1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

DENNIS BOLTON, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 15-cv-11838 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY, 

 Defendant. 

_________________________________/ 

OPINION AND ORDER (1) OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS 

TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

(ECF #21), (2) ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S 

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION, (3) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF #14), AND (4) GRANTING 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF #16) 

In this action, Plaintiff Dennis Bolton (“Bolton”) alleges that the Social 

Security Administration (the “SSA”) wrongly denied his application for Social 

Security disability 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 the Defendant, the Commissioner of Social Security (the 

“Commissioner”), and (2) deny Bolton’s motion for summary judgment. (See ECF 

#20.) Bolton filed timely objections to the R&R (the “Objections”). (See ECF 

#21.) The Court has conducted a de novo review of the portions of the R&R to 

2:15-cv-11838-MFL-EAS Doc # 23 Filed 08/18/16 Pg 1 of 19 Pg ID 1060
2 

which Bolton has objected. For the reasons stated below, the Court 

OVERRULES the Objections, ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s recommended 

disposition of the case, GRANTS the Commissioner’s motion for summary 

judgment, and DENIES Bolton’s motion for summary judgment. 

RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

 On August 1, 2012, Bolton filed an application for supplemental security 

income in which he alleged that he could no longer work as a pipe fitter. Prior to 

filing his application, Bolton had worked continuously as a pipe fitter from 1988 

until 2006. (See Admin. R., ECF #7-2 at 50-51, Pg. ID 81-82; ECF #7-6 at 15, Pg. 

ID 315.) Bolton was then incarcerated in February of 2006 and was released at 

some point in 2010. (See R&R, ECF #20 at 6, Pg. ID 1017.) After Bolton was 

released, it appears that he resumed working as a pipe fitter intermittently the next 

year until he suffered an eye injury and stopped working on October 1, 2011. (See 

Admin. R., ECF #7-2 at 51, Pg. ID 82; ECF #7-6 at 15, Pg. ID 315.) In his 

application for supplemental security income, Bolton claimed that his disability 

onset date was November 1, 2011. (See id., ECF #7-2 at 25, Pg. ID 56.) 

 Bolton’s application for supplemental security income was initially denied 

on October 3, 2012. (See id., ECF #7-4 at 2, Pg. ID 189) Bolton then filed a 

written request for a hearing before an administrative law judge in which he sought 

to challenge the SSA’s denial of his application for benefits. (See id., ECF #7-2 at 

2:15-cv-11838-MFL-EAS Doc # 23 Filed 08/18/16 Pg 2 of 19 Pg ID 1061
3 

21, Pg. ID 52.) On December 6, 2013, a hearing was held before administrative 

law judge Michael Dunn (the “ALJ”). (See id., ECF #7-2 at 44, Pg. ID 75.) 

 At the hearing, Bolton testified that he suffered from a number of physical 

impairments, including a first-degree atrioventricular valve block and high blood 

pressure. (See id., ECF #7-2 at 52-53, Pg. ID 83-84.) He also testified that he 

suffered from anxiety, frequent headaches, and needed to nap on a fairly regular 

basis throughout the day. (See id., ECF #7-2 at 53, 60, Pg. ID 84, 91.) When 

Bolton was asked what physical tasks he could perform, he testified that he could 

sit for thirty minutes at a time, stand for up to an hour, and perform light grocery 

shopping – though he preferred not to leave his home. (See id., ECF #7-2 at 58-59, 

64-65, Pg. ID 89-90, 94-95.) 

 On February 11, 2014, the ALJ issued a written decision in which he 

determined that Bolton was not disabled and was therefore not entitled to 

supplemental security income (the “ALJ’s Decision”). (See ECF #7-2 at 37, Pg. 

ID 68.) The ALJ followed a five-step analysis1

 and made the following findings: 

(1) Bolton had not engaged in substantial gainful employment since the application 

date (August 1, 2012) (see id. at 27, Pg. ID 58); (2) Bolton did suffer from severe 

impairments, including an atrioventricular block, schizophrenia, polysubstance 

                                                            

1

 The SSA’s five-step analysis is codified in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920 and is 

provided in the R&R. (ECF #20 at 2-5, Pg. ID 1013-16.) 

