

an eight hour day. She has no limitations in upper or lower 

extremities. With respect to postural limitations, she is able to 

occasionally climb, balance, stoop, kneel, crouch and crawl. She has 

no established manipulative, visual or communicative limitations. 

She should avoid concentrated exposure to extreme cold and heat as 

well as fumes, odors and hazardous machinery and heights due to 

her previous history of seizures. 

(Id.). Dr. Shelby-Lane also appears to have conducted an examination of Johnson’s range of 

motion, finding that she was fully within normal limits. (Tr. 225). Similarly, Dr. Shelby-Lane 

found that Johnson’s abilities to perform simple activities like standing, bending, walking, and 

opening doors was totally normal, as were her reflexes. (Tr. 226-227). 

On December 5, 2011, Johnson was seen by Clinical Neuropsychologist Dr. Kenneth 

McCoy for an assessment of her mental abilities. (Tr. 229-34). Johnson alleged that she 

suffered from “severe memory problems” since experiencing toxemia during pregnancy. (Tr. 

229). She was taking Prozac, Depakote, and Tylenol to treat her maladies, and had recently 

begun outpatient counseling for her psychological issues. (Id.). Johnson rated her depression at 

eight out of ten, and reported racing thoughts, worrying, and occasional panic attacks. (Tr. 

2:14-cv-14713-SJM-PTM Doc # 12 Filed 09/18/15 Pg 7 of 29 Pg ID 394
8

230). Dr. McCoy noted that Johnson was unable or unwilling to respond to questions about her 

past, “seemed disinterested in the testing process and gave up easily on all tasks.” (Id.). 

Johnson’s mood was depressed and her affect was flat; her speech was low and muffled; she 

appeared mildly confused; her thought processes were logical; and she did not seem 

distractible. (Id.). Johnson was again oriented times three, could count four digits forward and 

two backward, but had difficulty counting numbers backwards. (Id.). She was able to recall 

only one of four objects ten minutes after they were presented. (Id.). Testing of her judgment, 

fund of information, remote memory, and ability to perform calculations were generally 

normal. (Tr. 231). Johnson reported that she has significant trouble with home chores, but 

could complete self-care tasks. (Id.). Dr. McCoy concluded that Johnson’s “depression, 

attention problems, and memory problems may interfere” with completing simple, repetitive 

tasks for a two-hour period. (Id.). Dr. McCoy noted that “[b]ased on the test results she would 

need much supervision,” but cast doubt on the accuracy of those results, noting that “it is not 

clear that the test results are valid,” apparently because of the lack of effort Johnson 

contributed to the test. (Id.). Based on the administration of the Wechsler Memory Scale, Dr. 

McCoy found that Johnson’s memory fell within the impaired range, yielding a score of sixtynine. (Tr. 232). Dr. McCoy assigned a GAF score of 652

, indicating mild symptoms, and again 

cautioned that “it is important to note that [Johnson] did not seem to put forth her best effort,” 

and further noted that “[t]he obtained scores would be unusual given that she cares for three 

children. Her performance is believed to be an under-estimation of her true abilities.”(Tr. 233). 

 2 A GAF score of 65 indicates that the individual is experiencing “some mild symptoms or 

some difficulty in social, occupational, or school functioning, but generally functioning pretty 

well, has some meaningful interpersonal relationships.” DSM–IV at 34.

2:14-cv-14713-SJM-PTM Doc # 12 Filed 09/18/15 Pg 8 of 29 Pg ID 395
9

On July 24, 2012, Johnson again visited Dr. Cynthia Shelby-Lane for an evaluation of 

her physical health. (Tr. 235-38). Johnson again complained of seizures, migraines, memory 

issues, hypertension, and also complained of hand and leg swelling. (Tr. 235). Johnson 

reported taking water pills, Depakote, Xanax, and Prozac. (Id.). Johnson reported that her last 

seizure occurred in 2011, and that they most often occurred in her sleep. (Id.). Johnson 

complained of migraines several times per week, which are alleviated by lying down. (Id.). 

Johnson asserted that she suffers from short-term memory loss, and Dr. Shelby-Lane noted that 

she “is very slow and vague in giving answers” and “is a fairly poor historian.” (Tr. 236). Dr. 

Shelby-Lane’s physical examination returned largely nominal results, and in her medical 

source statement noted that Johnson “would benefit form a weight-reduction program . . . . She 

does apparently need ongoing mental health care as well. She should avoid operating foot and 

leg controls and motorized equipment.” (Tr. 237). Dr. Shelby-Lane also found Johnson’s 

flexibility and postural abilities (e.g. bending, standing) to be in generally normal condition, 

unchanged from her prior visit. (Tr. 239-242). 

On July 24, 2012, Johnson visited with Dr. Atul Shah for a psychological assessment. 

(Tr. 243-46). Johnson complained that “her depression has been getting progressively worse 

for the last couple of years,” and that “[s]he stays by herself and is isolative and aloof,” and has 

no motivation. (Tr. 243). She also asserted experiencing feelings of worthlessness and 

helplessness, along with some thoughts of suicide, but without any intent to commit suicide. 

