UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

MARK GREGORY WUDZINSKI, 

Plaintiff, 

v. Case No. 15-11062 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL HON. TERRENCE G. BERG 

SECURITY, HON. ANTHONY P. PATTI 

Defendant. 

 / 

OPINION AND ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION AND 

ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

In this appeal of the Administrative Law Judge’s finding that Plaintiff was 

ineligible for disability Social Security benefits, Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti 

issued a Report and Recommendation on July 29, 2016 (Dkt. 17) recommending 

that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be denied (Dkt. 12), Defendant’s 

motion for summary judgment be granted (Dkt. 14) and the Commissioner’s 

findings and conclusions be affirmed. 

Either party may serve and file written objections “[w]ithin fourteen days 

after being served with a copy” of the Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1). Plaintiff filed a timely objection (Dkt. 18) and Defendant filed a response. 

(Dkt. 19) A district court must conduct a de novo review of the parts of a Report and 

Recommendation to which a party objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

4:15-cv-11062-TGB-APP Doc # 20 Filed 09/06/16 Pg 1 of 6 Pg ID 498
2 

The Court has reviewed Judge Patti’s Report and Recommendation and 

Plaintiff’s objection that the Magistrate Judge erred in affirming the Administrative 

Law Judge’s (ALJ) decision to discount the opinion of Plaintiff’s treating physician, 

Dr. White. (Dkt. 18) For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s objection is 

OVERRULED and the Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED and 

ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court. Consequently, the findings and conclusions 

of the Commissioner are AFFIRMED. 

Because neither party objects to Judge Patti’s factual findings or procedural 

history (Dkt. 17 at 2-9), the Court turns directly to a discussion of the law 

applicable to Plaintiff’s objection, followed by an application of that law to the 

relevant facts. 

A. Applicable Law

1. Standard of Review 

The District Court has jurisdiction to review the Commissioner’s final 

administrative decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). When reviewing a case 

under the Social Security Act, the Court “must affirm the Commissioner’s decision if 

it is supported by substantial evidence and was made pursuant to proper legal 

standards.” Rogers v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 486 F.3d 234, 241 (6th Cir. 2007). 

Substantial evidence is “defined as 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.” Cutlip v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 25 

F.3d 284, 286 (6th Cir. 1994). 

4:15-cv-11062-TGB-APP Doc # 20 Filed 09/06/16 Pg 2 of 6 Pg ID 499
3 

2. The Treating Physician Rule

In assessing the medical evidence supplied in support of a disability claim, an 

ALJ must adhere to certain governing standards, including the treating physician 

rule. SSR 96–2p, 1996 WL 374188 (July 2, 1996); see also Wilson v. Comm’r of Soc. 

Sec., 378 F.3d 541, 544 (6th Cir. 2004). Because treating physicians are “the 

medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [a 

claimant’s] medical impairment(s),” an ALJ must give their opinions controlling 

weight if they are “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory 

diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in [the] 

case record.” Wilson, 378 F.3d at 544. In explaining the weight they assign a 

treating physician’s opinion, an ALJ must give “good reasons,” or explanations 

“sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent reviewers the weight the 

adjudicator gave to the treating source’s medical opinion and the reasons for that 

weight.” SSR 96–2p, 1996 WL 374188, at *5. 

Where a treating physician’s opinion is (1) not supported by the objective 

medical evidence and (2) the bases for the opinion are unclear, the ALJ has an 

obligation to make every reasonable effort to re-contact the treating physician to 

clarify her opinion. SSR 96-2p, 1996 WL 374188, at *6; see also Ferguson v. Comm’r 

of Soc. Sec. 628 F. 3d 269, 272-74 (6th Cir. 2010). 

B. Discussion

 In accordance with the legal standards discussed above, Plaintiff’s objection 

is overruled for the reasons stated below. 

