UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

AMAL HUSSEIN NASSAR, 

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 15-10683

Hon. Denise Page Hood 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

 /

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

and

DISMISSING ACTION

This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford’s

Report and Recommendation. [Doc. No. 13, filed January 27, 2016] Timely

objections and a response to the objections were filed in this matter. [Doc. Nos. 14

and 15]

Judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision is limited in scope to

determining whether the Commissioner employed the proper legal criteria in

reaching his conclusion. Garner v. Heckler, 745 F.2d 383 (6th Cir. 1984). The

credibility findings of an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) must not be discarded

lightly and should be accorded great deference. Hardaway v. Secretary of Health

and Human Services, 823 F.2d 922, 928 (6th Cir. 1987). A district court’s review

of an ALJ’s decision is not a de novo review. The district court may not resolve

2:15-cv-10683-DPH-EAS Doc # 16 Filed 02/29/16 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 755
conflicts in the evidence nor decide questions of credibility. Garner, 745 F.2d at

397. The decision of the Commissioner must be upheld if it is supported by

substantial evidence, even if the record might support a contrary decision or if the

district court arrives at a different conclusion. Smith v. Secretary of HHS, 893 F.2d

106, 108 (6th Cir. 1984); Mullen v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 535, 545 (6th Cir. 1986).

The Court has had an opportunity to review this matter and finds that the

Magistrate Judge reached the correct conclusions for the proper reasons. Plaintiff

first objects to the Magistrate Judge’s failure to remand this matter to the ALJ for a

proper consideration of Dr. Charles Seigerman’s findings. Plaintiff contends that

the ALJ had obligation to consider all of Dr. Seigerman’s opinion, not just parts of

it. Like the Magistrate Judge, however, the Court does not find evidence that the

ALJ failed to consider all of Dr. Siegerman’s opinion. The ALJ’s written decision

reflects that he considered Dr. Seigerman’s opinion. The ALJ summarized Dr.

Seigerman’s report (including Dr. Seigerman’s diagnoses of Plaintiff’s severe

impairments), and the ALJ explained why he gave Dr. Seigerman’s opinion limited

weight. Significantly, the ALJ was not required to adopt all of the conclusions of

Dr. Seigerman—or even discuss in detail every part of Dr. Seigerman’s

opinion—Plaintiff desired. See, e.g., Thacker v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 99 F. App’x

661, 665 (6th Cir. 2004) (“An ALJ need not discuss every piece of evidence in the

record for his decision to stand.”). Finally, the Court finds there was substantial

2

2:15-cv-10683-DPH-EAS Doc # 16 Filed 02/29/16 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 756
evidence in the record that was inconsistent with Dr. Seigerman’s conclusion that

Plaintiff was mentally unable to work.

Plaintiff’s second objection is that the Magistrate Judge inappropriately

excused the ALJ’s errors regarding Plaintiff’s credibility. Plaintiff focuses on the

ALJ’s statement that Plaintiff “is apparently able to care for young children at

home, which can be quite demanding both physically and emotionally, without any

assistance from her disabled husband.” (R. 7-2, PgID 126). As Plaintiff argues, (a)

the ALJ’s statement ignores the fact that Plaintiff’s household received assistance

from three separate caregivers, and (b) Plaintiff did not testify that she provided

unassisted child care for her children. For these reasons, Plaintiff contends that the

ALJ’s error requires remanding the matter to the ALJ with instructions for him to

reweigh the entire record and determine if that error would alter his analysis. 

The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge’s analysis in declining to adopt

Plaintiff’s position was well-founded. The Court “may not disturb” a credibility

determination of the ALJ absent “a compelling reason.” See, e.g., Smith v. Halter,

307 F.3d 377, 379 (6th Cir. 2001). Like the Magistrate Judge, the Court concludes

that, even if the ALJ erred with respect to Plaintiff’s capacity to care for her

children, there was substantial evidence in the record to support the ALJ’s

credibility determination. First, the objective medical evidence did not support the

degree of symptoms and limitations Plaintiff alleged due to pain and depression. 

3

2:15-cv-10683-DPH-EAS Doc # 16 Filed 02/29/16 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 757
Rather, her medical records reflect normal to mildly impaired physical functioning

and that her speech and memory deficits improved with therapy. (R. 7-2, PgID

125-26). Second, the ALJ is permitted to consider his personal observations of

Plaintiff. The ALJ noted that he did not observe any obvious pain or discomfort

when Plaintiff walked or sat during the course of the hearing. (R. 7-2, PgID 125-

26); Johnson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 99-1438, 2000 WL 332059, at *4 (6th

Cir. Mar. 22, 2000). Third, Plaintiff stopped working for reasons unrelated to her

impairments, another factor the ALJ may consider when assessing credibility. See,

e.g., McDonald v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 13-12312, 2014 WL 1922790, at *13

(E.D. Mich. May 14, 2014). Plaintiff did not meet her burden of providing a

compelling reason to disturb the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff was not entirely

credible. The Court declines Plaintiff’s request to remand this matter to the ALJ

for a new credibility determination.

The Court accepts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation as

this Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.

For the reasons set forth above,

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

Elizabeth A. Stafford [Doc. No. 13, filed January 27, 2016] is ACCEPTED and

ADOPTED as this Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.

4

2:15-cv-10683-DPH-EAS Doc # 16 Filed 02/29/16 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 758
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Objections [Doc. No. 14,

filed February 10, 2016] are OVERRULED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary

Judgment [Doc. No. 10, filed July 6, 2015] is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary

Judgment [Doc. No. 11, filed July 31, 2015] is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED with

prejudice.

S/Denise Page Hood 

Denise Page Hood

United States District Judge

Dated: February 29, 2016

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

record on February 29, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry 

Case Manager

5

2:15-cv-10683-DPH-EAS Doc # 16 Filed 02/29/16 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 759