1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

BRIAN G. ADAMS, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 14-cv-14724 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY, 

 Defendant. 

____________________________________________________________________/ 

OPINION AND ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION (ECF #17), (2) OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S 

OBJECTIONS (ECF #18), (3) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF #16), AND (4) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF #13) 

In this action, Plaintiff Brian G. Adams (“Adams”) alleges that the Social 

Security Administration wrongly denied his application for Social Security disability 

insurance benefits. After the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, the 

assigned Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (the “R&R”) in 

which she recommended that the Court (1) grant summary judgment in favor of 

Defendant Commissioner of Social Security (the “Commissioner”), and (2) deny 

Adams’ Motion for Summary Judgment. (See R&R, ECF #17.) Adams filed timely 

objections to the R&R (the “Objections”). (See ECF #15.) The Court has now 

conducted a de novo review of the portions of the R&R to which Adams has objected. 

For the reasons stated below, the court OVERRULES the Objections (ECF #18), 

2:14-cv-14724-MFL-PTM Doc # 20 Filed 03/21/16 Pg 1 of 12 Pg ID 691
2 

ADOPTS the R&R as the Opinion of the Court (ECF #17), GRANTS the 

Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF #16), and DENIES Adams’ 

Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF #13). 

RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In 2009, Adams underwent cervical spine surgery because he was experiencing 

neck pain and episodic hand numbness. (See Admin. R., ECF #11-11, Pg. ID 496.) 

After the surgery, Adams complained that his hand numbness worsened and that he 

began feeling a burning sensation that radiated down his left arm. (See id.) Adams 

claims that he has also experienced severe and debilitating pain due to impairments of 

his cervical vertebrae and a number of other medical conditions affecting his spine 

and heart. (See Pl.’s Mot. Summ. J., ECF #13, Pg. ID 595-602.) 

On April 23, 2012, Adams applied for Social Security disability benefits. On 

July 13, 2012, the Social Security Administration concluded that Adams was not 

disabled under the Social Security Act (“SSA”), and it denied his application. (See

Admin. R., ECF #11-3, Pg. ID 102.) Adams then requested a hearing before an 

administrative law judge. (See Admin. R., ECF #11-4, Pg. ID 111-12.) 

 Adams’ hearing was held on August 8, 2013 before administrative law judge 

Neil Sullivan (the “ALJ”). (See Admin. R., ECF #11-2, Pg. ID 61.) At the hearing, 

Adams testified that he suffered from intense pain shooting down his shoulders and 

his arms. (See ALJ Hearing Tr., ECF #11-2, Pg. ID 69.) Adams also testified that he 

had restricted neck mobility and experienced constant numbness and tingling in his 

2:14-cv-14724-MFL-PTM Doc # 20 Filed 03/21/16 Pg 2 of 12 Pg ID 692
3 

hands. (See id.) According to Adams, the complications with his cervical vertebrae 

and the accompanying pain substantially interfered with his daily life. (See id., Pg. ID 

77.) 

 On August 19, 2013, the ALJ issued a written decision in which he determined 

that Adams was not disabled under the SSA and was therefore not entitled to benefits 

(the “ALJ’s Decision”). (See ALJ’s Decision, ECF #11-2, Pg. ID 54.) The ALJ 

followed a five-step analysis1 and made the following findings: (1) Adams had not 

engaged in substantial gainful activity since December 16, 2009, the alleged disability 

onset date (see id., Pg. ID 47); (2) Adams did suffer from severe impairments 

including “disorders of the back, neck, shoulder, and trapezius status-post cervical 

fusion at C4-6, hypertension, myofascial pain and other reported chronic pain” (id.); 

(3) Adams’ impairments did not reach the level of severity required by the SSA (see 

id., Pg. ID 48); (4) Adams could not perform the relevant work that he performed in 

the past (see id., Pg. ID 53); and (5) Adams was capable of performing a significant 

number of jobs despite his severe limitations and impairments (see id.). Adams filed a 

Request for Review with the Social Security Administration’s Appeals Council, and 

the Council denied review on October 21, 2014. (See Admin. R., ECF #11-2, Pg. ID 

36.) 

 

1

 The SSA’s five-step analysis is codified in Federal Regulations at 20 C.F.R. §§ 

404.1520, 416.920 and is provided in the R&R. (ECF #17 at 3-4, Pg. ID 648-49.) 

2:14-cv-14724-MFL-PTM Doc # 20 Filed 03/21/16 Pg 3 of 12 Pg ID 693
4 

 On December 15, 2014, Adams filed his Complaint in this Court challenging 

the denial of disability benefits. (See Compl., ECF #1.) Both Adams and the 

Commissioner then filed cross-motions for summary judgment. (See Pl.’s Mot. 

