-1- 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

TROY EDWARD COLE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY 

ADMINISTRATION, 

Defendant. 

 

/ 

Case No.14-cv-14554 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

GERSHWIN A. DRAIN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DAVID R. GRAND

OPINION AND ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS [14], ACCEPTING 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [13], GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT [12], DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT [10], AND AFFIRMING THE COMMISSIONER’S DECISION

I. INTRODUCTION

Troy Edward Cole (“Cole” or “Plaintiff”) brought this action against the 

Commissioner of Social Security (“the Commissioner” or “Defendant”) pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) on December 2, 2014. See Dkt. No. 1. In the Complaint, 

Plaintiff challenged the Commissioner’s final decision denying his application for 

disability benefits under the Social Security Act. Id. This Court referred the matter 

to Magistrate Judge David R. Grand on December 3, 2014. See Dkt. No. 2. 

2:14-cv-14554-GAD-DRG Doc # 16 Filed 02/11/16 Pg 1 of 9 Pg ID 637
-2- 

Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on April 6, 2015. See Dkt. 

No. 10. On June 1, 2015, the Commissioner also filed a Motion for Summary 

Judgment. See Dkt. No. 12. On December 23, 2015, Magistrate Judge Grand found 

that the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) decision was supported by 

substantial evidence in the record, and that Plaintiff was not entitled to disability 

benefits. See Dkt. No. 13. Magistrate Judge Grand recommended that the 

Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment [12] be granted, Plaintiff’s 

Motion for Summary Judgment [10] be denied, and that, pursuant to sentence four 

of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the ALJ’s decision be affirmed. 

On January 6, 2016, Plaintiff submitted an Objection to Magistrate Judge 

Grand’s Report and Recommendation. See Dkt. No. 14. The Commissioner filed a 

response on January 12, 2016. See Dkt. No. 15. For the reasons discussed herein, 

the Court will OVERRULE the Objection, and ACCEPT Magistrate Judge 

Grand’s Report and Recommendation. 

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

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

Recommendation, the Court conducts a de novo review of those portions. See Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 72(b); Lyons v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 351 F.Supp.2d 659, 661 (E.D. 

Mich. 2004). In reviewing the findings of the ALJ, the Court is limited to 

determining whether the ALJ’s findings are supported by substantial evidence and 

2:14-cv-14554-GAD-DRG Doc # 16 Filed 02/11/16 Pg 2 of 9 Pg ID 638
-3- 

made pursuant to proper legal standards. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (“The findings of 

the Commissioner of Social Security as to any fact, if supported by substantial 

evidence, shall be conclusive . . .”); Rogers v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 486 F.3d 234, 

241 (6th Cir. 2007). 

Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might 

accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Lindsley v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 560 

F.3d 601, 604 (6th Cir. 2009); see also McGlothin v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 299 F. 

App’x 516, 522 (6th Cir. 2008) (recognizing that substantial evidence is “more 

than a scintilla of evidence but less than a preponderance; it is such relevant 

evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”) 

(internal quotations omitted). 

“If the Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, we 

must defer to that decision, ‘even if there is substantial evidence in the record that 

would have supported an opposite conclusion.’ ” Colvin v. Barnhart, 475 F.3d 727, 

730 (6th Cir. 2007) (quoting Longworth v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 402 F.3d 

591, 595 (6th Cir. 2005)). “It is of course for the ALJ, and not the reviewing court, 

to evaluate the credibility of witnesses, including that of the claimant.” Rogers, 486 

F.3d at 247. 

Only those objections that are specific are entitled to a de novo review under 

the statute. See Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir.1986). “The parties 

2:14-cv-14554-GAD-DRG Doc # 16 Filed 02/11/16 Pg 3 of 9 Pg ID 639
-4- 

have the duty to pinpoint those portions of the magistrate’s report that the district 

court must specially consider.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

“A non-specific objection, or one that merely reiterates arguments previously 

presented, does not adequately identify alleged errors on the part of the magistrate 

judge and results in a duplication of effort on the part of the district court[.]” 

Carter v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 13-12745, 2014 WL 6750310, at *6-7 (E.D. 

Mich. Dec. 1, 2014) (citing Howard v. Sec’y of Health and Human Services., 932 

F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991), for the proposition that “[a] general objection to the 

entirety of the magistrate’s report has the same effects as would a failure to object. 

