Report and Recommendation

Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment

1 Johnson v. Comm’r; 08-14363

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

NANCY MAE JOHNSON, Case No. 08-14363

Plaintiff, George Carman Steeh

v. United States District Judge

COMMISSIONER OF Michael Hluchaniuk

SOCIAL SECURITY, United States Magistrate Judge

Defendant.

 /

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Dkt. 11, 14)

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A. Proceedings in this Court

On October 14, 2008, plaintiff filed the instant suit seeking judicial review

of the Commissioner’s unfavorable decision disallowing benefits. (Dkt. 1). 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.1(b)(3), District Judge

George Caram Steeh referred this matter to the undersigned for the purpose of

reviewing the Commissioner’s decision denying plaintiff’s claim for a period of

Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income benefits. (Dkt. 2). This

matter is currently before the Court on cross-motions for summary judgment. 

(Dkt. 11, 14).

2:08-cv-14363-GCS-MJH Doc # 15 Filed 01/15/10 Pg 1 of 29 Pg ID 391
Report and Recommendation

Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment

2 Johnson v. Comm’r; 08-14363

B. Administrative Proceedings

Plaintiff filed the instant claims on June 23, 2005, alleging that she became

unable to work on September 1, 2003. (Tr. at 50-52). The claim was initially

disapproved by the Commissioner on December 6, 2005. (Tr. at 33-36). Plaintiff

requested a hearing and on August 29, 2007, plaintiff appeared with counsel before

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Joan G. Knight, who considered the case de

novo. In a decision dated January 25, 2006, the ALJ found that plaintiff was not

disabled. (Tr. at 13-21). Plaintiff requested a review of this decision on February

7, 2008. (Tr. at 8-9). The ALJ’s decision became the final decision of the

Commissioner when the Appeals Council, on August 26, 2008, denied plaintiff’s

request for review. (Tr. at 2-4); Wilson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 378 F.3d 541, 543-

44 (6th Cir. 2004). 

In light of the entire record in this case, I suggest that substantial evidence

supports the Commissioner’s determination that plaintiff is not disabled. 

Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for summary

judgment be DENIED, defendant’s motion for summary judgment be GRANTED,

and that the findings of the Commissioner be AFFIRMED. 

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

A. ALJ Findings

Plaintiff was 51years of age at the time of the most recent administrative

2:08-cv-14363-GCS-MJH Doc # 15 Filed 01/15/10 Pg 2 of 29 Pg ID 392
Report and Recommendation

Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment

3 Johnson v. Comm’r; 08-14363

hearing. (Tr. at 14). Plaintiff’s relevant work history included approximately 10

years as a dietary aid. (Tr. at 110). In denying plaintiff’s claims, defendant

Commissioner considered diabetes, high blood pressure, problems with eyesight,

carpal tunnel syndrome in the right hand, and pain in both feet as possible bases of

disability. (Tr. at 14).

The ALJ applied the five-step disability analysis to plaintiff’s claim and

found at step one that plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since

September 1, 2003. (Tr. at 14). At step two, the ALJ found that plaintiff’s

diabetes, hypertension, mild bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, and depressive

disorder were “severe” within the meaning of the second sequential step. (Tr. at

15). At step three, the ALJ found no evidence that plaintiff’s combination of

impairments met or equaled one of the listings in the regulations. Id. At step four,

the ALJ found that plaintiff could not perform her previous work as a dietary aide,

but could perform a limited range of light work. (Tr. at 16). At step five, the ALJ

denied plaintiff benefits because plaintiff could perform a significant number of

jobs available in the national economy. (Tr. at 19).

B. Parties’ Arguments

1. Plaintiff’s claims of error

According to plaintiff, contrary to Social Security Ruling 96-8p, the ALJ

never discussed or evaluated the mental residual functional capacity (RFC)

2:08-cv-14363-GCS-MJH Doc # 15 Filed 01/15/10 Pg 3 of 29 Pg ID 393
Report and Recommendation

Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment

4 Johnson v. Comm’r; 08-14363

assessment form where the state agency physician opined that plaintiff suffered

from a “moderate limitation” in “the ability to complete a normal workday and

workweek without interruptions from psychologically based symptoms and to

perform at a consistent pace without an unreasonable number and length of rest

periods.” (Tr. at 171). At the hearing, the vocational expert (VE) was asked to

assume “an individual [who] 20 percent of the time or approximately one day a

week were unable to complete a normal workday and workweek without

interruptions from psychologically based symptoms or unable to perform at a

consistent pace without an unreasonable number and length of rest periods.” The

VE confirmed that such an individual would be precluded from work. (Tr. at 331). 

Plaintiff argues that, under Bankston v. Comm’r of Soc. Security, 127 F.Supp.2d

820 (E.D. Mich. 2000), “moderate” in the state agency physician’s assessment is

equivalent to “often” under the Commissioner’s prior regulations in effect at the

time Bankston was decided which equates to 20 percent of a 40 hour work week. 

Thus, plaintiff argues, she is precluded from work, based on the VE’s testimony.