2:15-cv-11838-MFL-EAS Doc # 23 Filed 08/18/16 Pg 3 of 19 Pg ID 1062
4 

abuse disorder, and antisocial personality disorder (see id.); (3) Bolton’s 

combination of impairments did not presumptively entitle him to disability benefits 

(see id. at 31, Pg. ID 63); (4) Bolton was not able to perform the relevant work that 

he performed in the past (see id. at 36, Pg. ID 67); and (5) Bolton was capable of 

performing a significant number of jobs that exist in the national economy despite 

his severe impairments (see id. at 36-37, Pg. ID 67-68.) 

 The ALJ also concluded that Bolton, even with his severe physical and 

mental impairments, had the residual functional capacity2

 (the “RFC”) to 

perform light work as defined in 20 C.F.R. § 416.967(b) 

except the claimant can never climb ladders, ropes, or 

scaffolds; can never work at unprotected heights and 

must avoid hazardous machinery such as machinery with 

moving mechanical parts; and can never operate a motor 

vehicle. In addition, the claimant is limited to simple, 

routine, and repetitive unskilled tasks . . . . The claimant 

is limited to work tasks free of fast pace production 

requirements with few if any work place changes and 

with nothing more than simple work related decisions 

required. Additionally, the claimant is limited to only 

occasional interaction with supervisors and with 

coworkers, can have no tandem tasks with coworkers, 

and can have no interaction with the public. 

(Id. at 33, Pg. ID 64.) To determine Bolton’s RFC, the ALJ considered the 

testimony given by Bolton and a vocational expert (the “VE”), and he also 

reviewed a litany of Bolton’s medical records. With respect to Bolton’s mental 

                                                            

2

 A claimant’s “residual functioning capacity” is the “most [a claimant] can still do 

despite [his] limitations.” Combs v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 459 F.3d 640, 643 (6th 

Cir. 2006) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1)). 

2:15-cv-11838-MFL-EAS Doc # 23 Filed 08/18/16 Pg 4 of 19 Pg ID 1063
5 

impairments (including schizophrenia and antisocial personality disorder), the ALJ 

assigned little weight to Bolton’s treating psychiatrist, Dr. Kehinde Ayeni (“Dr. 

Ayeni”), and one of Bolton’s counselors, Thomas Haefner, M.A. (“Mr. Haefner”). 

(See id. at 35, Pg. ID 66.) The ALJ noted that Dr. Ayeni and Mr. Haefner 

“indicated that the claimant had the most extreme limitations across the board,” 

without sufficient evidence or explanation. (Id.) Thus, the ALJ discounted their 

opinions and, instead, assigned great weight to the opinion of the State Agency 

psychologist, Kathy Morow, Ph.D. (“Dr. Morrow”). (See id. at 36, Pg. ID 67.) Dr. 

Morrow reviewed Bolton’s treatment notes and determined that “the existence of a 

mental impairment [was] supported by the medical evidence, however, the severity 

of [symptoms] as described by [Bolton were] not [] supported.” (Admin. R., ECF 

#7-3 at 13, Pg. ID 164.) The ALJ therefore concluded that Bolton was not disabled 

and was “capable of making a successful adjustment to other work that exists in 

significant numbers in the national economy.” (ALJ’s Decision, ECF #7-2 at 37, 

Pg. ID 68.) 

 On May 21, 2015, Bolton filed this action challenging the ALJ’s Decision. 

(See Compl., ECF #1.) Bolton claims that the evidence before the ALJ showed 

“without substantial contradiction that Plaintiff was severely disabled . . . and is 

unable to engage in any substantial gainful activity, within the meaning of the 

Social Security Act.” (Id. at 3, Pg. ID 3.) Bolton and the Commissioner then filed 

2:15-cv-11838-MFL-EAS Doc # 23 Filed 08/18/16 Pg 5 of 19 Pg ID 1064
6 

cross-motions for summary judgment. (See Pl.’s Mot. Summ. J., ECF #14; Def.’s 

Mot. Summ. J., ECF #16.) The Magistrate Judge then issued the R&R in which 

she recommended that the Court grant the Commissioner’s motion and deny 

Bolton’s motion. (See R&R, ECF #20 at 1-2, Pg. ID 1012-13.) 