Summ. J., ECF #13; Def.’s Mot. Summ. J., ECF #16.) The Magistrate Judge 

reviewed the parties’ motions and issued the R&R in which she recommended that the 

Court grant the Commissioner’s Motion and deny Adams’ Motion. (See R&R, ECF 

#14 at 1, Pg. ID 646.) 

 On December 21, 2015, Adams filed Objections to the R&R. (See ECF #18.) 

He urges the Court to reject the R&R and to overturn the ALJ’s decision for four 

reasons. First, Adams argues that the ALJ did not follow the “treating source rule” 

and improperly discounted his treating physician’s medical opinion. (See id. at 1, Pg. 

ID 682.) Second, Adams insists that the ALJ erred when he discounted Adams’ 

credibility. (See id. at 4, Pg. ID 685.) Third, Adams contends that the ALJ did not 

discuss his ability to perform sustained work on a continuing basis. (See id.) Fourth, 

he says the ALJ failed to adequately consider whether he (Adams) met the criteria for 

spinal disorders provided in Social Security Listing 1.04. (See id. at 5-6, Pg. ID 686-

87.) 

GOVERNING LEGAL STANDARD

 When a party has objected to portions of a Magistrate Judge’s R&R, the Court 

reviews those portions de novo. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Lyons v. Comm’r of 

Soc. Sec., 351 F. Supp. 2d 659, 661 (E.D. Mich. 2004). The Court has no duty to 

2:14-cv-14724-MFL-PTM Doc # 20 Filed 03/21/16 Pg 4 of 12 Pg ID 694
5 

conduct an independent review of the portions of the R&R to which the parties did not 

object. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). 

In reviewing the disputed factual findings of the ALJ, the Court is limited to 

determining whether those findings are supported by substantial evidence and 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 . . . .”). 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) (quoting Cutlip v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 25 F.3d 

284, 286 (6th Cir. 1994)). Moreover, “[i]t 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. 

ANALYSIS

A. The Court Overrules Adams’ Objection that the ALJ Did Not Provide 

Good Reasons for Not Following the “Treating Source Rule” 

 Dr. Legere-Struntz was one of the physicians who treated Adams for chronic 

pain arising from, and associated with, impairments of his cervical vertebrae. (See 

ALJ’s Decision, ECF #11-2, Pg. ID 52.) On October 20, 2011, Dr. Legere-Struntz 

encouraged Adams to “seek disability.” (See Admin. R., ECF #11-12, Pg. ID 559.) 

Despite this suggestion by Dr. Legere-Struntz, the ALJ determined that Adams was 

2:14-cv-14724-MFL-PTM Doc # 20 Filed 03/21/16 Pg 5 of 12 Pg ID 695
6 

not disabled. Adams contends that the ALJ failed to accord Dr. Legere-Struntz’s 

opinion appropriate weight under the “treating source rule.” (See Objections, ECF 

#18 at 1, Pg. ID 682.) The Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge properly 

rejected this argument. 

A treating physician’s medical opinion is given controlling weight if the 

opinion “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic 

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

record.” See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). An ALJ must provide “good reasons” for 

discounting the opinion of a disability applicant’s treating physician. See id.; see also 

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

 As the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded, the ALJ did provide good reasons 

for assigning no weight to Dr. Legere-Struntz’s suggestion that Adams seek disability. 

The ALJ noted that Dr. Legere-Struntz’s suggestion “was only one sentence and did 

not provide any explanation for her reasoning.” (ALJ’s Decision, ECF #11-2, Pg. ID 

52.) The ALJ also noted that Dr. Legere-Struntz’s “own examination notes . . . did 

not indicate that the claimant had significant functional limitations or objective 

findings that would suggest that his impairments were so debilitating as [to] cause the 

claimant to be disabled.” (Id.) Moreover, as the Magistrate Judge accurately 

observed, “D.O. Legere-Struntz’s notes are largely recordings of subjective 

complaints without objective support; she rendered no opinion regarding Adams’ 

functional limitations . . . .” (R&R, ECF #17 at 26, Pg. ID 671.) 