2. Commissioner’s counter-motion for summary judgment

According to the Commissioner, despite citing to case law regarding

evaluating opinions of treating physicians, plaintiff argues only that the ALJ failed

to discuss the Mental Residual Functional Capacity (MRFC) assessment form

completed by the state agency psychiatrist. The Commissioner also asserts that

2:08-cv-14363-GCS-MJH Doc # 15 Filed 01/15/10 Pg 4 of 29 Pg ID 394
Report and Recommendation

Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment

5 Johnson v. Comm’r; 08-14363

plaintiff offers no precedential authority supporting her assumption that the

“moderate” limitation (in the ability to complete a normal workday and workweek

without psychologically based symptoms and to perform at a consistent pace

without an unreasonable number and length of rest periods) indicated in section I

of the MRFC assessment form, equates with missing work 20 percent of the time

or 1 day per week. 

Rather, according to the Commissioner, section I of the MRFC assessment

form is entitled “Summary Conclusions,” and it is defined as “merely a worksheet

to aid in deciding the presence and degree of functional limitations and the

adequacy of the documentation and does not constitute the RFC assessment.”

Social Security Administration’s Program Operations Manual System (POMS) DI

24510.060.7. In contrast, asserts the Commissioner, section III of the MRFC

assessment form is entitled “Functional Capacity Assessment” and “is for

recording the mental RFC determination. It is in this section that the actual mental

RFC assessment is recorded, explaining the conclusions indicated in section I, in

terms of the extent to which these mental capacities or functions could or could not

be performed in work settings.” POMS DI 24510.060. Section III confines its

discussion to the effects of the impairments on functioning, and should not include

“severity ratings or nonspecific qualifying terms (e.g., moderate, moderately

severe) to describe limitations. Such terms do not describe function and do not

2:08-cv-14363-GCS-MJH Doc # 15 Filed 01/15/10 Pg 5 of 29 Pg ID 395
Report and Recommendation

Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment

6 Johnson v. Comm’r; 08-14363

usefully convey the extent of capacity limitation.” POMS DI 24510.065. Thus,

according to the Commissioner, the state agency psychiatrist’s indication that

plaintiff had a “moderate” limitation in section I of the MRFC assessment form

was merely a preliminary finding used to make the RFC determination in section

III. 

In contrast, according to the Commissioner, in section III of the MRFC

assessment form, the state agency psychiatrist specified that plaintiff was capable

of interacting with coworkers, had some difficulty interacting appropriately with

the general public, and some difficulty adapting to routine changes. (Tr. at 172). 

According to the Commissioner, she translated the Section I “Summary

Conclusions” into concrete limitations, concluding that plaintiff appeared to be

able to understand and remember simple instructions; maintain the level of

attention and concentration required to perform simple, routine, repetitive tasks in

a low production setting and with limited interpersonal demands. (Tr. 172). 

Notably, “[s]tate agency medical and psychological consultants and other program

physicians and psychologists are highly qualified physicians and psychologists

who are also experts in Social Security disability evaluation.” 20 C.F.R.

§ 404.1527(f)(2)(I). Thus, the state agency psychiatrist presumably completed the

form in accordance with Agency policy, and set forth plaintiff’s mental RFC in

section III of the MRFC assessment form. 

2:08-cv-14363-GCS-MJH Doc # 15 Filed 01/15/10 Pg 6 of 29 Pg ID 396
Report and Recommendation

Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment

7 Johnson v. Comm’r; 08-14363

The Commissioner disputes plaintiff’s characterization that the ALJ failed to

consider the opinion of the state agency psychiatrist, and argues that the ALJ

expressly considered the medical opinions of all of the state agency physicians

when making her RFC finding. (Tr. 19). The Commissioner also argues that the

ALJ’s mental RFC finding was consistent with the opinion of the state agency

psychiatrist. The ALJ indicated that she had afforded the opinions of the state

agency medical consultants, including that of the state agency psychiatrist,

persuasive weight finding that the opinions of the medical consultants were

consistent with her findings. (Tr. 19). The Commissioner also points out that the

ALJ’s mental RFC finding was supported by the opinion of Dr. Dickson, a

consultative psychologist, who evaluated plaintiff and opined that plaintiff’s

psychological condition would only mildly impair her ability to perform work

related activities and assessed her with a GAF of 65, which is indicative of some

mild symptoms or some difficulty in social, occupational, or school functioning. 

(Tr. at 34). 

After determining plaintiff’s RFC, the ALJ relied on the VE’s responses to a

hypothetical question, which included plaintiff’s RFC of a range of light work in

addition to performing simple, routine, repetitive tasks in a work setting with low

production requirements and limited interpersonal demands, to find that she could

perform a significant number of jobs in the economy. (Tr. 19). According to the

2:08-cv-14363-GCS-MJH Doc # 15 Filed 01/15/10 Pg 7 of 29 Pg ID 397
Report and Recommendation

Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment

8 Johnson v. Comm’r; 08-14363

Commissioner, assuming that the ALJ’s RFC finding was supported by substantial

evidence, plaintiff does not allege any additional errors with the ALJ’s reliance on

the VE’s testimony to find she was not disabled at step five of the sequential

analysis. (Dkt. 14). 

III. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

In enacting the social security system, Congress created a two-tiered system

in which the administrative agency handles claims, and the judiciary merely

reviews the agency determination for exceeding statutory authority or for being

arbitrary and capricious. Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521 (1990). The

administrative process itself is multifaceted in that a state agency makes an initial

determination that can be appealed first to the agency itself, then to an ALJ, and

finally to the Appeals Council. Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137 (1987). If relief is

not found during this administrative review process, the claimant may file an

action in federal district court. Id.; Mullen v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 535, 537 (6th Cir.

