UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

SUZANNE JONES, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

COMMISSIONER OF 

SOCIAL SECURITY, 

 Defendant. 

 

Case No. 4:14-cv-14417 

Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti 

___________________________________/ 

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DE 14), GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DE 16) and AFFIRMING THE DECISION 

OF THE COMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY 

I. BACKGROUND 

 Plaintiff, Suzanne Jones, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for 

review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security 

(“Commissioner”) denying her application for disability insurance benefits. On 

July 25, 2012, Plaintiff filed an application for disability insurance benefits, 

alleging that she has been disabled since May 30, 2010. (R. at 222-228.) 

Plaintiff’s application was denied on October 25, 2012, and she sought a de novo

hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). (R. at 103-115, 116, 139-

140.) ALJ Ben Barnett held a hearing on May 21, 2013 and subsequently 

determined that Plaintiff was not disabled within the meaning of the Social 

4:14-cv-14417-APP Doc # 27 Filed 02/26/16 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 871
2

Security Act. (R. at 54-102, 34-52.) On September 24, 2014, the Appeals Council 

denied Plaintiff’s request for review. (R. at 1-6, 32-33.) ALJ Barnett’s decision 

became the Commissioner’s final decision. Plaintiff then timely commenced the 

instant action on November 18, 2014. (DE 1.) 

II. THE INSTANT MOTIONS 

 In her motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff asserts that ALJ Barnett 

committed reversible error by (1) failing to discuss her medically determinable 

impairment of migraine headaches; (2) failing to consider the 20 C.F.R. § 

404.1527 factors when rejecting Dr. Million’s opinions; and (3) failing to conduct 

a proper credibility analysis which took into account the enhanced credibility to 

which her testimony was entitled because of her exemplary work history. (DE 14 

at 4, 6-18.) The Commissioner opposes the motion and has filed a motion for 

summary judgment, arguing that substantial evidence supports the Administrative 

Law Judge’s (ALJ’s) decision and that any error he may have made was harmless. 

(DE 16.) The parties submitted further argument by way of reply and sur-reply 

briefs. (DEs 17, 21.) 

 The parties have consented to my authority. (DE 22.) A hearing was held 

on February 24, 2016, at which Plaintiff’s counsel (Karl E. Osterhout of 

Pennsylvania) and Defendant’s counsel (AUSA John J. Engel of Massachusetts) 

appeared by telephone. 

4:14-cv-14417-APP Doc # 27 Filed 02/26/16 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 872
3

III. ORDER 

 Having considered the well-briefed motion papers and thoughtful oral 

arguments of counsel for the parties, and for the detailed reasons stated on the 

record, which are hereby incorporated in their entirety by this reference as though 

restated herein, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED, 

and the Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED. A summary of the Court’s 

reasons include but are not limited to the following: 

1. Although the ALJ erred by failing to address Plaintiff’s migraines 

and/or headaches at Step 2, such error was harmless based on the 

treatment these impairments received at Step 4, which resulted in the 

work-related limitation of “simple, routine, repetitive tasks . . . .” (R. 

at 42-43); see, e.g., Porter v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 13-10707, 

2014 WL 1118419, at *15 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 21, 2014) (Berg, J., 

accepting and adopting report and recommendation of Whalen, M.J.). 

2. While the ALJ’s consideration of the 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) factors 

did not expressly include all of the regulatory factors, his explanation 

for his assignment of “little weight” to Dr. Million’s opinions “met the 

goal” of the regulation, see Francis v. Commissioner Social Sec. 

Admin., 414 F.App’x 802, 805 (6th Cir. 2011) (quoting Wilson v. 

Commissioner Social Sec. Admin., 378 F.3d 541, 547 (6th Cir. 2004)) 

4:14-cv-14417-APP Doc # 27 Filed 02/26/16 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 873
4

and “‘permits the claimant and [this] reviewing court a clear 

understanding of the reasons for the weight given [the] treating 

physician’s opinion[.]’” Francis, 414 F.App’x at 805 (quoting Friend 

v. Commissioner of Social Sec., 375 F.App’x 543, 551 (6th Cir. 2010) 

(per curiam)).1

 

3. The ALJ appropriately considered Plaintiff’s work history in 

accordance with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) and SSR 96-7p when 

analyzing her credibility (R. at 43), see Blacha v. Secretary of Health 

and Human Services, 927 F.2d 228, 231 (6th Cir. 1990), and this 

circuit does not follow the Second Circuit’s procedure of 

automatically according a Social Security claimant “enhanced” or 

“substantial” credibility based upon her long-standing work history. 

Compare, e.g., Rivera v. Schweiker, 717 F.2d 719, 725 (2d Cir. 1983) 

with Clark v. Astrue, 2012 WL 6728441 (W.D.N.C. 2012).

 

1 Furthermore, in addition to other reasons stated on the Court’s record for why the 

ALJ’s decision to give “little weight” to Dr. Million's May 7, 2013 opinions was 

supported by substantial evidence – e.g., internal inconsistency, inconsistency with 

Dr. Leppien’s notations – the Court notes that the medical opinion form regarding 

ability to do work-related activities filled out by Dr. Million specifically required 

her to “Identify the particular medical findings (e.g., physical examination 

findings, x-ray findings, laboratory test results, history, symptoms (including pain), 

etc.) that support your opinion regarding any limitations[,]” and further warned in 

block letters that “IT IS IMPORTANT THAT YOU RELATE PARTICULAR 

MEDICAL FINDINGS TO ANY REDUCTION IN CAPACITY; THE 

USEFULLNESS OF YOUR OPINION DEPENDS ON THE EXTENT TO 

WHICH YOU DO THIS.” (R. at 670; see also R. at 672.) 

4:14-cv-14417-APP Doc # 27 Filed 02/26/16 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 874
5

Moreover, such a procedure would run contrary to the deference owed 

by a reviewing court to an ALJ’s credibility determination. Infantado 

v. Astrue, 263 F. App’x 469, 475 (6th Cir. 2008); see also, Payne v. 

Comm’r Soc. Sec., 402 F.App’x 109, 113-114 (6th Cir. 2010). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 26, 2016 s/Anthony P. Patti 

 Anthony P. Patti 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing order was sent to parties of record on 

February 26, 2016, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail. 

 s/Michael Williams 

 Case Manager for the 

 Honorable Anthony P. Patti 

 

4:14-cv-14417-APP Doc # 27 Filed 02/26/16 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 875