2:14-cv-14724-MFL-PTM Doc # 20 Filed 03/21/16 Pg 6 of 12 Pg ID 696
7 

 Adams also argues that the Magistrate Judge ignored an important medical 

record that supports Dr. Legere-Struntz’s disability opinion. The record in question is 

a “Physical Therapy Initial Evaluation” created by “N. Hunt, DPT” (the “Initial 

Evaluation Form”). (Admin. R., ECF #11-10, Pg. ID 401.) Adams says that the 

Initial Evaluation Form indicates that he was having problems bathing, lifting 

amounts greater than five pounds, and walking for more than five minutes. (See 

Objections, ECF #18 at 4, Pg. ID 685.) But the Initial Evaluation Form reflects his 

own subjective reports to N. Hunt; the statements on the Initial Evaluation Form 

cannot reasonably be read as expressing N. Hunt’s professional opinion as to the 

scope of Adams’ limitations. In this context, the Initial Evaluation Form does not 

provide such strong support for Dr. Legere-Struntz’s opinion that the ALJ was bound 

to accord controlling weight to the doctor’s opinion. 

 For all of these reasons, the Magistrate Judge did not err in rejecting Adams’ 

argument that the ALJ failed to comply with the treating physician rule. 

B. The Court Overrules Adams’ Objections to the ALJ’s Credibility 

Determinations 

Adams argues that the ALJ did not sufficiently explain his reasons for finding 

that Adams was not entirely credible. The Magistrate Judge offered a lengthy, 

balanced, and persuasive analysis as to why Adams is not entitled to relief based upon 

the ALJ’s assessment of his credibility. (See R&R, ECF #17 at 27-31, Pg. ID 672-

76.) Among other things, the Magistrate Judge noted that Adams’ hearing testimony 

2:14-cv-14724-MFL-PTM Doc # 20 Filed 03/21/16 Pg 7 of 12 Pg ID 697
8 

in August of 2013 that he could not sit for fifteen minutes was difficult, if not 

impossible, to reconcile with his admission to his doctor that one month earlier he had 

been camping near, and tubing down, the Au Sable River. (See R&R, ECF #17 at 30, 

Pg. ID 675.) Adams has not even attempted to show any error in the Magistrate 

Judge’s analysis of this credibility issue. Instead, he simply describes the Magistrate 

Judge’s analysis and repeats the arguments from his motion. (See Objections, ECF 

#18 at 4-5, Pg. ID 685-86.) Adams is not entitled to relief based upon this objection. 

See, e.g., Janney v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 2014 WL 1117826, at *1 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 

19, 2014) (an objection to a report and recommendation must demonstrate how the 

Magistrate Judge erred and may not merely repeat arguments from the motion 

considered by the Magistrate Judge in the first instance).2

In any event, Adams has failed to show that the ALJ erroneously discounted his 

credibility. Adams insists that the ALJ’s decision does not mention any of Adams’ 

 

2

 A party objecting to a report and recommendation has “the duty to pinpoint those 

portions of the magistrate's report that the district court must specially consider.” 

Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir. 1986) (emphasis added). The 

objecting party must show how the Magistrate Judge erred and may not simply 

repeat the arguments presented in the underlying motion. Indeed, if a party was 

permitted to simply repeat the arguments it presented to the Magistrate Judge – 

without attempting to show any error in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis – then the 

“functions of the district court are effectively duplicated as both the magistrate and 

the district court perform identical tasks. This duplication of time and effort 

wastes judicial resources rather than saving them, and runs contrary to the purposes 

of the Magistrates Act.” Howard v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 

505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991). 

2:14-cv-14724-MFL-PTM Doc # 20 Filed 03/21/16 Pg 8 of 12 Pg ID 698
9 

hearing testimony. (See Objections, ECF #18 at 5, Pg. ID 686.) While it is true that 

the ALJ did not cite to specific lines of testimony by Adams, it is nonetheless clear 

that the ALJ considered the testimony and found it to be less than fully credible. The 

ALJ gave collective consideration to Adams “statements on his disability application, 

subsequent functional statements, and his testimony at the hearing,” (ALJ’s Decision, 

ECF #11-2, Pg. ID 52; emphasis added) and determined that Adams’ overall claim of 

disability could not be fully reconciled with the medical evidence. The ALJ’s 

Decision does fairly indicate the basis on which the ALJ declined to accept Adams’ 

testimony. 

C. The Court Overrules Adams’ Objection That the ALJ Erred by Failing to 

Discuss His Ability to Perform Sustained Work 

 Adams argues that the ALJ erred by failing to specifically discuss his ability to 

perform sustained work activities. (See Objections, ECF #18 at 4-5, Pg. ID 685-86.) 

