UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DONALD JOHN ZIEGLER,

Plaintiff, Civil Action No.: 14-14880

 Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford

v. 

 

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, 

Acting Commissioner of 

Social Security,

 

Defendant. 

__________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [16, 18]

Plaintiff Donald Ziegler appeals a final decision of Defendant 

Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying his application 

for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) under the Social Security Act (the 

“Act”). Both parties consented to conduct all proceedings before this Court 

[13], and a hearing was held on October 13, 2015, on their cross-motions 

for summary judgment. 

At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court GRANTED Ziegler’s 

motion for summary judgment and DENIED the Commissioner’s motion for 

the reasons stated on the record, which included the following.

The ALJ did not adhere to the requirements of the treating physician 

5:14-cv-14880-EAS Doc # 22 Filed 10/13/15 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 617
2

rule in evaluating Dr. Shukla’s treating opinion because he failed to give 

any specific weight for that opinion and because his reasons for rejecting 

that opinion are not supported by substantial evidence. See Rogers v. 

Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 486 F.3d 234, 242 (6th Cir. 2007) (setting forth 

procedural requirements of the treating physician rule). The ALJ reasoned 

in part that Dr. Shukla did not include an onset date, but the standard form 

that Dr. Shukla completed, entitled Medical Statement Regarding 

Headaches for Social Security Disability Claim, did not request an onset 

date. [R. 10-10, Tr. 458-59]. Dr. Shukla did treat Ziegler during the 

disability period, and the ALJ noted that there was no indication that 

Ziegler’s headaches worsened over time. [R. 10-7, Tr. 243-47; R. 10-2, Tr. 

25]. Given that, the ALJ could have deduced that Dr. Shukla’s opinion 

pertained equally to the period before his last insured date. Instead of 

outright rejecting Dr. Shukla’s opinion, the ALJ should have at least sought 

clarification from Dr. Shukla about the time period for his opinion. “Where 

there are obvious gaps in the record, the ALJ has the duty to develop the 

administrative record with respect to the missing evidence.” Kendall v. 

Astrue, No. CIV.A. 2:10-263-DCR, 2011 WL 4388794, at *5 (E.D. Ky. Sept. 

20, 2011). 

Further, when seemingly (but not explicitly) giving little weight to Dr. 

5:14-cv-14880-EAS Doc # 22 Filed 10/13/15 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 618
3

Shukla’s opinion, the ALJ incorrectly stated that Ziegler continued working 

for three years after the date his headaches began. [R. 10-2, Tr. 25]. 

Instead, Ziegler retired in 2004 and began experiencing headaches in 

2006. [R. 10-2, 38, 40; R. 10-7, Tr. 198-200]. Finally, the ALJ’s finding that 

the opinion lacked the support of the objective evidence of record is also 

not a good reason to reject it. As at least one Court has noted, conditions 

such as cluster headaches may not result in any objective abnormalities. 

See Woods v. Colvin, No. 13-8953, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54449, 2014 WL 

1910255 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 27, 2015). 

The ALJ also erred in speculating that alcohol abuse may be the 

cause of Ziegler’s severe impairments. Factually, the ALJ’s finding that 

Ziegler was a heavy drinker throughout the disability period is contrary to 

the evidence of record, which reflects at the very least a severe reduction in 

consumption after the headaches began. [R. 10-2, Tr. 24, 25, 44, 46; R. 

10-7, 198-200, 218, 220, 240, 254; R. 10-8, Tr. 278; R. 10-10, Tr. 427, 

487]. Moreover, no medical provider noted observing Ziegler to be under 

the influence of alcohol during treatment for his headaches, and no doctor 

suggested that Ziegler’s headaches were caused by his drinking. 

The ALJ further erred in assessing Ziegler’s credibility. The ALJ fails 

to point out the inconsistencies in the record he claims exist regarding 

5:14-cv-14880-EAS Doc # 22 Filed 10/13/15 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 619
4

Ziegler’s symptoms or treatment records, except to the extent that they 

appear “inconsistent” with the lack of a specific etiology for his headaches. 

However, the ALJ may not rely on the lack of objective medical signs alone 

to find Ziegler’s claimed symptoms not credible, especially where his 

reporting was consistent throughout the record. See Felisky v. Bowen, 35 

F.3d 1027, 1039 (6th Cir. 1994). Here, while Ziegler has been 

characterized as a “vague” historian who is unable to give a clear picture of 

his symptoms, the picture he does give is relatively consistent, including 

debilitating headaches that leave him bedridden for approximately twenty 

hours a day. [R. 10-7, Tr. 168, 176, 198, 239, 254; R. 10-8, Tr. 278; R. 10-

9, Tr. 340; R. 10-10, Tr. 427]. Furthermore, the ALJ was required to 

conduct a two-part analysis for evaluating Ziegler’s complaints of disabling 

pain, which requires evaluation of the entire record. See Rogers v. Comm'r 

of Soc. Sec., 486 F.3d 234, 247 (6th Cir. 2007). The ALJ’s analysis did 

not comport with the requirements described in Rogers.

Finally, the ALJ’s finding that Ziegler had severe impairments of 

headaches and vertigo, while at the same time all but concluding that there 

was no evidence in the record for these conditions, is confusing and 

prevents meaningful review of this case. The ALJ classified Ziegler’s 

headaches and vertigo as severe, but failed to assign any discernable 

5:14-cv-14880-EAS Doc # 22 Filed 10/13/15 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 620
5

limitations based upon them or explain his reasons for not doing so, 

preventing the Court from conducting meaningful appellate review. 

On remand, the ALJ shall consider the record evidence, and may 

consider the additional medical records submitted to the Appeals Council, 

to the extent they are relevant to the period in question, as well as solicit 

any other evidence necessary to make an appropriate decision on this 

record.

IT IS SO ORDERD.

s/Elizabeth A. Stafford

ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD

United States Magistrate Judge

Dated: October 13, 2015

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served 

upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF 

System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses 

disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on October 13, 2015.

s/Marlena Williams

MARLENA WILLIAMS

Case Manager

5:14-cv-14880-EAS Doc # 22 Filed 10/13/15 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 621