(Id.). Johnson also complained for the first time of “hearing her auntie talking to her, tell[ing] 

her bad things off and on lasting a few minutes for the last few years” in addition to seeing 

“people smoking in her house when nobody is there” and “shadows for a few minutes 

2:14-cv-14713-SJM-PTM Doc # 12 Filed 09/18/15 Pg 9 of 29 Pg ID 396
10

especially in the night,” and “feel[ing] like people are watching her, [are] against her, and not 

helping her.” (Id.). She also complained of racing thoughts, getting angry easily, and anxiety 

for five to fifteen minutes on either several occasions per week or per month, a number which 

was left uncertain in Dr. Shah’s report. (Id.). She also reported that her anxiety is worse in 

crowded, stressful situations, and that she feels better when she is alone. (Id.). Dr. Shah 

observed that Johnson experienced occasional crying spells while describing her condition, had 

decreased eye contact, but normal gait; she had good contact with reality, fair insight, and was

relaxed. (Tr. 244). Dr. Shah noted that Johnson “has a tendency to minimize symptoms,” 

apparently suggesting that she did not tend to exaggerate her symptoms. (Id.). Johnson’s 

speech was spontaneous, but was slow and quiet. (Id.). Johnson was oriented times three; tests 

of Johnson’s mental activity produced normal results in terms of memory, production of 

information, and judgment. (Tr. 245). Johnson produced abnormal results in terms of 

calculations, wherein she was unable to perform simple arithmetic; abstract thinking, wherein 

she could not decipher the meaning of “the grass is greener on the other side” or “don’t cry 

over spilled milk;” and was able to discuss the similarities, but not the differences, between 

trees and bushes. (Tr. 245). Dr. Shah concluded that Johnson has “major depressive disorder, 

recurrent with psychotic features which has [sic] been partially treatment [sic]. She also has 

panic disorder with [sic] interferes with her ability to intact [sic] with [others.]” (Id.). Despite 

these somewhat dire findings, Dr. Shah issued a GAF score of 65, indicating mild symptoms, 

and noted that Johnson’s prognosis was fair. (Tr. 246). 

Johnson’s sole medical record produced by a treating physician results from an August 

14, 2012 visit to Botsford Hospital. (Tr. 247). Johnson complained that she may have had a 

2:14-cv-14713-SJM-PTM Doc # 12 Filed 09/18/15 Pg 10 of 29 Pg ID 397
11

seizure the night before, and was “seeing stars.” (Id.). Upon induction to the hospital, Johnson 

was found to be oriented times three and was speaking coherently. (Id.). D.O. Jacklyn 

McParlane examined Johnson, and found no cardiac, respiratory, or neurological issues. (Tr. 

250). Johnson also complained of some swelling in her feet, but an x-ray returned normal. (Tr. 

258). She was diagnosed with “[s]eizure due to subtherapeutic anticonvulsant therapy, plantar 

fascitis [sic], [and] pain – joint, foot, left.” (Tr. 262). Johnson was prescribed Tylenol and 

discharged in “satisfactory” condition. (Tr. 259). 

2. Application Reports and Administrative Hearing

a. Johnson’s Function Report

Johnson completed a function report on June 26, 2012. (Tr. 187-94). She asserted that 

her ability to work is degraded by memory issues, headaches, swollen feet and hands, difficulty 

standing and walking for long periods, and foot pain. (Tr. 187). She described her daily 

activities as focusing around trying “to rember [sic] what [I] have to do for that day but my 

mind is blank when I wake up in the morning,” and preparing her children to go to school. (Tr. 

188). She asserted that she relies on her mother for help remembering. (Id.). She further 

asserted that her sleep is sometimes interrupted because she “feel[s] like [she is] going to have 

a seizure and wake[s] up.” (Id.). She also asserted that she experiences difficulty getting 

dressed, bathing, taking care of her hair, taking medication, and eating because she forgets to 

do these activities. (Id.). However, Johnson also said she does her shopping in stores with her 

mother, and is able to go shopping “all day.” (Tr. 190). 

Regarding the preparation of meals, Johnson said she “make[s] microwave dinners or 

cereal,” and that such preparation takes one to two hours. (Tr. 189). However, in response to a 

2:14-cv-14713-SJM-PTM Doc # 12 Filed 09/18/15 Pg 11 of 29 Pg ID 398
12

question asking whether her cooking abilities have changed due to her illness, Johnson 

quizzically said “yea I can cook on the stove and not burn food.” (Id.). Regarding chores, 

Johnson said only that she cleans dishes, and experiences foot pain when doing so. (Id.). 

Johnson also unclearly stated that she goes outside “about 3 times,” without indicating whether 

this was per day, per week, or over the course of some other period of time. (Tr. 190). Johnson 

said she cannot go out alone because she gets lost or forgets where she’s going. (Id.). 

Regarding hobbies, Johnson said that she “tr[ies] puzzles or tr[ies] to read books or 

whatch [sic] tv,” and that she does these activities “all day.” (Tr. 191). For social activities, 

Johnson wrote that she watches her children play card and board games, and attends church. 

(Id.). In terms of social interactions, Johnson asserted that she sometimes feels angry, and that 

her friends “say I’m different a lot.” (Tr. 192). 