The Magistrate Judge rejected this argument on the ground that “as courts around the 

country have repeatedly found, ‘an RFC implicitly includes the determination on 

whether the claimant can sustain a regular work schedule.’” (R&R, ECF #17 at 32, 

Pg. ID 677 (citing Houston v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 2015 WL 5752720, at *18 (E.D. 

Mich., Aug. 25, 2015) (compiling cases), report and recommendation adopted at 2015 

WL 5729079 (E.D. Mich., Sept. 30, 2015))). Adams does not even mention this 

portion of the R&R and makes no effort to show how the Magistrate Judge erred in 

2:14-cv-14724-MFL-PTM Doc # 20 Filed 03/21/16 Pg 9 of 12 Pg ID 699
10 

rejecting his argument that the ALJ failed to discuss his capacity to perform sustained 

work. Accordingly, Adams is not entitled to relief based upon this objection. 

D. The Court Overrules Adams’ Objection that the ALJ Was Required to 

Determine Whether Adams Was Disabled Under Social Security Listing 

1.04 

 Adams argues that the ALJ failed to consider whether he had established a 

disability under Social Security Listing 1.04 (addressing spinal disorders), and that a 

remand is necessary. The Magistrate Judge rejected this argument for the following 

reasons: 

[W]hile Adams suggests that the ALJ “failed to consider 

the application of Listing 1.04 in the decision,” he does not 

point to evidence sufficient to meet that listing. (Doc. 13 at 

21-22). Listing 1.04 relates to disorders of the spine. 

Specifically Listing 1.04A refers to evidence of nerve root 

compression characterized by specific clinical findings; 

Listing 1.04B refers to spinal arachnoiditis, confirmed by 

an operative note or tissue biopsy, and Listing 1.04C refers 

to lumbar spinal stenosis that results in certain findings on 

diagnostic imaging techniques and certain specified 

physical limitations. 20 C.F.R. Part 404. To warrant 

remand, “[a] claimant must do more than point to evidence 

on which the ALJ could have based his finding . . . [r]ather, 

the claimant must point to specific evidence that 

demonstrates he reasonably could meet or equal every 

requirement of the listing.” See Smith-Johnson v. Comm’r 

of Soc. Sec., 579 F. App’x 426, 432 (6th Cir. 2014). Here, 

Adams merely suggests that there are “clear indications of 

a spinal injury,” including “the surgical procedure and the 

fact that objective evidence indicated further deficit at a 

level below the fusion.” (Doc. 13 at 22). This non-specific 

reference to the medical record cannot support remand. For 

his part, the ALJ sufficiently explained why Adams did not 

meet this listing by evaluating in detail the objective 

2:14-cv-14724-MFL-PTM Doc # 20 Filed 03/21/16 Pg 10 of 12 Pg ID 700
11 

findings relating to Adams’ spinal impairments. (Tr. 14-

17). Thus, no error can be found on this point either. 

(R&R, ECF #17 at 32-33, Pg. ID 677-78.) 

 Adams does not attempt to demonstrate any error in this analysis by the 

Magistrate Judge. Indeed, he would have no basis for such a claim because the 

entirety of his analysis on this point in his motion for summary judgment consisted of 

the following three conclusory sentences: “In the mater [sic] at bar there are clear 

indications of a spinal injury. Of special significance is the surgical procedure and the 

fact that objective evidence indicated further deficit at a level below the fusion. It is 

well established that an ALJ must explain in detail why a claimant’s impairment 

meets, or does not meet, a listing.” (Pl.’s Mot. Summ. J., ECF #13 at 22, Pg. ID 615.) 

The Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that this cursory argument was not 

sufficient to warrant a remand. 

 In his Objections, Adams attempts for the first time to make a specific 

connection between his medical records and the requirements of Social Security 

Listing 1.04. But aside from the fact that a party may not add new support for an 

argument in objections to a report and recommendation, Adams’ objection still fails to 

make a sufficient showing that his condition satisfied all of the specific requirements 

of Social Security Listing 1.04. Accordingly, the Court overrules this objection. 

2:14-cv-14724-MFL-PTM Doc # 20 Filed 03/21/16 Pg 11 of 12 Pg ID 701
12 

CONCLUSION

 For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 

 The Magistrate Judge’s R&R (ECF #17) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the 

Court; 

 Adams’ Objections to the R&R (ECF #18) are OVERRULED; 

 The Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF #16) is 

GRANTED; and 

 Adams’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF #13) is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: March 21, 2016 

 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the 

parties and/or counsel of record on March 21, 2016, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (313) 234-5113 

2:14-cv-14724-MFL-PTM Doc # 20 Filed 03/21/16 Pg 12 of 12 Pg ID 702