Kissinger v. Commissioner of Social Security

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
PAUL KISSINGER,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
_____________________________/
Case No. 1:25-cv-171
Hon. Paul L. Maloney
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Vermaat’s
Report and Recommendation (R&R). (ECF No. 12.) In the R&R, Magistrate
Judge 	Vermaat 	recommended 	that 	the 	Commissioner’s 	decision 	be
affirmed. 	Plaintiff filed objections. 	(ECF No. 13.) 	Plaintiff argues that the
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) did not properly consider certain evidence
in the administrative record. 	The Court finds that the ALJ properly
considered the record evidence and explained how he factored the evidence
into his analysis, as Magistrate Judge Vermaat found in the R&R. And so,
the Court will adopt the R&R in full.
I.
After being served with a report and recommendation issued by a
magistrate judge, a party has fourteen days to file written objections to the
Case 1:25-cv-00171-PLM-MV ECF No. 14, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/18/26 Page 1
of 6

2
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. 	Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th
Cir. 1986) (per curiam). 	An “objection does not oblige the district court to
ignore the report and recommendation.” 	Fharmacy Recs. v. Nassar, 465
F. App’x 448, 456 (6th Cir. 2012). 	Our Local Rules require any party
objecting to a report and recommendation to “specifically identify the
portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which
objections are made and the basis for such objections.” W.D. Mich. LCivR
72.3(b); see also Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995) (holding
that 	“objections 	disput[ing] 	the 	correctness 	of 	the 	magistrate’s
recommendation but fail[ing] to specify the findings . . . believed [to be] in
error” are too general).
This 	is 	a 	social 	security 	case 	involving 	the 	appeal 	of 	an
administrative law judge’s decision. 	Judicial review of an ALJ’s decision
“is limited to whether the ALJ applied the correct legal standards and
whether the findings of the ALJ are supported by substantial evidence.”
Blakley v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 581 F.3d 399, 405 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing
Key v. Callahan, 109 F.3d 270, 273 (6th Cir. 1997)); see 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
Case 1:25-cv-00171-PLM-MV ECF No. 14, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/18/26 Page 2
of 6

3
An ALJ’s findings are supported by substantial evidence if a “reasonable
mind 	might 	accept 	the 	relevant 	evidence 	as 	adequate 	to 	support 	a
conclusion.” 	Blakley, 581 F.3d at 406 (quoting Warner v. Comm’r of Soc.
Sec., 375 F.3d 387, 390 (6th Cir. 2004)).
II.
Plaintiff objects to the R&R for two reasons. 	Neither objection is
meritorious. 	The Court will adopt the report and recommendation.
Plaintiff first argues that the R&R misapplies a substantial evidence
review by accepting the ALJ’s supportability analysis even though that
analysis ignored portions of Dr. Comai’s notes. 	In his opinion, The ALJ
found that Dr. Comai’s opinion was only partially persuasive and that the
medical records did not support finding limitations on Plaintiff’s ability to
stand or walk, among other restrictions. 	As the ALJ put it,
such significant limitations are unsupported by Dr. Comai’s
own 	treatment 	records, 	which 	do 	not 	contain 	sufficient
narrative 	statements 	or 	clinical 	examination 	finding
abnormalities 	to 	provide 	a 	corroborative 	basis 	for 	such
restrictions.
(Admin. R., ECF No. 5-2, PageID.40.)
Plaintiff 	argues 	that 	Dr. 	Comai 	did 	include 	sufficient 	narrative
statements and clinical examinations finding abnormalities. 	During a
physical examination in October 2024, Dr. Comai wrote in his notes that
Plaintiff’s tricompartmental knee arthritis was “severe enough that he may
warrant arthroplasty in the future” and “the exam findings and x-ray
Case 1:25-cv-00171-PLM-MV ECF No. 14, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/18/26 Page 3
of 6

