UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RACHAEL MARIE HAWLEY, 

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 15-12497

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 Anthony P. Patti’s

Report and Recommendation. [Doc. No. 13, filed July 22, 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

1

2:15-cv-12497-DPH-APP Doc # 16 Filed 08/31/16 Pg 1 of 6 Pg ID 1350
of an ALJ’s decision is not a de novo review. The district court may not resolve

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

objects to the Magistrate Judge’s: (a) conclusion that the ALJ’s assessment of

Plaintiff’s credibility was supported by the record; (b) finding that the ALJ’s

conclusion that Plaintiff’s back injury was non-severe was supported by substantial

evidence; and (c) determination that the ALJ’s mental and physical RFCs were

supported by substantial evidence. The Court first notes that Plaintiff’s objections

are essentially verbatim reiterations of her arguments presented in her summary

judgment brief, an approach that is not appropriate or sufficient. See, e.g.,

O’Connell v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 2016 WL 537771, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 11,

2016) (citing Betancourt v. Ace Ins. Co. of Puerto Rico, 313 F.Supp.2d 32, 34

(D.P.R. 2004)). 

2

2:15-cv-12497-DPH-APP Doc # 16 Filed 08/31/16 Pg 2 of 6 Pg ID 1351
As to the first objection stated above, Plaintiff offers a limited argument for

one part of her challenge to the ALJ’s credibility determinations — the finding by

the ALJ that Plaintiff failed to follow treatment recommendations and the

Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff failed to follow

treatment recommendations was supported by the record. Plaintiff states:

The Magistrate, however, held that the ALJ had “explicitly

considered” the Plaintiff’s ability to pay (based solely upon the

above-quoted statement from the ALJ’s opinion (Tr. 45), and went on

to say that “Notably, Plaintiff did not testify to economic reasons for

her various failures.” (R&R 18). This fails to take into account that

testimony at the hearing is not claimant-led, rather depends upon the

questioning of the ALJ himself. The Plaintiff was not free to go off on

a tangent, encompassing every problem, worry, symptom and issue

she had been having. The Plaintiff did not testify to her inability to

afford treatment because she was not asked about it. 

Dkt. No. 14, PgID 1336. The preceding paragraph, quoted from Plaintiff’s

objections, is the only original argument set forth by Plaintiff in her objections. 

Following that paragraph, Plaintiff again restates, word for word, her arguments in

her motion for summary judgment. 

The Court is not persuaded by Plaintiff’s argument. Although the ALJ did

not ask Plaintiff to testify about any reasons she may have had for not following

treatment recommendations, a claimant usually can be questioned by her attorney. 

In other words, a claimant’s attorney can ask follow-up questions that would

illuminate the reasons she did not follow treatment recommendations. The Court

3

2:15-cv-12497-DPH-APP Doc # 16 Filed 08/31/16 Pg 3 of 6 Pg ID 1352
notes that Plaintiff has not asserted that the ALJ foreclosed or forbid such

questioning in this case—or that there was any other reasons she could not have

offered such testimony. The Court further notes that Plaintiff offered no argument

that would show how the Magistrate Judge erred in finding that substantial

evidence supported: (1) the ALJ’s other conclusions related to her credibility; or

(2) the ALJ’s determinations regarding her credibility as a whole. With respect to

those conclusions, Plaintiff simply restated, word for word, the arguments she

made in her motion for summary judgment. 

As to the second and third objections set forth above, Plaintiff offers no

argument how or why the Magistrate Judge erred in concluding that the ALJ’s

determinations were supported by substantial evidence. Plaintiff once again does

nothing more than restate, word for word, the arguments she made in her motion

for summary judgment. Plaintiff instead offers only conclusory statements that the

Magistrate Judge erred in finding that the ALJ’s assessments related to objections

(b) and (c) were supported by the record and must be reversed. 

For the reasons set forth above, the Court finds that the ALJ’s decision,

including but not limited to the determinations Plaintiff challenges in her

objections, was supported by substantial evidence and was not based on any legally

4

2:15-cv-12497-DPH-APP Doc # 16 Filed 08/31/16 Pg 4 of 6 Pg ID 1353
erroneous determination. Further, 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

Anthony P. Patti [Doc. No. 13, filed July 22, 2016] is ACCEPTED and

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

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Objections [Doc. No. 14,

filed August 5, 2016] are OVERRULED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary

Judgment [Doc. No. 11, filed January 29, 2016] is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary

Judgment [Doc. No. 12, filed February 29, 2016] is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED with

prejudice.

s/Denise Page Hood 

Denise Page Hood

Chief Judge, United States District Court

Dated: August 31, 2016

5

2:15-cv-12497-DPH-APP Doc # 16 Filed 08/31/16 Pg 5 of 6 Pg ID 1354
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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

record on August 31, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/LaShawn R. Saulsberry 

Case Manager

6

2:15-cv-12497-DPH-APP Doc # 16 Filed 08/31/16 Pg 6 of 6 Pg ID 1355