1986).

This Court has original jurisdiction to review the Commissioner’s final

administrative decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Judicial review under this

statute is limited in that the court “must affirm the Commissioner’s conclusions

absent a determination that the Commissioner has failed to apply the correct legal

2:08-cv-14363-GCS-MJH Doc # 15 Filed 01/15/10 Pg 8 of 29 Pg ID 398
Report and Recommendation

Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment

9 Johnson v. Comm’r; 08-14363

standard or has made findings of fact unsupported by substantial evidence in the

record.” Longworth v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 402 F.3d 591, 595 (6th Cir. 2005);

Walters v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 127 F.3d 525, 528 (6th Cir. 1997). In deciding

whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision, “we do not try the case

de novo, resolve conflicts in evidence, or decide questions of credibility.” Bass v.

McMahon, 499 F.3d 506, 509 (6th Cir. 2007); Garner v. Heckler, 745 F.2d 383,

387 (6th Cir. 1984). “It is of course for the ALJ, and not the reviewing court, to

evaluate the credibility of witnesses, including that of the claimant.” Rogers v.

Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 486 F.3d 234, 247 (6th Cir. 2007); Jones v. Comm’r of Soc.

Sec., 336 F.3d 469, 475 (6th Cir. 2003) (an “ALJ is not required to accept a

claimant’s subjective complaints and may...consider the credibility of a claimant

when making a determination of disability.”); Cruse v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 502

F.3d 532, 542 (6th Cir. 2007) (the “ALJ’s credibility determinations about the

claimant are to be given great weight, particularly since the ALJ is charged with

observing the claimant’s demeanor and credibility.”) (quotation marks omitted);

Walters, 127 F.3d at 531 (“Discounting credibility to a certain degree is

appropriate where an ALJ finds contradictions among medical reports, claimant’s

testimony, and other evidence.”). “However, the ALJ is not free to make

credibility determinations based solely upon an ‘intangible or intuitive notion

about an individual’s credibility.’” Rogers, 486 F.3d at 247, quoting, Soc. Sec.

2:08-cv-14363-GCS-MJH Doc # 15 Filed 01/15/10 Pg 9 of 29 Pg ID 399
Report and Recommendation

Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment

10 Johnson v. Comm’r; 08-14363

Rul. 96-7p, 1996 WL 374186, *4.

 If supported by substantial evidence, the Commissioner’s findings of fact are

conclusive. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Therefore, this Court may not reverse the

Commissioner’s decision merely because it disagrees or because “there exists in

the record substantial evidence to support a different conclusion.” McClanahan v.

Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 474 F.3d 830, 833 (6th Cir. 2006); Mullen v. Bowen, 800

F.2d 535, 545 (6th Cir. 1986) (en banc). 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, 486

F.3d at 241; Jones, 336 F.3d at 475. “The substantial evidence standard

presupposes that there is a ‘zone of choice’ within which the Commissioner may

proceed without interference from the courts.” Felisky v. Bowen, 35 F.3d 1027,

1035 (6th Cir. 1994) (citations omitted), citing, Mullen, 800 F.2d at 545. 

The scope of this Court’s review is limited to an examination of the record

only. Bass, 499 F.3d at 512-13; Foster v. Halter, 279 F.3d 348, 357 (6th Cir.

2001). When reviewing the Commissioner’s factual findings for substantial

evidence, a reviewing court must consider the evidence in the record as a whole,

including that evidence which might subtract from its weight. Wyatt v. Sec’y of

Health & Human Servs., 974 F.2d 680, 683 (6th Cir. 1992). “Both the court of

appeals and the district court may look to any evidence in the record, regardless of

2:08-cv-14363-GCS-MJH Doc # 15 Filed 01/15/10 Pg 10 of 29 Pg ID 400
Report and Recommendation

Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment

11 Johnson v. Comm’r; 08-14363

whether it has been cited by the Appeals Council.” Heston v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.,

245 F.3d 528, 535 (6th Cir. 2001). There is no requirement, however, that either

the ALJ or the reviewing court must discuss every piece of evidence in the

administrative record. Kornecky v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 167 Fed.Appx. 496, 508

(6th Cir. 2006) (“[a]n ALJ can consider all the evidence without directly

addressing in his written decision every piece of evidence submitted by a party.”)

(internal citation marks omitted); see also Van Der Maas v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.,

198 Fed.Appx. 521, 526 (6th Cir. 2006). 

B. Governing Law

1. Burden of proof

The “[c]laimant bears the burden of proving his entitlement to benefits.” 

Boyes v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 46 F.3d 510, 512 (6th Cir. 1994);

accord, Bartyzel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 74 Fed.Appx. 515, 524 (6th Cir. 2003). 