The district court’s attention is not focused on any specific issues for review, 

thereby making the initial reference to the magistrate useless.”).

III. DISCUSSION

1. Objection No. 1: The Magistrate Erred when he Found that the ALJ’s 

Discount of a Treating Physician’s Opinion was Supported by 

Substantial Evidence 

Plaintiff argues that the opinions of Plaintiff’s treating physician, Dr. Aaron 

Van Wagnen, could be “supported by the record as a whole,” and therefore, should 

not have been discounted. See Dkt. No. 14 at 4 (Pg. ID No. 619). 

First, Plaintiff’s argument was already raised in Plaintiff’s original Motion 

for Summary Judgment. See Dkt. No. 10 at 18 (Pg. ID No. 560) (“Remand is 

appropriate where the ALJ disregarded Plaintiff’s treating doctor out of hand.”). 

2:14-cv-14554-GAD-DRG Doc # 16 Filed 02/11/16 Pg 4 of 9 Pg ID 640
-5- 

The Magistrate Judge thoroughly and adequately addressed this argument in the 

Report and Recommendation. See Dkt. No. 13 at 8–12 (Pg. ID No. 605–09). 

Accordingly, this argument fails the standard for specificity under Carter. 

Second, the ALJ did have substantial evidence to discount the weight given 

to Dr. Van Wagnen’s opinion. As the Magistrate Judge and the ALJ noted, Dr. Van 

Wagnen’s notes were inconsistent with his opinions. Magistrate Judge Grand 

summarized the doctor’s opinions: 

Cole’s symptoms would interfere constantly with his attention and 

concentration; that he was incapable of even “low stress” jobs; that 

he could not walk a single city block without rest or severe pain; 

that he could sit or stand for only fifteen minutes at a time, and for 

less than two hours total in an eight-hour workday; that he needed to 

get up and walk around for five minutes every fifteen minutes; that 

he needed to be able to shift positions at will; that he needed to take 

an indeterminate number of unscheduled breaks throughout the day; 

that he could occasionally lift less than ten pounds; that he could 

occasionally look up or down, turn his head, or hold it in a static 

position; that he could rarely twist, stoop, crouch, or climb; that he 

had significant (but unspecified) limitations in reaching, handling, 

and fingering with both hands; and that he would likely miss more 

than four days of work per month. (Tr. 443-46). 

Dkt. No. 13 at 8 (Pg. ID No. 605). Dr. Wagnen’s treatment notes also indicated 

that Plaintiff complained of frequent bowel movements in February 2010 (Tr. 440). 

However, complaints of frequent bowel movements were not reflected in 

numerous other visits. (Tr. 428–39). Furthermore, Dr. Wagnen noted in October of 

2011 that Plaintiff no longer had any bowel issues. (Tr. 411). Moreover, in 

February of 2013, Dr. Van Wagnen noted that Plaintiff had been compliant with 

2:14-cv-14554-GAD-DRG Doc # 16 Filed 02/11/16 Pg 5 of 9 Pg ID 641
-6- 

his medication and his symptoms were improving. (Tr. 405, 408). As noted in the 

Report and Recommendation, these instances were not the only examples of 

inconsistent medical evidence. See Dkt. No. 13 at 10–12 (Pg. ID No. 607–09). 

It is well settled that “[w]here the opinion of a treating physician is not 

supported by objective evidence or is inconsistent with other medical evidence in 

the record, this Court generally will uphold an ALJ’s decision to discount that 

opinion.” Price v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 342 F. App’x 172, 175–76 (6th Cir. 2009) 

(emphasis added). Here, the medical opinions of Dr. Van Wagnen are inconsistent 

with the medical evidence. Therefore, the ALJ’s decision to discount the opinion 

of Dr. Van Wagnen was proper. Accordingly, the objection is overruled. 

2. Objection No. 2: The Magistrate Erred when he Found that the ALJ 

had Adequately Evaluated Plaintiff’s Impairments in Combination 

Plaintiff argues that “[g]iven the list of impairments suffered by Plaintiff,” 

the limitations in the RFC did not do “enough to address the effects of Plaintiff’s 

multiple severe impairments in combination.” Dkt. No. 14 at 6 (Pg. ID No. 621). 

