Ahrens v. Commissioner of Social Security

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
PHILLIP AHRENS, SR.,
Plaintiff,
CASE No. 1:24-CV-1337
v.
HON. ROBERT J. JONKER
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
__________________________________/
ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Green’s Report and Recommendation in this
matter (ECF No. 12); Plaintiff’s Objection to it (ECF Nos. 13, 15), and the Commissioner’s
Response (ECF No. 16). 	Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, where, as here, a party has
objected to portions of a Report and Recommendation, “[t]he district judge . . . as a duty to reject
the magistrate judge’s recommendation unless, on de novo reconsideration, he or she finds it
justified.” 12 Wright, Miller & Marcus, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3070.2, at 451 (3d ed.
2014). Specifically, the Rules provide that:
The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate
judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to. The district
judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition;
receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge
with instructions.
FED R. C IV. P. 72(b)(3). 	De novo review in these circumstances requires at least a review of the
evidence before the Magistrate Judge. 	Hill v. Duriron Co., 656 F.2d 1208, 1215 (6th Cir. 1981).
After review, the Court determines the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is
factually sound and legally correct.
Case 1:24-cv-01337-RJJ-PJG ECF No. 17, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/09/26 Page 1
of 5

2
Plaintiff’s application for disability benefits stems from a January 2020 fall off a ladder
that resulted in injuries and fractures along the left side of Plaintiff’s torso and shoulder area.
Plaintiff alleges the ALJ erred by concluding that Plaintiff retained the ability to do light work
though his date last insured all the same. 	In his Objections, Plaintiff further contends the
Magistrate Judge incorrectly determined the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence.
The question before this Court is not whether it would have independently arrived at the same RFC
determination as the ALJ, but whether the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence.
The Court, upon de novo review, is satisfied that it is.
By all accounts, the January 2020 fall off the ladder resulted in acute injuries to Plaintiff’s
left-side ribs, clavicle, and thoracic vertebra. 	The record further reflects, however, that by
November of that year, objective medical scans revealed that the fractures along the ribs and
shoulder were largely healed, albeit with some misalignment. Plaintiff’s thoracic fracture was
treated with a brace and physical therapy, and on August 3, 2020, Plaintiff reported that the pain
in his T11 region had largely resolved. 	(ECF No. 5-8, PageID.337). 	From there, it appears that
Plaintiff remained relatively stable through his date last insured, but he reported ongoing pain and
vertigo that was not responsive to pain management. 	Indeed, he says his pain—well documented
with his reports throughout the record—is exacerbated by the very activities the ALJ found he was
able to perform, and ultimately should have resulted in a disability finding.
While “pain alone, if the result of a medical impairment, may be severe enough to
constitute disability,” King v. Heckler, 742 F.2d 968, 974 (6th Cir. 1984), a claimant’s “statements
about [his] pain or other symptoms will not alone establish that [he is] disabled.” 20 C.F.R.
Case 1:24-cv-01337-RJJ-PJG ECF No. 17, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/09/26 Page 2
of 5

3
§ 404.1529(a); see also, Hash v. Commissioner of Social Security, 309 F. App’x. 981, 989 (6th
Cir., Feb. 10, 2009). 	Agency regulations further provide, “if the individual’s statements about
the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms are inconsistent with the objective
medical evidence and the other evidence, we will determine that the individual’s symptoms are
less likely to reduce his . . . her capacities to perform work-related activities.” 	Soc. Sec. Ruling
16-3p Titles II & XVI: Evaluation of Symptoms in Disability Claims, SSR 16-3P, 2017 WL
5180304, at *8 (S.S.A. Oct. 25, 2017). 	The ALJ found that Plaintiff’s statements regarding his
symptoms and their limiting effects were inconsistent with the other medical evidence in the
record, and specifically were inconsistent with the medical examinations from his providers that
reflected normal gait and station, range of motion and strength. In his objections, Plaintiff contends
that the ALJ failed to provide the “specific reasons” required by agency regulations for evaluating
an individual’s statements regarding his symptoms. 	Id. at *8. 	The Court disagrees. Pinpoint
citations are not required, and the ALJ’s discussion on pages 22 and 23 of the decision reflect
much more than the single conclusory statement disapproved of in the regulations. 	C.f. id. (“[I]t
is not sufficient for our adjudicators to make a single, conclusory statement that ‘the individual's
statements about his or her symptoms have been considered’ or that ‘the statements about the
individual's symptoms are (or are not) supported or consistent.’). 	The ALJ’s analysis suffices to
trace the path of his reasoning and, as the Magistrate Judge furthermore found, is supported by
substantial evidence. See (ECF No. 12, PageID.1233 (citing to Plaintiff’s treatment notes)).
Moreover, even if the ALJ’s summation amounted to a procedural violation of the agency
regulation, remand is generally appropriate where the claimant demonstrates prejudice, that is,
Case 1:24-cv-01337-RJJ-PJG ECF No. 17, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/09/26 Page 3
of 5

4
something more than harmless error. 	See Wilson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 378 F.3d 541, 547 (6th
Cir. 2004). Plaintiff attempts to do so here with reference to April 20, 2022, medical opinion of
Dr. Hyatt. As Plaintiff sees it, there is a disconnect between the functional limitations in Dr. Hyatt’s
report that the ALJ found were “persuasive” and the ALJ’s ultimate RFC. 	But Plaintiff misreads
Dr. Hyatt’s conclusions. 	Dr. Hyatt was clear that “[f]rom a functional standpoint, there is no
indication for any continuing restrictions with regard to the fracture of the left clavicle or the
fracture of the vertebral body T11.” (ECF No. 5-28, PageID.1155) (emphasis added). 	Dr.
Hyatt—an orthopaedic surgeon—also opined that from an orthopaedic standpoint, Plaintiff’s rib
fractures had “healed sufficiently to allow for normal activities.” 	(ECF No. 5-28, PageID.1156)
(emphasis added). 	It is true that Dr. Hyatt noted “the residual pain along the left anterior chest
wall remains functionally limiting,” but he went on to remark that “the ongoing pain may serve as
an indication for restrictions from the perspective of a thoracic surgeon” (ECF No. 5-28,
PageID.1155). 	While Dr. Hyatt perhaps could have been clearer in this regard, it is patent that
he declined to find any functional limitations, while acknowledging that a thoracic surgeon might
find some restrictions warranted. This qualification, however, does not mean the doctor’s opinion
is inconsistent with the RFC or that the RFC is unsupported by substantial evidence.
Accordingly, the Court agrees with the magistrate judge following its de novo review that
the ALJ’s decision should be affirmed.
CONCLUSION
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 12) is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
Case 1:24-cv-01337-RJJ-PJG ECF No. 17, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/09/26 Page 4
of 5

5
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED. 	A
separate Judgment shall issue.
Dated: 	February 9, 2026 	/s/ Robert J. Jonker
ROBERT J. JONKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:24-cv-01337-RJJ-PJG ECF No. 17, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/09/26 Page 5
of 5