 On June 16, 2016, Bolton filed timely objections to the R&R (the 

“Objections”). (See ECF #21.) Bolton has made the following four objections: 

1. The Magistrate Judge erred when she determined that the ALJ properly 

assigned minimal weight to the opinions of Bolton’s treating sources, Dr. 

Ayeni and Mr. Haefner, and therefore violated the “treating-source rule” 

(see id. at 7, Pg. ID 1013); 

2. The Magistrate Judge erred when she determined that the ALJ properly 

assigned Dr. Morrow’s opinion great weight (see id. at 3, Pg. ID 1033); 

3. The Magistrate Judge erred when she determined that the ALJ’s RFC 

Assessment of Bolton “was supported by the record” (id. at 9, Pg. ID 

1039); and 

4. The Magistrate Judge erred when she determined that the ALJ properly 

evaluated Bolton’s severe mental impairments under Social Security 

Ruling (“SSR”) 96-8p (id. at 11, Pg. ID 1041). 

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 

2:15-cv-11838-MFL-EAS Doc # 23 Filed 08/18/16 Pg 6 of 19 Pg ID 1065
7 

no duty to conduct an independent review of the portions of the R&R to which the 

parties did not object.3

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

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

determining whether those findings are supported by substantial evidence and are 

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)). “It 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. “[A] court is obligated to remand 

for further administrative proceedings if there are any unresolved essential factual 

issues.” Meehleder v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 2012 WL 3154968, at *2 (E.D. Mich. 

Aug. 2, 2012) (citing Newkirk v. Shalala, 25 F.3d 316, 318 (6th Cir. 1994)). 

                                                            

3 The Court has nevertheless reviewed these portions of the R&R and agrees with 

the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge.

2:15-cv-11838-MFL-EAS Doc # 23 Filed 08/18/16 Pg 7 of 19 Pg ID 1066
8 

ANALYSIS

A. The ALJ Did Not Violate the Treating-Source Rule 

 From 2011 through at least 2013, Dr. Ayeni was Bolton’s psychiatrist. (See 

Admin. R., ECF #7-7 at 2, 102, Pg. ID 345, 445.) Bolton also met with a 

counselor, Mr. Haefner, as part of his mental health treatment during this time. 

Bolton asserts that the ALJ should have assigned controlling weight to Dr. Ayeni’s 

and Mr. Haefner’s opinions that he (Bolton) had severe impairments that prevented 

him from obtaining gainful employment. (See Objections, ECF #21 at 8, Pg. ID 

1038.) The Court disagrees. 

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); Gayheart v. Comm’r of Soc. 

Sec., 710 F.3d 365, 376 (6th Cir. 2013). An ALJ must provide “good reasons” for 

discounting the opinion of an applicant’s treating physician. See id.; see also Smith 

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

 The ALJ provided a number of good reasons for discounting the opinions of 

Dr. Ayeni and Mr. Haefner. First, the ALJ addressed the medical source 

statements Dr. Ayeni and Mr. Haefner submitted. (See Admin. R., ECF #7-7 at 

2:15-cv-11838-MFL-EAS Doc # 23 Filed 08/18/16 Pg 8 of 19 Pg ID 1067
9 

286-89, Pg. ID 629-32; ECF #7-8 at 137-40, Pg. ID 819-22; hereinafter, the 

“Medical Source Statements”.) The ALJ noted that 

[b]oth statements are identical and are in the nature of a 

checkbox form. On the forms, Dr. Ayendi [sic] and Mr. 

Haefner, indicated that the claimant had the most extreme 

limitations across the board. For example, both Dr. 

Ayendi [sic] and Mr. Haefner opined that the claimant 

has a substantial loss of ability to understand, remember, 

and carry out simple instructions or make judgments 

commensurate with unskilled work. . . . I note that both 

medical source statements are conclusory, as neither 

includes a basis or explanation for the opinions. 