There are several benefits programs under the Act, including the Disability

Insurance Benefits Program (“DIB”) of Title II (42 U.S.C. §§ 401 et seq.) and the

Supplemental Security Income Program (“SSI”) of Title XVI (42 U.S.C. §§ 1381

et seq.). Title II benefits are available to qualifying wage earners who become

disabled prior to the expiration of their insured status; Title XVI benefits are

available to poverty stricken adults and children who become disabled. F. Bloch,

Federal Disability Law and Practice § 1.1 (1984). While the two programs have

2:08-cv-14363-GCS-MJH Doc # 15 Filed 01/15/10 Pg 11 of 29 Pg ID 401
Report and Recommendation

Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment

12 Johnson v. Comm’r; 08-14363

different eligibility requirements, “DIB and SSI are available only for those who

have a ‘disability.’” Colvin v. Barnhart, 475 F.3d 727, 730 (6th Cir. 2007). 

“Disability” means:

inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by

reason of any medically determinable physical or mental

impairment which can be expected to result in death or

which has lasted or can be expected to last for a

continuous period of not less than 12 months.

42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(A) (DIB); see also, 20 C.F.R. § 416.905(a)

(SSI).

The Commissioner’s regulations provide that disability is to be determined

through the application of a five-step sequential analysis:

Step One: If the claimant is currently engaged in

substantial gainful activity, benefits are denied without

further analysis.

Step Two: If the claimant does not have a severe

impairment or combination of impairments, that

“significantly limits...physical or mental ability to do

basic work activities,” benefits are denied without further

analysis.

Step Three: If plaintiff is not performing substantial

gainful activity, has a severe impairment that is expected

to last for at least twelve months, and the severe

impairment meets or equals one of the impairments listed

in the regulations, the claimant is conclusively presumed

to be disabled regardless of age, education or work

experience.

Step Four: If the claimant is able to perform his or her

2:08-cv-14363-GCS-MJH Doc # 15 Filed 01/15/10 Pg 12 of 29 Pg ID 402
Report and Recommendation

Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment

13 Johnson v. Comm’r; 08-14363

past relevant work, benefits are denied without further

analysis.

Step Five: Even if the claimant is unable to perform his

or her past relevant work, if other work exists in the

national economy that plaintiff can perform, in view of

his or her age, education, and work experience, benefits

are denied.

Carpenter v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 2008 WL 4793424 (E.D. Mich. 2008), citing, 20

C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920; Heston, 245 F.3d at 534. “If the Commissioner

makes a dispositive finding at any point in the five-step process, the review

terminates.” Colvin, 475 F.3d at 730. 

“Through step four, the claimant bears the burden of proving the existence

and severity of limitations caused by her impairments and the fact that she is

precluded from performing her past relevant work.” Jones, 336 F.3d at 474, cited

with approval in Cruse, 502 F.3d at 540. If the analysis reaches the fifth step

without a finding that the claimant is not disabled, the burden transfers to the

Commissioner. Combs v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 459 F.3d 640, 643 (6th Cir. 2006). 

At the fifth step, the Commissioner is required to show that “other jobs in

significant numbers exist in the national economy that [claimant] could perform

given [his] RFC and considering relevant vocational factors.” Rogers, 486 F.3d at

241; 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)(4)(v) and (g).

2:08-cv-14363-GCS-MJH Doc # 15 Filed 01/15/10 Pg 13 of 29 Pg ID 403
Report and Recommendation

Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment

14 Johnson v. Comm’r; 08-14363

2. Substantial evidence

If the Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, the

decision must be affirmed even if the court would have decided the matter

differently and even where substantial evidence supports the opposite conclusion. 

McClanahan, 474 F.3d at 833; Mullen, 800 F.2d at 545. In other words, where

substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision, it must be upheld. 

In weighing the opinions and medical evidence, the ALJ must consider

relevant factors such as the length, nature and extent of the treating relationship,

the frequency of examination, the medical specialty of the treating physician, the

opinion’s evidentiary support, and its consistency with the record as a whole. 20

C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)-(6). Therefore, a medical opinion of an examining source

is entitled to more weight than a non-examining source and a treating physician’s

opinion is entitled to more weight than a consultative physician who only

examined the claimant one time. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1)-(2). A decision

denying benefits “must contain specific reasons for the weight given to the treating

source’s medical opinion, supported by the evidence in the case record, and must

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

adjudicator gave to the treating source’s opinion and the reasons for that weight.” 

Soc.Sec.R. 9602p, 1996 WL 374188, *5 (1996). The opinion of a treating

physician should be given controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically

2:08-cv-14363-GCS-MJH Doc # 15 Filed 01/15/10 Pg 14 of 29 Pg ID 404
Report and Recommendation

Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment

15 Johnson v. Comm’r; 08-14363

acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and is not “inconsistent

with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” Wilson, 378 F.3d at 544;

20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). A physician qualifies as a treating source if the

claimant sees her “with a frequency consistent with accepted medical practice for

the type of treatment and/or evaluation required for [the] medical condition.” 20

C.F.R. § 404.1502. “Although the ALJ is not bound by a treating physician’s

opinion, ‘he must set forth the reasons for rejecting the opinion in his decision.’” 

Dent v. Astrue, 2008 WL 822078, *16 (W.D. Tenn. 2008) (citation omitted). 

“Claimants are entitled to receive good reasons for the weight accorded their

treating sources independent of their substantive right to receive disability

benefits.” Smith v. Comm’r of Social Security, 482 F.3d 873, 875 (6th Cir. 2007). 