In terms of her physical and mental abilities, Johnson said she can walk for fifteen to 

twenty minutes, and requires a twenty minute rest between sessions. (Tr. 192). She can pay 

attention for “about a few minutes,” and wrote that she does not finish what she starts. (Id.). 

She also wrote that “it’s hard to understand” written instructions, but can understand oral 

instructions “if repeat[ed] to me.” (Id.). Johnson also asserted that she does not handle changes 

in routine well, and sometimes experiences anxiety attacks. (Tr. 193). 

b. Johnson’s Testimony at the Administrative Hearing

At the May 16, 2013, hearing before the ALJ, Johnson asserted that she lives at home 

with her three children, and completed the eleventh grade, but did not graduate. (Tr. 42-43). 

She asserted that she has experienced difficulty with mathematics and reading since the onset 

of her seizures. (Tr. 43). However, when questioned by the ALJ, Johnson confirmed that she 

2:14-cv-14713-SJM-PTM Doc # 12 Filed 09/18/15 Pg 12 of 29 Pg ID 399
13

could read a simple grocery list and obtain those items from a store. (Tr. 43-44). Johnson also 

noted that she receives help from her mother to perform shopping and household cleaning 

tasks, but that she sometimes joins in completing those tasks. (Tr. 52). Johnson also claimed 

that she “sometimes” needs help performing personal tasks like bathing and getting dressed, 

when she is “in a lot of pain.” (Tr. 52-53). Johnson also asserted that she helps take care of her 

children, including setting out their clothing, ensuring that they get ready for school, and 

sometimes assists them with their homework. (Tr. 52-54). 

Johnson testified that she does not drive, and is unwilling to take public transportation 

because she “got lost.” (Tr. 44). Johnson also testified that she last worked in “2000 or 2001,” 

several years before the alleged onset of her disability. (Tr. 45). She asserted that she attempted 

to find other work, but “forgot [her] interview.” (Tr. 46). Johnson stated that she was “not good 

at all” with remembering dates or appointments, and frequently forgets to take her medication 

unless reminded. (Id.). Johnson confirmed that she cooks for her family, but when asked 

whether she sometimes burns food on the stove because of memory deficiencies, she unclearly

responded “I microwave stuff.” (Tr. 47). When asked which medical issue has the biggest 

impact on her ability to work, Johnson responded “my mind going blank, like not remembering 

things.” (Id.). Johnson testified that she experiences migraines “a few times a week,” and that 

over the counter medication is ineffective at resolving that pain. (Id.). Johnson also stated that 

for several years she has experienced numbness and a burning sensation in her feet. (Id.). 

Regarding seizures, Johnson stated that she sometimes forgets that they have occurred because 

her “mind just goes blank,” followed by dizziness and “seeing stars,” which lasts for up to an 

hour. (Tr. 48, 65). She claimed that in the prior year she experienced “eight or nine” seizures. 

2:14-cv-14713-SJM-PTM Doc # 12 Filed 09/18/15 Pg 13 of 29 Pg ID 400
14

(Tr. 65). However, she also testified that to her knowledge she had not experienced a seizure in 

the past five months. (Tr. 48). Johnson then unaccountably asserted that she experienced eight 

or nine seizures in the month prior to the hearing. (Tr. 67). Johnson also asserted that she 

recently began taking Xanax and Prozac, which reduced the number of headaches, caused her 

to feel “not, like, real sad about not remembering stuff,” or in other words helped to ameliorate 

her depression. (Id.). She further testified that she experiences migraines which prevent her 

from getting out of bed approximately three times per week. (Tr. 51). 

Regarding hallucinations, Johnson asserted that she sees “dead relatives,” on rare 

occasions, including a few months prior to the hearing, but that her medication also helped to 

reduce this phenomenon. (Tr. 49-50). Johnson asserted that her legs “burn” if she sits or stands 

for twenty minutes or more, and that she is unable to walk a full block without rest. (Tr. 50-

51). Johnson also claimed that she could not lift a gallon of milk in each hand. (Tr. 51). 

Regarding hobbies, Johnson stated that she “sometimes” watches television, tries to 

teach herself to “read better,” reads magazines, goes to the park, and attends church. (Tr. 54-

56). Johnson confirmed that she does not know “a lot” about computers, and does not know 

how to type. (Tr. 55-57). When asked whether she could perform work answering telephones, 

Johnson confirmed that she probably could. (Tr. 57). 

c. The VE’s Testimony at the Administrative Hearing

The ALJ then asked the VE a series of questions to determine Johnson’s ability to 

perform work. (Tr. 79-82). The ALJ asked the VE to consider whether a hypothetical worker, 

who has the same education, age, and past work experience as Johnson could perform 

2:14-cv-14713-SJM-PTM Doc # 12 Filed 09/18/15 Pg 14 of 29 Pg ID 401
15

competitive work. (Tr. 64). Specifically, the ALJ asked the VE to hypothesize a person who 

has the ability to perform light work, and who is limited in the following manner:

This individual can engage in occasional postural activities, but no 

climbing of ladders, ropes, and scaffolding. This individual cannot 

be required to engage in bilateral foot controls, should avoid all 

hazards of unprotected heights, moving dangerous machinery, and 

no commercial driving. This individual should avoid concentrated 

exposure to extreme temperatures and pulmonary irritants, and the 

work should be unskilled. 