This exact argument was also raised on Plaintiff’s original Motion for 

Summary Judgment. See Dkt. No. 10 at 20–21 (Pg. ID No. 562–63). Therefore, 

this objection also fails the Carter standard for specificity. 

Furthermore, Plaintiff has not demonstrated how the ALJ’s findings were 

insufficient. Plaintiff relies on Dorton v. Heckler, 789 F.2d 363, 366 (6th Cir. 

2:14-cv-14554-GAD-DRG Doc # 16 Filed 02/11/16 Pg 6 of 9 Pg ID 642
-7- 

1986) to argue that the listed impairments should be “deemed medically equivalent 

to a listed impairment.” See Dkt. No. 14 at 5 (Pg. ID No. 620). But the objection 

does not explain how Dorton applies to the facts, only that it is dispositive. Thus, 

the objection is conclusory. 

Moreover, as the Magistrate Judge notes, “[h]ere, the ALJ stated several 

times in his Step Three analysis that Cole’s impairments (plural) did not meet or 

medically equal a listing, either alone or in combination.” Dkt. No. 13 at 14 (Pg. 

ID No. 611) (citing Tr. 17–18). Therefore, the ALJ did account for the combined 

effect of Plaintiff’s ailments. 

Accordingly, the objection is overruled. 

3. Objection No. 3: The Magistrate Erred when he Found that the ALJ’s 

Negative Credibility Determination was Supported by Substantial 

Evidence 

Finally, the Plaintiff argues that the Magistrate Judge erred in affirming the 

ALJ’s decision to “assign limited weight to the Plaintiff’s testimony and great 

weight to the treatment notes.” Dkt. No. 14 at 6 (Pg. ID No. 621). This argument is 

without merit. 

An ALJ’s credibility determination may not be disturbed “absent compelling 

reason.” Smith v. Halter, 307 F.3d 377, 379 (6th Cir. 2001). This Court “may not 

try the case de novo, nor resolve conflicts in evidence, nor decide questions of 

credibility.” Garner v. Heckler, 745 F.2d 383, 387 (6th Cir. 1984). 

2:14-cv-14554-GAD-DRG Doc # 16 Filed 02/11/16 Pg 7 of 9 Pg ID 643
-8- 

Plaintiff argues that his ability to “handle some basic activities of daily 

living was held against him by both the ALJ and the Magistrate” in an 

impermissible fashion. Dkt. No. 14 at 7 (Pg. ID No. 622). But Plaintiff’s argument 

takes for granted the fact that the ALJ specifically referenced and accounted for 

Plaintiff’s ailments—such as his need to use the restroom frequently—within the 

RFC by limiting him to jobs which have “ready access to the restroom facilities.” 

(Tr. 18). 

While Plaintiff may disagree with the credibility determinations of the ALJ, 

it does not negate the fact that the ALJ did have substantial evidence to support 

those conclusions. The Magistrate Judge listed said evidence in detail. See Dkt. 

No. 13 (Pg. ID No. 613) (“Cole repeatedly denied further examination or workup 

for this pain, and in March 2013, Dr. Prough indicated that surgery was not 

immediately necessary, given that Cole was having minimal symptoms . . . The 

ALJ also noted that in contrast to Cole’s complaints regarding his hand pain, he 

had not had any physical therapy or other treatment for his carpal tunnel syndrome 

in several years.”). 

In the face of substantial evidence to the contrary, Plaintiff’s blanket denial 

of the evidence does not give the Court a compelling reason to disturb the ALJ’s 

credibility determinations. Accordingly, the objection shall be overruled. 

2:14-cv-14554-GAD-DRG Doc # 16 Filed 02/11/16 Pg 8 of 9 Pg ID 644
-9- 

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed, the Court HEREBY OVERRULES Plaintiff’s 

Objections, ACCEPTS Magistrate Judge Grand’s Report and Recommendation 

[13]; GRANTS Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [12]; DENIES

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [10]; and, pursuant to sentence four of 

42 U.S.C. § 405(g), AFFIRMS the Commissioner’s Decision.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 11, 2016 /s/Gershwin A Drain 

Detroit, MI HON. GERSHWIN A. DRAIN 

 United States District Court Judge

2:14-cv-14554-GAD-DRG Doc # 16 Filed 02/11/16 Pg 9 of 9 Pg ID 645