“The opinion of a non-examining physician, on the other hand, ‘is entitled to little

weight if it is contrary to the opinion of the claimant’s treating physician.’” Adams

v. Massanari, 55 Fed.Appx. 279, 284 (6th Cir. 2003). The findings of a

psychologist are relevant in establishing the existence and severity of a mental

impairment, and a psychologist’s evaluation of the disabling nature of a mental

impairment need not be given less weight than that of a psychiatrist. Crum v.

Sullivan, 921 F.2d 642 (6th Cir. 1990).

C. Analysis and Conclusions

The residual functional capacity circumscribes “the claimant’s residual

2:08-cv-14363-GCS-MJH Doc # 15 Filed 01/15/10 Pg 15 of 29 Pg ID 405
Report and Recommendation

Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment

16 Johnson v. Comm’r; 08-14363

abilities or what a claimant can do, not what maladies a claimant suffers fromthough the maladies will certainly inform the ALJ’s conclusion about the

claimant’s abilities.” Howard v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 276 F.3d 235, 240 (6th Cir.

2002). “A claimant’s severe impairment may or may not affect his or her

functional capacity to do work. One does not necessarily establish the other.”

Yang v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 2004 WL 1765480, *5 (E.D. Mich. 2004). “The

regulations recognize that individuals who have the same severe impairment may

have different [residual functional capacities] depending on their other

impairments, pain, and other symptoms.” Griffeth v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 217

Fed.Appx. 425, 429 (6th Cir. 2007); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(e). Not all impairments

deemed “severe” in step two must be included in the hypothetical. Griffeth, 217

Fed.Appx. at 429. “The rule that a hypothetical question must incorporate all of

the claimant’s physical and mental limitations does not divest the ALJ of his or her

obligation to assess credibility and determine the facts.” Redfield v. Comm’r of

Soc. Sec., 366 F.Supp.2d 489, 497 (E.D. Mich. 2005). The ALJ is only required to

incorporate the limitations that he finds credible. Casey, 987 F.2d at 1235. This

obligation to assess credibility extends to the claimant’s subjective complaints such

that the ALJ “can present a hypothetical to the VE on the basis of his own

assessment if he reasonably deems the claimant’s testimony to be inaccurate.” 

Jones, 336 F.3d at 476. When weighing credibility, an ALJ may give less weight

2:08-cv-14363-GCS-MJH Doc # 15 Filed 01/15/10 Pg 16 of 29 Pg ID 406
Report and Recommendation

Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment

17 Johnson v. Comm’r; 08-14363

to the testimony of interested witnesses. Cummins v. Schweiker, 670 F.2d 81, 84

(7th Cir. 1982) (“a trier of fact is not required to ignore incentives in resolving

issues of credibility.”); Krupa v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 1999 WL 98645, *3 (6th

Cir. 1999). An ALJ’s findings based on the credibility of an applicant are to be

accorded great weight and deference, particularly since the ALJ is charged with the

duty of observing a witness’s demeanor and credibility. Walters v. Comm’r of Soc.

Sec., 127 F.3d 525, 531 (6th Cir. 1997).

The ALJ ultimately determined that plaintiff possessed the residual

functional capacity to perform a limited range of light work. “Light work” is

defined as follows:

Light work involves lifting no more than 20 pounds at a

time with frequent lifting or carrying of objects weighing

up to 10 pounds. Even though the weight lifted may be

very little, a job is in this category when it requires a

good deal of walking or standing, or when it involves

sitting most of the time with some pushing and pulling of

arm or leg controls. To be considered capable of

performing a full or wide range of light work, you must

have the ability to do substantially all of these activities. 

If someone can do light work, we determine that he or

she can also do sedentary work, unless there are

additional limiting factors such as loss of fine dexterity or

inability to sit for long periods of time. 

20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(b).

The only issue raised by plaintiff on appeal is whether the ALJ properly

incorporated her mental impairment into the hypothetical question posed to the VE,

2:08-cv-14363-GCS-MJH Doc # 15 Filed 01/15/10 Pg 17 of 29 Pg ID 407
Report and Recommendation

Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment

18 Johnson v. Comm’r; 08-14363

and thus, whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision. As to an

allegedly disabling mental impairment, the Commissioner has promulgated a

special technique to ensure that all evidence needed for the evaluation of such a

claim is obtained and evaluated. This technique was designed to work in

conjunction with the sequential evaluation process set out for the evaluation of

physical impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520a, 416.920a. Congress laid the

foundation for making disability determinations when mental impairments are

involved in 42 U.S.C. § 421(h), which provides:

An initial determination under subsection (a), (c), (g), or

(I) of this section that an individual is not under a

disability, in any case where there is evidence which

indicates the existence of a mental impairment, shall be

made only if the Commissioner has made every

reasonable effort to ensure that a qualified psychiatrist or

psychologist has completed the medical portion of the

case review and any applicable residual functional

capacity assessment.

Section 404.1520a explains in detail the special procedure and requires the

completion of “a standard document outlining the steps of this procedure.” 20

C.F.R. § 404. 1520a(d). The regulation further requires the standard document to

be completed and signed by a medical consultant at the initial and reconsideration

levels, but provides other options at the administrative law judge hearing level. Id.