(Tr. 79-80). The VE confirmed that such a worker could perform work as a collator operator 

(2,888 jobs in the state of Michigan), routing clerk (2,442 jobs), and bench assembler (2,010 

jobs). (Tr. 80). The ALJ then further restricted the hypothetical worker’s abilities, including 

that the work must be comprised of “simple, routine, and repetitive tasks, and that the job tasks 

not require the performance of math skills or extensive reading” such that the worker would 

not be required to “read chapters in a book.” (Tr. 80-81). The VE confirmed that the worker 

could perform the same jobs listed in response to the first hypothetical. (Tr. 81). Finally, the 

ALJ asked whether an individual who is absent two to three days per month or who is off task 

fifteen to twenty percent of the time could find competitive work; the VE testified that either 

restriction would preclude competitive work. (Tr. 81). 

F. Governing Law

The ALJ must “consider all evidence” in the record when making a disability decision. 

42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(5)(B). The regulations carve the evidence into various categories, 

“acceptable medical sources” and “other sources.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513. “Acceptable medical 

sources” include, among others, licensed physicians and licensed or certified psychologists. Id. 

§ 404.1513(a). “Other sources” include medical sources who are not “acceptable” and almost 

2:14-cv-14713-SJM-PTM Doc # 12 Filed 09/18/15 Pg 15 of 29 Pg ID 402
16

any other individual able to provide relevant evidence. Id. § 404.1513(d). Only “acceptable 

medical sources” can establish the existence of an impairment. SSR 06-03p, 2006 WL 

2329939, at *2. Both “acceptable” and non-acceptable sources provide evidence to the 

Commissioner, often in the form of opinions “about the nature and severity of an individual’s 

impairment(s), including symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what the individual can still do 

despite the impairment(s), and physical and mental restrictions.” Id. at *2. When “acceptable 

medical sources” issue such opinions, the regulations deem the statements to be “medical 

opinions” subject to a multi-factor test that weighs their value. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. Excluded 

from the definition of “medical opinions” are various decisions reserved to the Commissioner, 

such as whether the claimant meets the statutory definition of disability and how to measure 

his or her residual functional capacity. Id. at 404.1527(d). 

The ALJ must use a six-factor balancing test to determine the probative value of 

medical opinions from acceptable sources. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). The test looks at whether 

the source examined the claimant, “the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency 

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

opinion, consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and specialization of the 

treating source.” Wilson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 378 F.3d 541, 544 (6th Cir. 2004). See also 20 

C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ALJs must also apply those factors to “other source” opinions. See 

Cruse v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 502 F.3d 532, 540-42 (6th Cir. 2007); SSR 06-3p, 2006 WL 

2329939, at *2.

Certain opinions of a treating physician, in contrast, receive controlling weight if they 

are “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and 

2:14-cv-14713-SJM-PTM Doc # 12 Filed 09/18/15 Pg 16 of 29 Pg ID 403
17

are “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 

404.1527(d)(2). See also Wilson, 378 F.3d at 544. The only opinions entitled to dispositive 

effect deal with the nature and severity of the claimant’s impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 

404.1527(d); SSR 96-2p, 1996 WL 374188, at *1-2. Therefore, the ALJ does not owe a 

treating opinion deference on matters reserved to the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d); 

SSR 96-2p, 1996 WL 374188, at *1-2. The ALJ “will not give any special significance to the 

source of an opinion” regarding whether a person is disabled or unable to work, whether an 

impairment meets or equals a Listing, the individual’s RFC, and the application of vocational 

factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(3). 

The regulations mandate that the ALJ provide “good reasons” for the weight assigned to 

the treating source’s opinion in the written determination. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). See also 

Smith v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 482 F.3d 873, 875 (6th Cir. 2007). Therefore, a decision denying 

benefits

must contain specific reasons for the weight given to the treating source’s 

medical opinion, supported by the evidence in the case record, and must 

be sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent reviewers the 

weight the adjudicator gave to the treating source’s opinion and the 

reasons for that weight. 

SSR 96-2p, 1996 WL 374188, at *5 (1996). See also Rogers, 486 F.3d at 242. For example, an 

ALJ may properly reject a treating source opinion if it lacks supporting objective evidence. 

Revels v. Sec. of Health & Human Servs, 882 F. Supp. 637, 640-41 (E.D. Mich. 1994), aff’d, 

51 F.3d 273, 1995 WL 138930, at *1 (6th Cir. 1995) (unpublished table decision).

An ALJ must analyze the credibility of the claimant, considering the claimant’s 

statements about pain or other symptoms with the rest of the relevant evidence in the record 

2:14-cv-14713-SJM-PTM Doc # 12 Filed 09/18/15 Pg 17 of 29 Pg ID 404
18

and factors outlined in Social Security Ruling 96-7p. Credibility determinations regarding a 

claimant’s subjective complaints rest with the ALJ. See Siterlet v. Sec’y of Health & Human 

Servs., 823 F.2d 918, 920 (6th Cir. 1987). Generally, an ALJ’s credibility assessment can be 

disturbed only for a “compelling reason.” Sims v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 09-5773, 2011 WL 

180789, at *4 (6th Cir. Jan. 19, 2011) (citing Smith v. Halter, 307 F.3d 377, 379 (6th Cir. 

