598 F.Supp.3d 614
E.D. Mich.2022Background
- Plaintiff Mohammed Mason Nasser applied for DIB and SSI (claims filed 2014 and 2017); an earlier ALJ (Guyton) denied benefits in 2016, creating a res judicata cutoff for earlier dates.
- ALJ LaRoche held hearings in 2019 and found Nasser not disabled from August 4, 2016 through the decision date, assigning a sedentary RFC with multiple physical and non‑public/simple-task limitations and requiring a handheld assistive device.
- Key disputed medical opinions: treating physician Dr. Haranath Policherla (extremely restrictive, essentially disabling), consultative examiner Dr. Shelby‑Lane (frequent limitations but less restrictive), state‑agency reviewer Dr. Flake (light work), and psychologist Kathy Morrow (mental‑health opinion supportive of simple/routine work).
- The Appeals Council denied review; Nasser sued under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Magistrate Judge Patti recommended affirmance; Nasser objected on multiple grounds (12 objections).
- District Judge Ludington reviewed the R&R de novo for the objections, concluded the ALJ applied the correct legal framework and that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s evaluation of the medical opinions and RFC, adopted the R&R, granted defendant’s summary‑judgment motion, and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the magistrate/district court applied the correct legal framework for evaluating medical opinions under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c | Nasser: Magistrate used wrong/incomplete legal test and should have weighed all factors (treating relationship) more heavily | Commissioner: Magistrate correctly applied § 404.1520c; supportability and consistency are primary factors | Court: Magistrate and ALJ applied correct framework; supportability and consistency are the most important factors and were properly considered |
| Weight accorded to treating physician Dr. Policherla’s disabling opinion | Nasser: Dr. Policherla’s treating relationship and specialty entitle his opinion greater weight and the ALJ improperly discounted it | Commissioner: ALJ reasonably found Policherla’s opinion inconsistent with his own treatment notes and other evidence | Court: Substantial evidence supports ALJ’s rejection of extreme restrictions; records show near‑full strength, normal gait, conservative treatment, and inconsistencies with Policherla’s questionnaire |
| Whether the ALJ impermissibly “played doctor” in formulating the RFC | Nasser: ALJ substituted his own judgment for medical opinion when formulating RFC | Commissioner: RFC adopted limitations based on consultative exam and other medical evidence | Court: ALJ did not play doctor; RFC is grounded in consultative examiner findings and other evidence, so supported by substantial evidence |
| Reliance on consultative examiner Dr. Shelby‑Lane vs. Policherla | Nasser: Shelby‑Lane’s findings corroborate Policherla and thus should not have been used to discount treating opinion | Commissioner: Shelby‑Lane’s mostly normal exam and her own expressed limitations supported the RFC and contradicted Policherla’s extreme restrictions | Court: Shelby‑Lane’s exam and opinion were reasonably relied upon; they diverge from Policherla and provided substantial evidence for the RFC |
| Consistency among opinions from Dr. Flake and psychologist Morrow vs. treating opinion | Nasser: ALJ inconsistently credited Flake/Morrow but discounted Policherla without proper basis | Commissioner: ALJ permissibly found Flake and Morrow consistent with record and RFC; treating relationship no longer controls under § 404.1520c | Court: ALJ’s and Magistrate’s distinctions were reasonable—diagnoses alone are not dispositive; functionality controls; substantial evidence supports treating lesser weight to Policherla |
| Scrivener error (gender pronoun) and other procedural errors | Nasser: Scrivener error and waived arguments show flawed record handling | Commissioner: Error harmless and plaintiff failed to show prejudice; many arguments were waived or rehashed | Court: Error harmless; plaintiff failed to show prejudice; waived/duplicative objections overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Drummond v. Commissioner of Social Security, 126 F.3d 837 (6th Cir. 1997) (prior ALJ findings binding absent new evidence or changed circumstances)
- Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148 (2019) (definition and application of "substantial evidence")
- Rabbers v. Commissioner of Social Security, 582 F.3d 647 (6th Cir. 2009) (standard for judicial review of SSA decisions)
- Rogers v. Commissioner of Social Security, 486 F.3d 234 (6th Cir. 2007) (substantial‑evidence review and deference to ALJ credibility determinations)
- Blakley v. Commissioner of Social Security, 581 F.3d 399 (6th Cir. 2009) (courts defer when substantial evidence supports ALJ even if record could support opposite conclusion)
- Walters v. Commissioner of Social Security, 127 F.3d 525 (6th Cir. 1997) (claimant bears burden at steps one through four)
- Reeves v. Commissioner of Social Security, [citation="618 F. App'x 267"] (6th Cir. 2015) (ALJ need not adopt a medical opinion verbatim)