Under this procedure, the Commissioner must first make clinical findings, as to

whether the claimant has a medically determinable mental disorder specified in one

2:08-cv-14363-GCS-MJH Doc # 15 Filed 01/15/10 Pg 18 of 29 Pg ID 408
Report and Recommendation

Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment

19 Johnson v. Comm’r; 08-14363

of eight diagnostic categories defined in the regulations. Merkel v. Comm’r of

Social Security, 2008 WL 2951276, *10 (E.D. Mich. 2008), citing, 20 C.F.R. Pt.

404. Subpt. P, App. 1, § 12.00A. 

The Commissioner must then measure the severity of any mental disorder;

that is, its impact on the applicant’s ability to work. “This is assessed in terms of a

prescribed list of functional restrictions associated with mental disorders.” Merkel,

at *10, citing, 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, § 12.00C. The first area of

functional restriction is “activities of daily living.” This area requires the

Commissioner to determine the claimant’s ability to clean, shop, cook, take public

transportation, maintain a residence and pay bills. Merkel, at *10. Under the

second functional area, “social functioning,” the Commissioner must determine

whether the claimant can interact appropriately and communicate effectively and

clearly with others. Id. The third functional area, “concentration, persistence, or

pace,” refers to the claimant’s ability to sustain focused attention sufficiently long

to permit the timely completion of tasks found in work settings. Id. The final

functional area, that of “deterioration or decompensation in work or work-like

settings,” refers to the claimant’s ability to tolerate increased mental demands

associated with competitive work. Id. 

The degree of limitation in the first three functional areas (activities of daily

living; social functioning; and concentration, persistence, or pace) is rated using a

2:08-cv-14363-GCS-MJH Doc # 15 Filed 01/15/10 Pg 19 of 29 Pg ID 409
Report and Recommendation

Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment

20 Johnson v. Comm’r; 08-14363

five-point scale: None, mild, moderate, marked, and extreme. Pauley v. Comm’r

of Social Security, 2008 WL 2943341, *9 (S.D. Ohio 2008). The degree of

limitation in the fourth functional area (episodes of decompensation) is rated using

a four-point scale: None, one or two, three, four or more. Id. “The last point on

each scale represents a degree of limitation that is incompatible with the ability to

do any gainful activity.” Pauley, at *9, citing, 20 C.F.R. § 404. 1520a(c)(4).

Ratings above “none” and “mild” in the first three functional areas and “none” in

the fourth functional area are considered severe. Pauley, at *9, citing, 20 C.F.R.

§ 404. 1520a(d)(1). If the first two functional areas receive ratings of “none” or

“slight,” the third a rating of “never” or “seldom,” and the fourth a rating of

“never,” the Commissioner will conclude that the mental impairment is not severe,

and that it cannot serve as the basis for a finding of disability. Merkel, at *10,

citing, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520a(c)(1), 404.1521. 

If the functional areas indicate that the mental impairment is “severe,” the

Commissioner must decide whether it meets or equals a listed mental disorder. 

Merkel, at *10, citing, 20 C.F.R. § 1520a(c)(2). The Commissioner will determine

that the claimant is disabled if the mental impairment is a listed mental disorder

and at least two of the criteria have been met. Merkel, at *10, citing, 20 C.F.R. Pt.

404, Subpt. P, App. 1, § 12.02, et. seq. If the severe mental impairment does not

meet a listed mental disorder, the Commissioner must perform a residual functional

2:08-cv-14363-GCS-MJH Doc # 15 Filed 01/15/10 Pg 20 of 29 Pg ID 410
Report and Recommendation

Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment

21 Johnson v. Comm’r; 08-14363

capacity assessment to determine whether the claimant can perform some jobs

notwithstanding his mental impairment. Merkel, at *10, citing, 20 C.F.R.

§§ 404.1520a(c)(3), 416.920a(c)(3).

Matthew P. Dickson, Ph.D., evaluated the claimant on November 7, 2005, at

the request of the Michigan State agency, and diagnosed depressive disorder, not

otherwise specified. Plaintiff was oriented, her speech was unimpaired, and there

was no significant evidence of hallucinations, delusions, persecutions, or

obsessions. Dr. Dickson noted that plaintiff seemed to be malingering during

memory testing. Based on his evaluation, Dr. Dickson opined that plaintiff’s

psychological condition would mildly impair her ability to perform work-related

activities. He indicated that plaintiff’s global assessment of functioning was 65,

suggestive of some mild symptoms, or some difficulty in social or occupational

functioning, but that she was generally functioning reasonably well. In addition to

the physical medical source statement, Dr. Dolven completed a medical source

statement on plaintiff’s ability to perform mental work-related activities. Dr.

Dolven opined she was moderately limited in her ability to withstand the stress and

pressures associated with an eight-hour workday and day-to-day work activity.

Since Dr. Dolven was a family doctor and his records did not disclose that a mental

status examination had been performed, the ALJ found the opinions in his

statement to be unpersuasive. Dr. Dolven’s opinions were also found to be

2:08-cv-14363-GCS-MJH Doc # 15 Filed 01/15/10 Pg 21 of 29 Pg ID 411
Report and Recommendation

Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment

22 Johnson v. Comm’r; 08-14363

inconsistent with the fact that plaintiff was fully capable of taking care of a

household with a disabled brother and a minor child. Further, Dr. Dickson

indicated that plaintiff seemed to exaggerate her symptoms and under-represent her

overall functioning. Given that plaintiff had not received any continuing mental

health treatment from a psychiatrist or psychologist, the ALJ concluded that any

limitations resulting from a mental disorder were less serious than alleged. Based

on the overall record, the ALJ concluded that plaintiff had mild limitations in

restriction of activities of daily living. Plaintiff reported to Dr. Dickson that she

was independent in self-care and personal hygiene, and was able to prepare her

own meals, perform household chores, do the laundry, pay bills, grocery shop, and

drive a car.