2001)); Warner v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 375 F.3d 387, 390 (6th Cir. 2004). 

The Social Security regulations establish a two-step process for evaluating subjective 

symptoms, including pain. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529; SSR 96-7p, 1996 WL 374186, at *2. The 

ALJ evaluates complaints of disabling pain by confirming that objective medical evidence of 

the underlying condition exists. The ALJ then determines whether that condition could 

reasonably be expected to produce the alleged pain or whether other objective evidence 

verifies the severity of the pain. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529; SSR 96-7p, 1996 WL 374186, at 

*2; Stanley v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 39 F.3d 115, 117 (6th Cir. 1994). The ALJ 

ascertains the extent of the work-related limitations by determining the intensity, persistence, 

and limiting effects of the claimant’s symptoms. SSR 96-7p, 1996 WL 374186, at *2. 

While “objective evidence of the pain itself” is not required, Duncan v. Sec’y of Health 

& Human Servs., 801 F.2d 847, 853 (6th Cir. 1986) (quotation omitted), a claimant’s 

description of his physical or mental impairments alone is “not enough to establish the 

existence of a physical or mental impairment,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1528(a). Nonetheless, the ALJ 

may not disregard the claimant’s subjective complaints about the severity and persistence of 

the pain simply because they lack substantiating objective evidence. SSR 96-7p, 1996 WL 

2:14-cv-14713-SJM-PTM Doc # 12 Filed 09/18/15 Pg 18 of 29 Pg ID 405
19

374186, at *1. Instead, the absence of objective confirming evidence forces the ALJ to 

consider the following factors:

(i) [D]aily activities;

(ii) The location, duration, frequency, and intensity of . . . pain;

(iii) Precipitating and aggravating factors;

(iv) The type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication . 

. . taken to alleviate . . . pain or other symptoms;

(v) Treatment, other than medication, . . . received for relief of . . . pain;

(vi) Any measures . . . used to relieve . . . pain.

20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3). See also Felisky v. Bowen, 35 F.3d 1027, 1039-40 

(6th Cir. 1994); SSR 96-7p, 1996 WL 374186, at *3. Furthermore, the claimant’s work history 

and the consistency of his or her subjective statements are also relevant. 20 C.F.R. § 

404.1527(c); SSR 96-7p, 1996 WL 374186, at *5.

The claimant must provide evidence establishing her RFC. The statute lays the 

groundwork for this, stating, “An individual shall not be considered to be under a disability 

unless he [or she] furnishes such medical and other evidence of the existence thereof as the 

Secretary may require.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(5)(A). See also Bowen, 482 U.S. at 146 n.5. The 

RFC “is the most he [or she] can still do despite his [or her] limitations,” and is measured using 

“all the relevant evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(2). A hypothetical 

question to the VE is valid if it includes all credible limitations developed prior to Step Five. 

Casey v. Sec. of Health & Human Servs., 987 F.2d 1230, 1235 (6th Cir. 1993); Donald v. 

Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 08-14784-BC, 2009 WL 4730453, at *7 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 9, 2009).

2:14-cv-14713-SJM-PTM Doc # 12 Filed 09/18/15 Pg 19 of 29 Pg ID 406
20

G. Analysis 

Johnson argues that the ALJ committed reversible error in the following ways: (1) 

erroneously granting weight to incomplete opinions drafted by the consultative state 

examiners; (2) erroneously failing to assess Johnson’s psychological status pursuant to the 

sequential evaluation process established by Social Security Rules (“SSR”) 96-8p and 85-15; 

(3) erroneously concluding that Johnson’s ability to take care of her children rendered her 

capable of performing competitive employment; (4) failing to discuss Johnson’s memory and 

reading issues; (5) contradictorily finding that Johnson suffered from “severe” mental 

impairments, but later finding that those same impairments were only “moderate” or “mild;” 

(6) considering improper factors in drafting Johnson’s RFC assessment.”3 These arguments 

will be addressed in turn. 

1. The ALJ Did Not Err by Relying upon Incomplete Opinions from Drs. 

Mahmood and Yousuf

First, Johnson argues that the ALJ erred by relying upon the opinions of consultative 

examiners Dr. Tariq Mahmood and Dr. Yousuf, which she asserts were incomplete, thus 

leaving the ALJ’s findings improperly supported. (Doc. 10 at 9-12). Johnson asserts that Dr. 

Yousuf “did not form an opinion as to Plaintiff’s ability to: understand, carry out and 

remember instructions; use judgment in making work-related decisions; respond appropriately 

to supervision, co-workers and work situations; and deal with changes in a routine work 

 3 The arguments in Johnson’s brief are not clearly distinguished, and one line of argumentation 

frequently rolls into another. The Court will endeavor to address these arguments separately 

and in full. If the Court fails, in Johnson’s estimation, to address each of her sub-arguments as 

fully as she would like, it notes that issues “adverted to in a perfunctory manner, 

unaccompanied by some effort at developed argumentation” are deemed waived. McPherson v.