4
findings are significant enough that this would affect his ability to stand
or walk for any length of time or any distance.” (Admin. R., ECF No. 5-15,
PageID.814.) 	Dr. Comai also saw signs of focal tenderness along the
medial joint line of the knee, a limited range of motion, moderate effusion,
and calf muscle atrophy. 	(Id., PageID.813.)
The ALJ does not ignore these parts of Dr. Comai’s notes. 	His
opinion 	refers 	to 	Dr. 	Comai’s 	restriction 	on 	Plaintiff’s 	knee 	and
observations about its condition.1 	(Admin. R., ECF No. 5-2, PageID.38,
41.) 	Still, the ALJ chose to follow the opinions of Drs. Jackson and Mazei
because a total limitation on standing and walking would be “inconsistent
with the normal examination findings noted by the internal medicine
consultative 	examiner, 	and 	the 	opinions 	of 	the 	state 	agency 	medical
consultants.” 2 	(Id., PageID.41 (internal citations omitted).) 	Plaintiff’s
argument, then, is that the ALJ should have weighed and evaluated the
evidence 	differently. 	But 	“weighing 	conflicting 	evidence 	was 	properly
within the ALJ’s role” and because the ALJ here had substantial evidence
to support his finding, the Court must accept it. 	See Sallaz v. Comm’r of
Soc. Sec., No. 23-3825, 2024 WL 2955645, at *7 (6th Cir. June 12, 2024).
1 The ALJ does not mention every part of Dr. Comai’s notes, nor does he have to. See Thacker v. Comm’r of Soc.
Sec., 99 F. App’x 661 (6th Cir. 2004) (“The ALJ's failure to discuss those observations does not indicate that they
were not considered. An ALJ need not discuss every piece of evidence in the record for his decision to stand.”).
2 Plaintiff argues that the ALJ failed to reconcile significant competing evidence. 	(Plaintiff Obj. 3-4.) 	This
characterization of the ALJ’s opinion is unsupported.
Case 1:25-cv-00171-PLM-MV ECF No. 14, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/18/26 Page 4
of 6

5
After all, the Court’s “role is not to resolve conflicting evidence in the
record.” 	Wright v. Massanari, 321 F.3d 611, 614 (6th Cir. 2003). 	And the
ALJ’s findings “are not subject to reversal merely because there exists in
the record substantial evidence to support a different conclusion.” Buxton
v. Halter, 246 F.3d 762, 772 (6th Cir. 2001). Thus, Plaintiff’s first objection
about the supportability of the ALJ’s opinion is overruled.
Finally, Plaintiff also argues that Dr. Comai’s notes from the October
2024 examination were consistent with medical records from other exams
and, 	as 	a 	result, 	they 	should 	have 	been 	weighed 	more 	heavily 	in
supporting 	Plaintiff’s 	description 	of 	his 	disability—in 	particular, 	his
inability to stand or walk for any time. To support this argument, Plaintiff
cites Dr. Comai’s notes from previous visits in August 2023, January
2024, and February 2024. 	But these notes only describe Plaintiff’s pain
generally, and Dr. Comai does not repeat his assertion in any of the cited
notes that Plaintiff is unable to stand or walk. (See Admin. R., ECF No. 5-
9, 	PageID.381 	(“Left 	Knee[:] 	Active 	psoriasis 	on 	BLLE. 	No 	palpable
effusion. 	Tender medial and lateral joint line.”); Admin. R., ECF No. 5-10,
PageID.513 	(“Pain 	of 	left 	knee 	joint.”); 	Admin. 	R., 	ECF 	No. 	5-10,
PageID.521 (Left Knee Exam: Mild effusion, tender medial joint line, good
ROM, no instability patterns.”).) 	Therefore, Plaintiff’s second objection
about the consistency of the ALJ’s opinion is also overruled.
Case 1:25-cv-00171-PLM-MV ECF No. 14, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/18/26 Page 5
of 6

6
III.
The R&R (ECF No. 12) is thus ADOPTED. The decision of the ALJ is
AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 18, 2026 	/s/ Paul L. Maloney
PAUL L. MALONEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-00171-PLM-MV ECF No. 14, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/18/26 Page 6
of 6