The ALJ concluded that plaintiff had moderate difficulties in maintaining

social functioning. Plaintiff indicated that she had satisfactory interactions with

former co-workers when employed, and reported spending time with family, but

denied social interactions with friends. Dr. Dickson noted that plaintiff was

socially inappropriate during the mental status evaluation. In the area of

concentration, persistence or pace, the ALJ found that plaintiff had moderate

difficulties. This determination was based on plaintiff’s limited education, and the

overall evaluation of Dr. Dickson. The ALJ found no episodes of decompensation

and no evidence to establish the presence of the “C” criteria of the Listings. 

2:08-cv-14363-GCS-MJH Doc # 15 Filed 01/15/10 Pg 22 of 29 Pg ID 412
Report and Recommendation

Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment

23 Johnson v. Comm’r; 08-14363

The ALJ noted that the limitations identified in the “B” and “C” criteria

were not a residual functional capacity assessment, but are only used to rate the

severity of mental impairments at steps two and three of the sequential evaluation

process. The mental residual functional capacity assessment used at steps four and

five of the sequential evaluation process requires a more detailed assessment of

plaintiff’s functional limitations. Accordingly, the ALJ translated the “B” and “C”

criteria findings into work-related functions in the residual functional capacity

assessment. In determining her residual functional capacity, the ALJ found that

plaintiff’s claims were not wholly credible with regard to the severity and extent of

her limitations and that she had not been forthcoming about her home activities. 

She reported to Dr. Dickson that she lived alone, had no income, and got money

from her brother to pay her bills. However, tax records for 2005 indicate that she

was paid to provide health care for her brother in her home. Plaintiff further

claimed a niece living with her as a dependent during that entire year. In 2006,

plaintiff claimed her brother and a grandson as dependents on her tax return. The

ALJ concluded that, since she claimed the children as dependents, plaintiff must

have been providing care for them as the responsible adult, as well as providing

care for her brother until May 2007, when he passed away. 

Based on the foregoing, the ALJ concluded that plaintiff had environmental

restrictions involving hazards, such as moving machinery and unprotected heights. 

2:08-cv-14363-GCS-MJH Doc # 15 Filed 01/15/10 Pg 23 of 29 Pg ID 413
Report and Recommendation

Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment

24 Johnson v. Comm’r; 08-14363

In addition, the ALJ found plaintiff capable of performing simple, routine,

repetitive tasks in a work setting with low production requirements and limited

interpersonal demands. The VE was asked to consider a hypothetical individual

with plaintiff’s vocational profile and the residual functional capacity as

determined by the ALJ. The VE testified that such an individual could perform the

unskilled light jobs of inspector with 18,000 jobs regionally and 396,100 jobs

nationally; assembler with 8,000 jobs in the lower peninsula of Michigan and

300,000 jobs in the United States; and, dining room attendant with 5,900 jobs in

the region and 177,000 jobs in the nation. The VE further testified that if the

individual needed to alternate sitting and standing every30 minutes, the position of

dining room attendant would be eliminated. The VE also indicated that the number

of assembler jobs would be reduced to 4,000 regionally and 85,000 nationally; and

the number of inspector jobs would be reduced to 4,000 in the region and 150,000

in the nation.

Plaintiff argues that Bankston v. Comm’r of Soc. Security, 127 F.Supp.2d

820 (E.D. Mich. 2000), found that “moderate” in the state agency physician’s

assessment is equivalent to “often” under the Commissioner’s prior regulations in

effect at the time Bankston was decided. The viability of the Bankston decision,

has been repeatedly questioned as contrary to the Commissioner’s Psychiatric

Review Technique form instructions and the principle of deference to an

2:08-cv-14363-GCS-MJH Doc # 15 Filed 01/15/10 Pg 24 of 29 Pg ID 414
Report and Recommendation

Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment

25 Johnson v. Comm’r; 08-14363

administrative agency’s construction of its own regulations. Benton v. Comm’r of

Social Security, 511 F.Supp.2d 842, 847 (E.D. Mich. 2007); Ogden v. Apfel, Case

No. c-3-00448 (S.D. Ohio 2001) (suggesting that Bankston is simply wrong

because it ignores the Commissioner’s interpretation of “often” in the regulations). 

Bankston correctly notes that a “hypothetical question must consider the severity –

including the degree and/or frequency – of the claimant’s concentration problems.” 

Benton, 511 F.Supp.2d at 847. However, the Benton court rejected the plaintiff’s

assertion that the ALJ must apply a “formulaic 50% reduction in concentration to

Plaintiff based solely on his finding of a moderate limitation in concentration,

persistence, and pace.” Id. Since Bankston, C.F.R. 404.1520a(c)(4) has been

amended to encompass a five-level scale based on severity rather than frequency of

the limitation, as set forth in the scale evaluated in Bankston. Brewer v. Comm’r of

Social Security, 2008 WL 719228, *5 (E.D. Mich. 2008). This Court has

previously concluded that to the extent Bankston was good law under the old

version of § 404.1520a, it is simply inapplicable to the current regulation. Id.