Kelsey, 125 F.3d 989, 995-96 (6th Cir.1997).

2:14-cv-14713-SJM-PTM Doc # 12 Filed 09/18/15 Pg 20 of 29 Pg ID 407
21

setting.” (Id. at 10). A reading of Dr. Yousuf’s opinion shows that he specifically analyzed 

each of these areas of functioning, and found that Johnson was “not significantly limited” in 

terms of remembering and carrying out “very short and simple instructions,” making workrelated decisions, sustaining an ordinary routine without special supervision, working in 

coordination or in proximity to others without being distracted by them. (Tr. 96). He also found 

that Johnson was moderately limited in terms of completing a normal workday without 

interruptions from psychologically based symptoms, and moderately limited in terms of 

carrying out detailed instructions. (Tr. 96). Johnson’s contention that Dr. Yousuf rendered an 

incomplete opinion is thus without merit. 

Similarly, Johnson asserts that Dr. Mahmood did not “consider each [physical area of] 

function separately or even address her ability to carry, push and/or pull.” (Doc. 10 at 11). This 

too is false; Dr. Mahmood properly evaluated each of Johnson’s exertional and non-exertional 

limitations, and found that Johnson retains “unlimited, other than shown” pushing and pulling 

ability, and found that she could lift and or carry twenty pounds occasionally, and ten pounds 

frequently. (Tr. 94). 

2. The ALJ Did Not Err by Failing to Comply with SSR 96-8p and 85-15

Johnson next asserts that the ALJ failed to “address the work-related activities in the 

opinion by citing the medical evidence to support each finding,” and thus failed in her 

obligations under SSR 96-8p and 85-15. (Doc. 10 at 9-12). Specifically, Johnson argues that 

the ALJ should have considered her ability to use judgment in the workplace, respond to work 

situations and co-workers, and deal with changes in work setting. (Id. at 9). As Defendant 

notes in its brief, Sixth Circuit precedent clearly establishes that “[a]lthough a function-by2:14-cv-14713-SJM-PTM Doc # 12 Filed 09/18/15 Pg 21 of 29 Pg ID 408
22

function analysis is desirable, SSR 96–8p does not require ALJs to produce such a detailed 

statement in writing.” Delgado v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 30 F. App’x 542, 547 (6th Cir. 2002)

(quotation omitted). Furthermore, an ALJ is not required to include in her RFC assessment any 

limitations which she does not find credible. See Casey v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 

987 F.2d 1230, 1235 (6th Cir.1993); Sumner v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 13-14303, 2014 WL 

6809891, at *9 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 2, 2014) (rejecting a similar argument proffered by the 

attorney representing Johnson in this matter). The ALJ, citing discrepancies between the 

medical evidence and Johnson’s testimony, properly concluded that Johnson’s assertions 

regarding the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of her symptoms were not entirely 

credible. (Tr. 19-28). The ALJ also properly stated that she considered the entire record. (Tr. 

19). Moreover, the ALJ explicitly opined as to Johnson’s mental limitations in the categories of 

concentration, persistence, or pace; social functioning; and daily activities. (Tr. 20-21). Finally, 

SSR 85-15 does not apply to cases where both exertional and non-exertional impairments are 

alleged, and in this case Johnson has alleged that she is disabled by both. See Doneworth v. 

Shalala, 76 F.3d 378 *4 (6th Cir.1996); Rosenkranz v. Comm’r of Soc., Sec. Admin., No. 1:13-

CV-00535, 2014 WL 1270588, at *6 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 26, 2014). 

3. The ALJ Did Not Err by Issuing an Insufficiently Restrictive RFC 

Assessment

Next, Johnson argues that the ALJ erred by “severely over-estimat[ing]” her ability to 

work, because “despite being able to take care for [sic] children, testimony from the Plaintiff, 

in addition to medical evidence, clearly showed that she cannot cook for herself, or take her 

required medication without assistance.” (Doc. 10 at 9-10). To the contrary, the record is at 

best unclear with regard to her cooking abilities, and at worst demonstrates that she can prepare 

2:14-cv-14713-SJM-PTM Doc # 12 Filed 09/18/15 Pg 22 of 29 Pg ID 409
23

food. In her function report, Johnson responded to a question regarding the sort of food she 

prepares by writing “I make microwave dinners or cereal.” (Tr. 189). In response to a question 

inquiring as to how her illnesses have changed her cooking habits, she responded by writing 

“yea I can cook on the stove and not burn food.” (Id.). It is difficult to believe that Johnson 

intended to convey that her illnesses have improved her cooking abilities, but neither does her 

statement convey that she lacks the ability to use a stove. This matter was not clarified by 

Johnson’s statements at the hearing before the ALJ, where she responded to a question about 

her ability to use a stove with the phrase “I microwave stuff.” (Tr. 46). 

