1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JOANNA M. CARTER,

Plaintiff, Case No. 08-15133

HON. BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN

vs.

MAG. JUDGE MARK A. RANDON

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS AND

ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION, GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT, DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND

AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER

I. Introduction

This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Mark A. Randon’s December 11,

2009, Report and Recommendation (“R & R”). Magistrate Judge Randon recommended that the

Court grant Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and deny Plaintiff’s Motion for

Summary Judgment. Plaintiff filed a timely objection to the R & R. Defendant filed a response

to Plaintiff’s objection. The Court has reviewed this matter de novo as required under FED. R.

CIV. P. 72(b) and will accept and adopt the Magistrate Judge’s R & R. 

As a result of its de novo review, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge’s recitation of

the facts in this matter is accurate. Accordingly, the Court will adopt the Magistrate Judge’s

factual record, contained in the R&R at pages 2 through 12. 

2:08-cv-15133-BAF-MAR Doc # 20 Filed 01/28/10 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 687
2

II. Analysis

Plaintiff seeks judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision denying Plaintiff’s claim

for Social Security Disability and Supplemental Security Income benefits.

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 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). 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.” McClanaham v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.,

474 F.3d 830, 833 (6th Cir. 2006). “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). 

The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) determined Plaintiff had the residual functional

capacity (“RFC”) to perform unskilled light exertional work, which included Plaintiff’s past

relevant work as a housekeeper. Plaintiff believes that the ALJ failed to give controlling weight

to her treating physicians’ opinions regarding the limitations that Plaintiff’s ailments impose on

her ability to work. “Generally, the opinions of treating physicians are given substantial, if not

controlling deference.” Warner v. Commissioner, 375 F.3d 387, 390 (6th Cir. 2004). However,

as Magistrate Judge Randon noted, a treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling

2:08-cv-15133-BAF-MAR Doc # 20 Filed 01/28/10 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 688
3

weight where it is not “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic

techniques” and is “inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20

C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). In addition, as Magistrate Judge Randon further noted, an opinion that

is based on the claimant’s reporting of her symptoms alone is not entitled to controlling weight. 

Young v. Secretary of Health and Human Servs., 925 F.2d 146, 151 (6th Cir. 1990). 

Here, the ALJ found that the opinions of Plaintiff’s treating physicians were based upon

Plaintiff’s subjective complaints and not based upon objective clinical findings. The ALJ based

this conclusion, in part, on the fact that he did not find Plaintiff’s testimony entirely credible. 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 Court

concludes, as did Magistrate Judge Randon, that it finds no reason to disturb the ALJ’s

credibility findings.

Plaintiff’s next argument is that the hypothetical question posed to the vocational expert

was inadequate, as Plaintiff believes that it failed to accurately portray her impairments. 

Plaintiff’s argument is unconvincing, as a hypothetical question is not required to list the

claimant’s medical conditions, but is only required to reflect her limitations. Webb v. Comm’r

of Soc. Sec., 368 F.3d 629, 633 (6th Cir. 2004). As noted above, the ALJ found that Plaintiff was

not fully credible, and that the objective medical evidence did not support Plaintiff’s claimed

limitations. Accordingly, a hypothetical that takes into account such findings is not in error. 

2:08-cv-15133-BAF-MAR Doc # 20 Filed 01/28/10 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 689
4

III. Order

Accordingly, for the reasons stated herein,

IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Randon’s Report and Recommendation, dated

December 12, 2009, is hereby accepted and adopted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is

GRANTED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the findings of the Commissioner be AFFIRMED.

S/Bernard A. Friedman 

Bernard A. Friedman

United States District Judge

Dated: January 28, 2010

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

January 28, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Felicia Moses for Carol Mullins 

Case Manager

2:08-cv-15133-BAF-MAR Doc # 20 Filed 01/28/10 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 690