While plaintiff asserts, under SSR 96-8p, that the ALJ failed to adequately

consider and resolve any inconsistencies between its RFC find and any “medical

source” opinions, which, according to plaintiff, includes the opinion of the state

agency physician found in the mental RFC assessment form. Contrary to the

Commissioner’s view “medical source statements are not limited to those by

2:08-cv-14363-GCS-MJH Doc # 15 Filed 01/15/10 Pg 25 of 29 Pg ID 415
Report and Recommendation

Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment

26 Johnson v. Comm’r; 08-14363

treating physicians: “medical source statements” are “opinions about what the

individual can still do despite his or her impairment(s) -- submitted by an

individual’s treating source or other acceptable medical sources.” SSR 96-8p

(emphasis added). In the view of the undersigned, the ALJ properly considered the

mental RFC and incorporated plaintiff’s mental impairments into the RFC. 

As articulated by the Commissioner and the ALJ, plaintiff confuses the

assessment of plaintiff’s mental impairments at step two and three with the

assessment done at steps four and five. The ALJ noted that the limitations

identified in the “B” and “C” criteria were not a residual functional capacity

assessment, but are only used to rate the severity of mental impairments at steps

two and three of the sequential evaluation process. The mental residual functional

capacity assessment used at steps four and five of the sequential evaluation process

requires a more detailed assessment of plaintiff’s functional limitations. 

Accordingly, the ALJ properly translated the “B” and “C” criteria findings into

work-related functions in the residual functional capacity assessment. It was the

work-related functions that were used by the ALJ to formulate the RFC. See also

Commissioner’s discussion of section I versus Section III of the MRFC form.

In light of the medical and other evidence discussed above, I suggest that the

VE’s opinion is consistent with the findings of treating physicians and mental

health professionals, and can properly be considered substantial evidence

2:08-cv-14363-GCS-MJH Doc # 15 Filed 01/15/10 Pg 26 of 29 Pg ID 416
Report and Recommendation

Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment

27 Johnson v. Comm’r; 08-14363

supporting the ALJ’s findings. See Sias v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 861

F.2d 475, 481 (6th Cir. 1988); Hardaway v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 823

F.2d 922, 927-28 (6th Cir. 1987); Varley v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 820

F.2d 777, 779 (6th Cir. 1987). Thus, the undersigned concludes that there is an

insufficient basis on this record to overturn the ALJ’s credibility determination and

that the hypothetical relied on properly reflected plaintiff’s limitations.

After review of the record, the undersigned concludes that the decision of

the ALJ, which ultimately became the final decision of the Commissioner, is

within that “zone of choice within which decisionmakers may go either way

without interference from the courts,” Felisky, 35 F.3d at 1035, as the decision is

supported by substantial evidence. 

IV. RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for

summary judgment be DENIED, defendant’s motion for summary judgment be

GRANTED, and that the findings of the Commissioner be AFFIRMED. 

The parties to this action may object to and seek review of this Report and

Recommendation, but are required to file any objections within 14 days of service,

as provided for in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2). Failure to file specific

objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474

U.S. 140 (1985); Howard v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505 (6th

2:08-cv-14363-GCS-MJH Doc # 15 Filed 01/15/10 Pg 27 of 29 Pg ID 417
Report and Recommendation

Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment

28 Johnson v. Comm’r; 08-14363

Cir. 1981). Filing objections that raise some issues but fail to raise others with

specificity will not preserve all the objections a party might have to this Report and

Recommendation. Willis v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 931 F.2d 390, 401

(6th Cir. 1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370,

1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Pursuant to Local Rule 72.1(d)(2), any objections must be

served on this Magistrate Judge.

Any objections must be labeled as “Objection No. 1,” “Objection No. 2,”

etc. Any objection must recite precisely the provision of this Report and

Recommendation to which it pertains. Not later than 14 days after service of an

objection, the opposing party may file a concise response proportionate to the

objections in length and complexity. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2), Administrative Order

09-AO-042. The response must specifically address each issue raised in the

objections, in the same order, and labeled as “Response to Objection No. 1,”

“Response to Objection No. 2,” etc. If the Court determines that any objections are

without merit, it may rule without awaiting the response.

s/Michael Hluchaniuk 

Date: January 15, 2010 Michael Hluchaniuk

United States Magistrate Judge

2:08-cv-14363-GCS-MJH Doc # 15 Filed 01/15/10 Pg 28 of 29 Pg ID 418
Report and Recommendation

Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment

29 Johnson v. Comm’r; 08-14363

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on January 15, 2010, I electronically filed the foregoing paper

with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system, which will send electronic

notification to the following: Susan K. DeClercq, Mikel E. Lupisella, and the

Commissioner of Social Security.

s/Darlene Chubb 

Judicial Assistant

(810) 341-7850

darlene_chubb@mied.uscourts.gov

2:08-cv-14363-GCS-MJH Doc # 15 Filed 01/15/10 Pg 29 of 29 Pg ID 419