However, Johnson’s cooking abilities are ultimately only meaningful insofar as they 

demonstrate whether she retains sufficient memory and cognitive functioning to perform 

competitive, remunerative work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520a(d)(1) (noting that an impairment 

may be found not severe if the claimant’s degree of limitation is rated at “none” or “mild” in 

activities of daily living, social functioning, and concentration, persistence, or pace). Johnson’s 

medical records further discredit her asserted degree of limitation. Johnson’s 2008 mental 

status examination with Dr. Boneff showed “substantial impairment,” she was diagnosed with 

a cognitive disorder secondary to seizures and traumatic brain injury, and she was assigned a 

GAF score of 45. (Tr. 216-17). The ALJ quite reasonably noted that these findings were 

inconsistent with Johnson’s activities of daily living and other medical evidence, and assigned 

no weight to Dr. Boneff’s findings. (Tr. 26). Johnson’s 2011 mental exam with Dr. McCoy 

similarly showed memory and cognitive impairment, but Dr. McCoy cast doubt on the results, 

noting that Johnson did not put effort into the tests, and that her ability to care for her three 

children was inconsistent with her allegedly severe mental limitations; she assigned a GAF 

2:14-cv-14713-SJM-PTM Doc # 12 Filed 09/18/15 Pg 23 of 29 Pg ID 410
24

score of 65, indicating mild symptoms. (Tr. 231-33). The ALJ assigned limited weight to these 

findings given Dr. McCoy’s own stated belief that the results may have been invalid. (Tr. 26). 

Johnson’s 2012 visit with Dr. Shah resulted in the diagnosis of major depressive disorder and 

panic disorder, but Dr. Shah ultimately assessed another GAF score of 65, indicating mild 

symptoms. (Tr. 246). Objective medical evidence thus does not comport with Johnson’s 

allegations of severe, disabling memory and cognitive function issues.

Johnson’s counsel also confirmed that she had not visited with a treating physician in 

2012, but began seeing one in 2013 for the treatment of boils, and that said physician began 

issuing anti-seizure medication; no records from that physician appear in the record. (Tr. 38-

39). The total, unexplained lack of treatment notes in the medical record further suggests that 

Johnson’s maladies are not as severe as she asserts. See Strong v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 88 F. 

App’x 841, 846 (6th Cir. 2004) (holding that a failure to seek treatment “may cast doubt on a 

claimant’s complaints of disabling symptoms). 

Finally, as the ALJ properly noted, there are substantial reasons to question the accuracy 

of Johnson’s asserted limitations, including inconsistency between her ability to take care of 

her three children and asserted inability to remember tasks, perform self-care activities, and sit 

or stand for extended periods. (Tr. 27). The ALJ also properly noted the substantial variation in 

Johnson’s recollection of when she experienced seizures, further undercutting the credibility of 

her asserted limitations. (Tr. 28). The ALJ thus provided substantial justifications for 

discrediting Johnson’s asserted limitations and rendering a less restrictive RFC assessment. 

4. The ALJ Did Not Fail to Consider Johnson’s Reading and Memory 

Limitations

2:14-cv-14713-SJM-PTM Doc # 12 Filed 09/18/15 Pg 24 of 29 Pg ID 411
25

Johnson asserts that the ALJ erred because the RFC she assessed “does not take into 

account Plaintiff’s severe memory problems or inability to understand written instructions.” 

(Doc. 10 at 8). In support of these limitations, Johnson cites her own testimony presented at the 

hearing before the ALJ. (Id.). As noted supra, the ALJ thoroughly considered Johnson’s 

memory issues, and found that her allegations were not well supported by the medical evidence 

of record. Regarding her ability to understand written instructions, Johnson testified that she is 

teaching herself “how to read better,” and in response to a query regarding whether she “reads 

much,” Johnson testified that she “tries to.” (Tr. 54-55). Johnson also testified that she has 

some knowledge of how to operate a computer, and that she would be capable of performing 

work involving answering phones and taking messages. (Tr. 57). The ALJ specifically queried 

the VE regarding whether a hypothetical worker with Johnson’s limitations could perform 

remunerative, competitive work which required “very basic reading,” including “reading and 

completing forms,” but which would not include reading “chapters in a book,” and the VE 

testified that such a restriction would be work preclusive. (Tr. 81). Johnson’s own testimony 

thus demonstrates that she is capable of performing the jobs identified by the ALJ. Further, the 

ALJ gave great weight to the assessment drafted by Dr. Yousuf, who found that Johnson does 

not suffer from understanding or memory limitations, further suggesting that she is capable of 

the sort of basic reading comprehension necessary to perform the job positions identified by 

the VE. (Tr. 96). The ALJ thus properly addressed Johnson’s alleged reading and memory 

limitations, and provided for an appropriate level of restriction in her RFC assessment.

5. The ALJ Did Not Err by Rendering Contradictory Mental Health Findings

2:14-cv-14713-SJM-PTM Doc # 12 Filed 09/18/15 Pg 25 of 29 Pg ID 412
26

Johnson next argues that the ALJ erred by finding that she suffered from “severe” 

mental impairments, which is allegedly inconsistent with the ALJ’s finding that she suffered 

from “severe” mental impairments, but later finding that she suffered from only “mild” or 

“moderate” mental impairments. (Doc. 10 at 13-15). This argument misconstrues both the rules 

governing the ALJ’s decision and the content of this ALJ’s decision. It is true that a finding of 

“none” or “mild” limitation in the first three areas of mental functioning referenced in 20 

C.F.R. § 404.1520a(d)(1) will generally result in a finding that the claimant does not have a 

severe mental impairment. However, in this case, the ALJ found that Johnson experiences mild 

restrictions in the areas of activities of daily living and concentration, persistence, or pace, but 

experiences moderate difficulties in terms of social functioning, thus the ALJ’s decision 

comports perfectly with the requirements of § 404.1520a. (Tr. 20-21). It is thus entirely 

appropriate for the ALJ to find that Johnson suffers from a “severe” mental impairment, but to 

simultaneously find that she experiences either mild or moderate limitations in the three 

relevant areas of mental functioning. 