(ALJ’s Decision, ECF #7-2 at 36, Pg. ID 66.) The Court has reviewed the Medical 

Source Statements and concludes that the ALJ properly assigned them little 

weight. Both Dr. Ayeni and Mr. Haefner simply checked boxes indicating that 

Bolton was “markedly limited” on every metric regarding his “understanding and 

memory,” “sustained concentration and persistence,” “social interaction,” and 

“adaptation.” (Medical Source Statements, ECF #7-7 at 286-89, Pg. ID 629-32; 

ECF #7-8 at 137-40, Pg. ID 819-22.) But neither Dr. Ayeni nor Mr. Haefner 

explained the basis for their conclusions with any detail whatsoever. In fact, both 

Dr. Ayeni and Mr. Haefner left blank the portion of the form asking for “clarifying 

comments.” (See id.) 

 In the Objections, Bolton claims that Dr. Ayeni did perform in-depth 

psychological evaluations and that those evaluations were submitted to the ALJ. In 

support of this claim, Bolton cites to Dr. Ayeni’s handwritten note on the Medical 

2:15-cv-11838-MFL-EAS Doc # 23 Filed 08/18/16 Pg 9 of 19 Pg ID 1068
10 

Source Statement reading “please see attached psych eval.” (See id., ECF #7-7 at 

286-87, Pg. ID 629-30.) But Bolton did not provide a citation indicating where the 

“attached psych eval” appears in the record (and it is unclear whether the alleged 

evaluation was ever included in the record). To the extent that the “attached psych 

eval” refers to Dr. Ayeni’s treatment notes, they are no different than the Medical 

Source Statements. That is, Dr. Ayeni’s treatment notes are also conclusory and 

also in checkbox form. (See, e.g., Admin. R., ECF #7-7 at 47, Pg. ID 390.) 

Additionally, those notes show that Dr. Ayeni’s sessions with Bolton were brief 

and infrequent: Bolton saw Dr. Ayeni approximately once per month for no more 

than ten minutes at a time. (See, e.g., id. at 31, Pg. ID 374.) 

 The ALJ also assigned little weight to the opinions of Dr. Ayeni and Mr. 

Haefner because he concluded that their opinions were “inconsistent with the 

overall record.” (ALJ’s Decision, ECF #7-2 at 35, Pg. ID 66.) With respect to Dr. 

Ayeni, the ALJ noted that his assessments of Bolton were internally conflicting. 

Dr. Ayeni indicated that Bolton was severely impaired, yet he invariably assigned 

Bolton a global assessment of functioning score (“GAF score”) of 55 – which 

indicates only moderate impairment, see Norris v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 461 Fed. 

App’x 433, 436 n.1 (6th Cir. 2012) – at each session regardless of Bolton’s 

symptoms. (See, e.g., Admin. R., ECF #7-7 at 32, Pg. ID 375.) Indeed, Bolton 

received a GAF score of 55 even when Dr. Ayeni noted that Bolton was 

2:15-cv-11838-MFL-EAS Doc # 23 Filed 08/18/16 Pg 10 of 19 Pg ID 1069
11 

“delusional,” “paranoid,” and experiencing “hallucinations.” (See id. at 94-95, Pg. 

ID 437-38.) Dr. Ayeni also continued to prescribe Bolton “the same medication at 

the same amounts throughout his treatment” irrespective of his symptoms. (ALJ’s 

Decision, ECF #7-2 at 35, Pg. ID 66.) Given these aspects of Dr. Ayeni’s 

assessments of Bolton, the ALJ reasonably chose to assign Dr. Ayeni’s medical 

opinion minimal weight. 

The ALJ similarly noted that Mr. Haefner’s conclusion that Bolton was 

completely disabled was not consistent with important parts of his treatment 

records. For example, the ALJ noted that although Bolton informed Mr. Haefner 

that he suffered from “auditory hallucinations and paranoia,” Bolton also reported 

that “he [was] managing his symptoms effectively via psychotropic medications.” 