4:15-cv-11062-TGB-APP Doc # 20 Filed 09/06/16 Pg 3 of 6 Pg ID 500
4 

1. The ALJ Properly Discounted Dr. White’s Opinion 

 Plaintiff claims that the ALJ improperly discounted Dr. White’s opinion 

because it was not “weighed or discussed at all, just dismissed as vague.” (Dkt. 18 at 

2). In fact, the ALJ summarized Dr. White’s opinion and explained his reasons for 

giving it limited weight. Specifically, the ALJ stated: 

Given that [Dr. White’s] opinion is not well supported by either the 

objective or other substantial evidence of record relative to exertional 

limitations, I ascribe it limited weight. Notably, muscle strength at the 

right wrist was not significantly impaired on January 4, 2008, when it 

was measured at 4/5 (citations omitted). In addition the claimant 

voiced no pain complaints as of May 9, 2008 (citations omitted). I find 

that Dr. White’s opinion is otherwise vague, and it does not meet the 

criteria of SSR 96-8p as a function-by-function analysis of the 

claimant’s limitations. 

(Dkt. 10-2 at 22-23) The ALJ explained that Dr. White’s opinion was not well 

supported, and indeed contradicted, by substantial relevant evidence in the record. 

(Id. at 22) The description of Dr. White’s opinion as “otherwise vague” was 

secondary to this evidentiary concern. (Id. at 23). As Judge Patti correctly concluded 

(Dkt. 17 at 24-26), the ALJ’s decision to discount Dr. White’s opinion was stated 

clearly, supported by substantial evidence and sufficiently explained. 

2. Plaintiff’s Re-Contact Argument is Procedurally Barred and 

 Meritless 

 

Plaintiff also argues, for the first time, that the ALJ failed to comply with the 

treating physician rule because he discounted Dr. White’s opinion for vagueness 

without first re-contacting him for clarification. (Dkt. 18 at 2) This argument is both 

procedurally barred and meritless. In the Sixth Circuit, it is impermissible to raise 

an argument for the first time in an objection to a magistrate’s Report and 

4:15-cv-11062-TGB-APP Doc # 20 Filed 09/06/16 Pg 4 of 6 Pg ID 501
5 

Recommendation. See Murr v. United States 200 F.3d 895, 902 n.1 (6th Cir. 2000); 

Swain v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 379 F. App’x 512, 517-18 (6th Cir. 2010). Plaintiff’s 

argument is thus procedurally barred. Notwithstanding this procedural barrier, 

Plaintiff’s argument fails because the conditions necessary to trigger the ALJ’s recontact obligation were not met. That is, while the ALJ found that Dr. White’s 

opinion was not well supported by the evidence, the ALJ did not find that the bases 

for Dr. White’s opinion were unclear. (Dkt. 10-2 at 22-23) Although the ALJ 

described Dr. White’s opinion as “otherwise vague,” there was no need to re-contact 

the physician because the evidence Dr. White’s opinion relied on was apparent and, 

in light of the other record evidence, sufficient to allow the ALJ to make a 

determination as to Plaintiff’s disability status. 

In sum, the ALJ properly discounted Dr. White’s opinion and Plaintiff’s 

argument that the ALJ had a duty to re-contact Dr. White is procedurally barred 

and meritless. Plaintiff’s objection is therefore overruled. 

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons set forth above, 

It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Objection is OVERRULED and 

Magistrate Judge Patti’s Report and Recommendation of July 29, 2016 (Dkt. 17) is 

ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. 

It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment 

(Dkt. 12) is DENIED and Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 14) is 

GRANTED. 

4:15-cv-11062-TGB-APP Doc # 20 Filed 09/06/16 Pg 5 of 6 Pg ID 502
6 

It is FURTHER ORDERED that the findings and conclusions of the 

Commissioner are AFFIRMED. 

s/Terrence G. Berg 

TERRENCE G. BERG 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: September 6, 2016 

Certificate of Service 

I hereby certify that this Order was electronically submitted on September 6, 

2016, using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification to each party. 

 By: s/A. Chubb 

Case Manager 

4:15-cv-11062-TGB-APP Doc # 20 Filed 09/06/16 Pg 6 of 6 Pg ID 503