6. The ALJ Did Not Err by Improperly Analyzing Johnson’s RFC

Finally, Johnson contends that the ALJ erred by improperly analyzing her RFC through 

the use of the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a), including social functioning; 

concentration, persistence, or pace; and activities of daily living, which Johnson alleges “are 

part of the Psychiatric Review Technique evaluation and are not used to assess a claimant’s 

RFC.” (Doc. 10 at 12) (emphasis original). However, the areas of functioning set forth in § 

404.1520(a) may form a basis for a RFC determination. The Social Security rules hold that

2:14-cv-14713-SJM-PTM Doc # 12 Filed 09/18/15 Pg 26 of 29 Pg ID 413
27

RFC is a multidimensional description of the work-related abilities 

you retain in spite of your medical impairments. An assessment of 

your RFC complements the functional evaluation necessary for 

paragraphs B and C of the listings by requiring consideration of an 

expanded list of work-related capacities that may be affected by 

mental disorders when your impairment(s) is severe but neither 

meets nor is equivalent in severity to a listed mental disorder.

20 C.F.R. § Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1. Johnson also cites the ALJ’s statement that “the 

following [RFC] assessment reflects the degree of limitation the undersigned has found in the 

“paragraph B” mental function analysis’” (Tr. 21; Doc. 10 at 13), apparently in the belief that 

the ALJ’s RFC analysis was comprised exclusively of these paragraph B criteria. In reality, the 

ALJ’s RFC analysis included consideration of “all symptoms and the extent to which these 

symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and 

other evidence” (Tr. 21), and included a lengthy discussion of Johnson’s asserted limitations, 

medical evidence, Johnson’s credibility, and other relevant information. (Tr. 21-28). 20 C.F.R. 

§ 404.1545(a)(2) requires that an ALJ evaluate the RFC in light of “all the relevant evidence in 

[the] case record,” and the ALJ’s discussion here is more than sufficient to satisfy that 

requirement. 

In sum, the ALJ properly considered Johnson’s alleged limitations in light of the 

objective medical evidence and other relevant material. She properly discounted Johnson’s 

allegations, and gave good reasons for the weight she granted to the opinions of state 

consultative examiners Drs. Mahmood and Yousuf. She properly rendered the RFC 

assessment, and, through the use of the VE, found that Johnson can still perform a significant 

number of available jobs. For these reasons, the Court finds that the ALJ’s decision was 

supported by substantial evidence.

2:14-cv-14713-SJM-PTM Doc # 12 Filed 09/18/15 Pg 27 of 29 Pg ID 414
28

H. Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, the Court RECOMMENDS that Johnson’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment (Doc. 10) be DENIED, the Commissioner’s Motion (Doc. 11) be 

GRANTED, and that this case be AFFIRMED. 

III. REVIEW

Pursuant to Rule 72(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[w]ithin 14 days 

after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file 

specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations. A party may 

respond to another party’s objections within 14 days after being served with a copy.” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 72(b)(2). See also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Failure to file specific objections constitutes a 

waiver of any further right of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S. Ct. 466, 88 L. Ed.2d 

435 (1985); Howard v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991); United 

States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). The parties are advised that making some 

objections, but failing to raise others, will not preserve all the objections a party may have to 

this Report and Recommendation. Willis v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 931 F.2d 390, 

401 (6th Cir. 1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th 

Cir. 1987). Pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2), a copy of any objections is to be served 

upon this magistrate judge. 

Any objections must be labeled as “Objection No. 1,” “Objection No. 2,” etc. Any 

objection must recite precisely the provision of this Report and Recommendation to which it 

pertains. Not later than 14 days after service of an objection, the opposing party may file a 

concise response proportionate to the objections in length and complexity. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

2:14-cv-14713-SJM-PTM Doc # 12 Filed 09/18/15 Pg 28 of 29 Pg ID 415
29

72(b)(2); E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d). The response must specifically address each issue raised in 

the objections, in the same order, and labeled as “Response to Objection No. 1,” “Response to 

Objection No. 2,” etc. If the Court determines that any objections are without merit, it may rule 

without awaiting the response.

Date: September 18, 2015 S/ PATRICIA T. MORRIS

Patricia T. Morris

United States Magistrate Judge

CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that the foregoing document was electronically filed this date through 

the Court’s CM/ECF system which delivers a copy to all counsel of record. 

Date: September 18, 2015 By s/Kristen Krawczyk 

 Case Manager to Magistrate Judge Morris

2:14-cv-14713-SJM-PTM Doc # 12 Filed 09/18/15 Pg 29 of 29 Pg ID 416