(ALJ’s Decision, ECF #7-2 at 30, Pg. ID 61.) The ALJ also cited Mr. Haefner’s 

treatment notes indicating that Bolton “minimized [the] impact [of his 

hallucinations and paranoia] on his life and was more focused on medical and 

financial issues” during their sessions. (Id. at 31, Pg. ID 62.) Finally, the ALJ 

pointed out that Bolton “told treating sources that he [had] no limitations with 

respect to activities of daily living.” (Id. at 32, Pg. ID 63.) 

Put simply, Dr. Ayeni’s and Mr. Haefner’s assessments that Bolton had 

“marked limitations for all functions” were inconsistent with material aspects of 

(1) Bolton’s treatment records, (2) his self-reports, and (3) the record as a whole. 

2:15-cv-11838-MFL-EAS Doc # 23 Filed 08/18/16 Pg 11 of 19 Pg ID 1070
12 

These internal inconsistencies between the treating sources’ opinions and their own 

treatment notes and/or records provide yet another reason for the ALJ to assign 

their opinions minimal weight. 

 Thus, the Court concludes that the ALJ provided good reasons for assigning 

little weight to the opinions of Dr. Ayeni and Mr. Haefner and this objection is 

overruled. 

B. The ALJ Did Not Err By Assigning Great Weight to Dr. Morrow’s 

Opinion 

 Bolton objects that the ALJ improperly assigned great weight to Dr. 

Morrow’s opinion for three reasons: (1) Dr. Morrow was “unable to review the 

complete medical record, including [Bolton’s] diagnosis of schizophrenia in May 

2013, before making her conclusion in 2012” (Objections, ECF #21 at 3, Pg. ID 

1033), (2) Dr. Morrow’s opinion relied on facts not in evidence (id. at 6, Pg. ID 

1036), and (3) Dr. Morrow “specializes in psychology and not psychiatry” and 

therefore her “opinions relating to the practice of medicine should be rejected,” (id.

at 6-7, Pg. ID 1036-37). The Court considers each reason in turn. 

 The parties do not dispute that Dr. Morrow did not review Bolton’s complete 

medical record. And there is no question that Dr. Morrow opined that Bolton was 

capable of performing “at least simple, unskilled work” in September 2012, 

approximately eight months before Bolton was diagnosed with schizophrenia in 

May 2013. (See Admin. R., ECF #7-3 at 13, Pg. ID 164.) Bolton contends that the 

2:15-cv-11838-MFL-EAS Doc # 23 Filed 08/18/16 Pg 12 of 19 Pg ID 1071
13 

ALJ’s decision to assign great weight to Dr. Morrow’s opinion even though she 

did not review the entire medical record is reversible error under Blakely v. 

Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 581 F.3d 399, 409 (6th Cir. 2009). In Blakely, the United 

States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed a denial of benefits, in part, 

because the ALJ relied on the opinions of state-agency physicians who had not 

reviewed several crucial medical records regarding the claimant’s alleged 

impairments. 

However, “[t]here is no categorical requirement that the non-treating 

source’s opinion be based on a ‘complete’ or ‘more detailed and comprehensive’ 

case record.” Helm v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 405 Fed. App’x 997, 1002 (6th Cir. 

2011). Moreover (and as the Magistrate Judge aptly noted), the ALJ in Blakely

failed to indicate whether she “had considered the evidence subsequent to the state 

agency physicians’ opinions before giving them great weight.” (R&R, ECF #20 at 

7, Pg. ID 1018 (citing Blakely, 581 F.3d at 409).) In contrast, the ALJ in this 

action explicitly stated that Dr. Morrow’s opinion was “consistent with the overall 

record including the claimant’s treatment record . . . .” (ALJ’s Decision, ECF #7-

2 at 36, Pg. ID 67; emphasis added.) Furthermore, Bolton has failed to explain 

how Dr. Morrow’s opinion would have changed if she had known that Bolton was 

diagnosed with schizophrenia – especially considering that Dr. Ayeni uniformly 

assigned Bolton a GAF score of 55 even after Bolton received his diagnosis. 

