Roat v. Commissioner of Social Security

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION

JAMES ARTHUR ROAT, ) Plaintiffs, ) ) No. 2:24-cv-115 -v- ) ) Honorable Paul L. Maloney COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, ) Defendant. ) )

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff Roat filed this lawsuit seeking judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. The Magistrate Judge issued a report recommending the court affirm the final decision (ECF No. 15). Plaintiff filed objections (ECF No. 16). The court will adopt the report and recommendation. After being served with a report and recommendation (R&R) issued by a magistrate judge, a party has fourteen days to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). A district court judge reviews de novo the portions of the R&R to which objections have been filed. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Only those objections that are specific are entitled to a de novo review under the statute. , 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir. 1986) (per curiam). This dispute concerns the weight the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) assigned to several medical opinions. The Magistrate Judge concluded that the ALJ provided good reasons for giving Dr. Kwock’s opinion significant weight. The Magistrate Judge also concluded that the ALJ provided a sufficient explanation for giving little weight to the opinion of Nurse Practitioner Spickerman and minimal weight to the opinion of Physician Assistant Sundberg. Plaintiff objects. Plaintiff identifies three particular statements in the R&R.

The court overrules the objection. The court finds no legal or factual error in the ALJ’s opinion. And the ALJ provided a sufficient explanation for the weight given to each opinion. 1. According to the Magistrate Judge, the ALJ noted that Dr. Kwock conducted a review of the longitudinal evidence of record. Plaintiff objects and contends Dr. Kwock

reviewed evidence from February 2014 to 2019, while the consultive examiner provide her opinion in January 2023. Plaintiff does not sufficiently explain why this should make a difference. The ALJ’s statement does not contain a factual error. The ALJ discussed Plaintiff’s medical issues, including those that occurred after 2019 (ECF No. 6-17 PageID.1252-53). Plaintiff has not established that those medical events not included in the records reviewed by Dr. Krock, if considered by Dr. Krock, would have resulted in a

different outcome. Dr. Krock examined years of Plaintiff’s medical records which, in the context of this dispute, provides a sufficiently good reason to give more weight to his opinion. 2. According to the Magistrate Judge, the ALJ found that NP Spickerman’s opinion appeared to be primarily based on Plaintiff’s subjective complaints. Plaintiff objects and notes that Spickerman conducted an examination of Plaintiff and reported a number of

objective findings. Plaintiff’s concern here does not undermine the ALJ’s decision. The ALJ discussed Spickerman’s evaluation (ECF No. 6-17 PageID.1263) and provided a detailed explanation for why Spickerman’s conclusions were inconsistent with the other evidence in the record, including Spickerman’s own evaluation and Plaintiff’s descriptipon of his daily activities ( PageID.1266). The inconsistencies provide a basis for the ALJ’s comment and justify the ALJ’s decision to give Spickerman’s opinion less weight.

3. According to the Magistrate Judge, the ALJ noted that, unlike Dr. Kwock, Spickerman did not review Plaintiff’s overall medical record. Plaintiff objects again asserting that Dr. Krock did not review the entire medical record and that Spickerman’s exam occurred several years after the medical records reviewed by Dr. Kwock. Plaintiff has not demonstrated an error by the ALJ. Plaintiff’s issue about this statement by the Magistrate

Judge merely repeats the same concerns addressed above. Accordingly, the court ADOPTS the report and recommendation (ECF No. 15). IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: August 15, 2025 /s/ Paul L. Maloney Paul L. Maloney United States District Judge