2:15-cv-11838-MFL-EAS Doc # 23 Filed 08/18/16 Pg 13 of 19 Pg ID 1072
14 

With respect to Bolton’s argument that Dr. Morrow relied on facts not in 

evidence, Bolton asserts that 

Dr. Morrow incorrectly found that Plaintiff was 

“employed as a pipefitter from 1988 – 2011 until 

significant heart problems began.” [] It is unclear what 

evidence Dr. Morrow relied on because (1) Plaintiff was 

incarcerated and performed no work from 2006 to 

2010, and, (2) the Magistrate Judge acknowledges [] 

Plaintiff asserted that work ceased in 2011 due to 

problems with his eyes, not a heart problem, as Dr. 

Morrow suggests. 

(Objections, ECF #21 at 6, Pg. ID 1036; emphasis in original.) The Court agrees 

that Dr. Morrow was incorrect when she stated that Bolton was “employed as a 

pipe fitter from 1988 – 2011” and stopped working because of “significant heart 

problems.” (Admin. R., ECF #7-3 at 13, Pg. ID 164.) However, Bolton has failed 

to persuade the Court that Dr. Morrow’s error with respect to Bolton’s reasons for 

ceasing work as a pipe fitter (i.e., a heart problem versus an eye problem) impacted 

her analysis in any meaningful way. Furthermore, Dr. Morrow’s misstatement that 

Bolton worked continuously as a pipe fitter from 1988 – 2011 was not integral to 

her conclusion that Bolton was capable of performing “at least simple, unskilled 

work.” (Id.) Thus, Dr. Morrow’s errors on these minor factual issues are not 

material to Bolton’s claim. 

 Finally, Bolton’s assertion that Dr. Morrow’s opinion should be afforded 

great weight because she is a psychologist – not a psychiatrist – lacks merit. 

2:15-cv-11838-MFL-EAS Doc # 23 Filed 08/18/16 Pg 14 of 19 Pg ID 1073
15 

Psychologists and psychiatrists are equally capable of determining whether a 

claimant is mentally impaired. See, e.g., Crum v. Sullivan, 921 F.2d 642, 644-45 

(6th Cir. 1990). 

 Accordingly, Bolton has failed to show that the ALJ erred by assigning great 

weight to Dr. Morrow’s opinion and this objection is overruled. 

C. The ALJ’s RFC Assessment Was Supported by Substantial Evidence 

Bolton’s objection that the ALJ’s RFC assessment was not supported by 

substantial evidence largely restates his objections that the ALJ did not follow the 

treating-source rule and assigned great weight to Dr. Morrow’s opinion in error. 

However, Bolton makes the additional argument that the ALJ did “not adopt the 

RFC findings from the State Agency physicians nor [did] the ALJ adopt the 

opinions of Plaintiff’s treating physicians. Instead, the ALJ develop[ed] his own 

RFC without explaining what medical evidence support[ed] his independent RFC 

finding.” (Objections, ECF #21 at 10, Pg. ID 1040.) 

 Bolton is incorrect. The ALJ explained the basis for his RFC assessment by 

explicitly referring to medical evidence the record. The Court provides a nonexhaustive list of evidence (or lack thereof) to which the ALJ referred below: 

 “There is no medical evidence to support allegations regarding eye or vision 

problems, knee or leg pain or injury, headaches or speech problems.” (ALJ’s 

Decision, ECF #7-2 at 34, Pg. ID 65.) 

 “[T]he record reveals that [Bolton’s] blood pressure readings are typically 

within normal limits . . . .” (Id.) 

2:15-cv-11838-MFL-EAS Doc # 23 Filed 08/18/16 Pg 15 of 19 Pg ID 1074
16 

 “The record reflects that the claimant has first degree [atrioventricular] 

block. However, physical examination results throughout the record have 

been unremarkable and a CT angiography was unremarkable, including 

reflecting a coronary artery calcium score of zero, normal coronary arteries, 

and normal left and right ventricular size.” (Id.) 

 “I note that the claimant’s psychiatric exams during treatment for physical 

conditions have been completely normal. . . . I note that [the] record reflects 

that the claimant is independent with respect to activities of daily living.” 

(Id. at 35, Pg. ID 66.) 

 “With respect to his mental treatment, the claimant, who acknowledges that 

he has difficulty finding a job due to his prison record, alleges having 

depression with non-command auditory hallucinations and paranoia. 

However, the claimant’s treatment records are to a large degree 

unremarkable.” (Id.) 

 “I note that the [Medical Source Statements] are inconsistent with the 

claimant’s treatment record, which among other things, continually reflects a 

global assessment of functioning score of 55, which is completely 

inconsistent with the finding that the claimant has marked limitations for all 

functions.” (Id.) 

The Court concludes that the ALJ reviewed the record (including Bolton’s 

medical records) and that his RFC assessment was supported by substantial 

evidence. Accordingly, this objection is overruled. 

D. Bolton Has Demonstrated No Error With the ALJ’s RFC Assessment 

Under SSA 96-8p 

 Bolton objects that the ALJ did not comply with SSR 96-8p for two reasons. 

First, Bolton objects that the “ALJ ignored hundreds of pages of medical records,” 

(Objections, ECF #21 at 11, Pg. ID 1041), which, as the Court has already 

explained, is incorrect. Second, Bolton objects that the ALJ “also disregarded the 

2:15-cv-11838-MFL-EAS Doc # 23 Filed 08/18/16 Pg 16 of 19 Pg ID 1075
17 

additional hypotheticals posed to the VE by [Bolton’s] attorney, which asked if 

Plaintiff would be able to work if he required frequent breaks or had to miss three 

or more days of work per month due to illness. [] The VE clearly stated that such a 

requirement would preclude Plaintiff from holding a job.” (Id.) 

 A VE’s response to an ALJ’s hypothetical question constitutes substantial 

evidence for the purposes of SSR 96-8p only to the extent that the hypothetical 

question “accurately portrays [the claimant’s] individual physical and mental 

impairments.” Littlepage v. Chater, 134 F.3d 371 (6th Cir. 1998) (Table) (quoting 

Varley v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 820 F.2d 777, 779 (6th Cir. 1987); see 

also Gant v. Comm’r of Soc Sec., 372 Fed App’x 582, 585 (6th Cir. 2010) (“[I]n 

formulating a hypothetical question, an ALJ is only required to incorporate those 

limitations which he has deemed credible.”). 

 The ALJ was not required to rely on the hypothetical questions Bolton has 

identified in the Objections because they did not accurately portray his physical 

and mental impairments. Those hypothetical questions assumed that Bolton is 

totally disabled and cannot work. But the pieces of evidence in support of this 

contention – namely, the opinions of Dr. Ayeni and Mr. Haefner – were properly 

assigned minimal weight by the ALJ. Furthermore, the ALJ concluded that 

Bolton’s testimony regarding the severity of his symptoms was not credible. (See

ALJ’s Decision, ECF #7-2 at 35, Pg. ID 66 (“In terms of credibility, I note that the 

2:15-cv-11838-MFL-EAS Doc # 23 Filed 08/18/16 Pg 17 of 19 Pg ID 1076
18 

claimant’s treatment record and his activities of daily living do not support the 

claimant’s alleged symptoms and degree of limitations.”).) Rather, the ALJ noted 

that the record showed that Bolton “writes music, is pursuing an entertainment 

career, shops at local stores, and is involved in church activities” and that 

“[a]lthough not dispositive of disability . . . [Bolton] has collected unemployment 

benefits after his alleged onset date, and he thus had to indicate his readiness to 

work when applying and continuing to receive such benefits.” (Id.) 

 Accordingly, this objection is overruled. 

CONCLUSION

 For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 

 Bolton’s Objections to the R&R (ECF #21) are OVERRULED; 

 The Magistrate Judge’s recommended disposition in the R&R is 

ADOPTED; 

 Bolton’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF #14) is DENIED; and 

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

GRANTED. 

s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: August 18, 2016 

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

parties and/or counsel of record on August 18, 2016, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

2:15-cv-11838-MFL-EAS Doc # 23 Filed 08/18/16 Pg 18 of 19 Pg ID 1077
19 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (313) 234-5113 

2:15-cv-11838-MFL-EAS Doc # 23 Filed 08/18/16 Pg 19 of 19 Pg ID 1078