Casebolt v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
16
Memorandum Opinion and Order: The Court AFFIRMS the Commissioner's decision. Magistrate Judge Kathleen B. Burke on 2/21/2018. (D,I)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
EVERETT CASEBOLT,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
CASE NO. 1:17-cv-00596
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
KATHLEEN B. BURKE
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
Plaintiff Everett Casebolt (“Plaintiff” or “Casebolt”) seeks judicial review of the final
decision of Defendant Commissioner of Social Security (“Defendant” or “Commissioner”)
denying his application for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) benefits. Doc. 1. This Court
has jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). This case is before the undersigned Magistrate
Judge pursuant to the consent of the parties. Doc. 12. As explained more fully below, the Court
AFFIRMS the Commissioner’s decision.
I. Procedural History
On December 24, 2013, Casebolt protectively filed 1 an application for Supplemental
Security Income (“SSI”). 2 Tr. 15, 162-167. He initially alleged a disability onset date of April
1, 1997 (Tr. 15, 162), but later amended his alleged onset date to October 3, 2013 (Tr. 15, 34,
168). Casebolt alleged disability due to head trauma, head pain, blurred vision, headaches,
1
The Social Security Administration explains that “protective filing date” is “The date you first contact us about
filing for benefits. It may be used to establish an earlier application date than when we receive your signed
application.” http://www.socialsecurity.gov/agency/glossary/ (last visited 2/20/2018).
2
Casebolt had filed an application for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) on October 3, 2013. Tr. 15. Casebolt
later withdrew his DIB application. Tr. 15-16, 168.
1
memory loss, hernia in stomach, and ADD. Tr. 55, 81, 113, 183, 222. Casebolt’s application
was denied initially and upon reconsideration by the state agency. Tr. 64, 96, 113-117.
Thereafter, he requested an administrative hearing. Tr. 118-120. On January 7, 2016,
Administrative Law Judge Peter Beekman (“ALJ”) conducted an administrative hearing. Tr. 3247.
In his March 14, 2016, decision (Tr. 12-31), the ALJ dismissed Casebolt’s DIB claim in
light of Casebolt’s decision to withdraw his DIB application (Tr. 15-16). With respect to
Casebolt’s SSI claim, the ALJ determined that Casebolt had not been under a disability from the
amended alleged onset date of October 3, 2013, through the date of the decision. Tr. 16.
Casebolt requested review of the ALJ’s decision by the Appeals Council. Tr. 9-11. On January
24, 2017, the Appeals Council denied Casebolt’s request for review, making the ALJ’s decision
the final decision of the Commissioner. Tr. 1-6.
II. Evidence
A.
Personal, educational and vocational evidence
Casebolt was born in 1963 and was 52 years old at the time of the hearing. Tr. 25, 35,
162. Casebolt attended school until 10th grade. Tr. 35. He was in special education classes. Tr.
35, 275-278. In 1976, the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised (WISC-R) was
administered to Casebolt while he was in school. Tr. 275. The test results showed a Verbal IQ
of 81; Performance IQ of 80; and Full Scale IQ of 79. 3 Tr. 275.
3
As discussed below in the opinion section, during a consultative psychological evaluation in March 2014, the
Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-IV was administered to Casebolt. Tr. 291. The test results showed a Verbal
Comprehension IQ of 66; a Perceptual Reasoning IQ of 88; a Working Memory IQ of 92; a Processing Speed IQ of
68; and a Full Scale IQ of 74. Tr. 291.
2
At times, Casebolt has been homeless. Tr. 295, 341. At the time of the hearing, he was
living with his girlfriend. Tr. 42. Casebolt’s past jobs included delivery driver, laborer at a gas
station, truck driver, security guard, and snow remover. Tr. 35, 39-40.
Aside from trying to find small jobs to make a couple of dollars (Tr. 38) Casebolt’s most
recent job was at Heisler Tool Company (“Heisler”), where he was employed from April 20,
2015, through October 16, 2015 (Tr. 40, 44, 263-264). He was working as a delivery driver and
had to load trucks. Tr. 39-41. Casebolt was terminated from the position; he indicated that all
his employer told him was that his “spot was being terminated.” Tr. 40-41, 265. He noted that
he did miss a lot of work because lifting and loading pallets into the truck was strenuous activity
for him and he would get sick from straining. Tr. 40. In a questionnaire completed by a
representative of Heisler, it was reported that Casebolt’s work and attendance were below
average. Tr. 264, 267. The employer also reported that that it was not aware of any special
conditions requiring accommodations but the following problem areas were noted – needed
instructions repeated more often than usual; problems staying on pace; problems completing
tasks; and frequent absence. Tr. 265.
B.
Medical evidence
1.
Treatment history
Most of Casebolt’s medical care was received a long time ago at Mount Sinai. Tr. 295,
298. On August 19, 2014, Casebolt sought treatment at MetroHealth with complaints of
abdominal pain. Tr. 295-304. Casebolt complained of pain starting about two weeks earlier in
his left upper quadrant. Tr. 295. Casebolt reported a history of head trauma that occurred when
he was in his late 20s. Tr. 295. He was kicked in the head and needed to have surgery on his left
eye and face. Tr. 295. Casebolt reported that, following that incident, he had memory problems.
3
Tr. 295. He also reported injuring his right foot when he was a teenager and needing surgery.
Tr. 295, 296. Casebolt relayed that he had been homeless for many years but was living with his
sister at the time of his visit. Tr. 295, 296. Casebolt indicated he was seeking disability for
financial assistance. Tr. 295. A head MRI was recommended in order to try to get a baseline for
why Casebolt was having memory problems. Tr. 298, 300. A CT scan was also recommended
to assess whether Casebolt had a hernia. Tr. 300. A neuro/psych evaluation was recommended
in order to further assess Casebolt’s memory loss. Tr. 298. Casebolt’s CT scan of his
abdomen/pelvis showed an umbilical hernia and bilateral inguinal hernias. Tr. 305.
On October 17, 2014, Casebolt sought treatment at the MetroHealth emergency
department with complaints of abdominal pain. Tr. 309-324. Casebolt relayed that his pain was
typically a 4-5/10 but his pain had gotten worse and was an 8-9/10. Tr. 309. Casebolt described
his pain as stabbing pressure that radiated into his back and chest. Tr. 309. He was most
comfortable in a reclining position and when putting pressure on his abdomen. Tr. 309. His pain
was worse with standing and walking. Tr. 309. Casebolt also reported dyspnea, a headache and
visual change. Tr. 309. The attending physician observed no concerning findings on
examination. Tr. 310. Casebolt’s pain resolved without intervention while he was in the
emergency room. Tr. 310. A referral was made to general surgery because of complaints of
daily symptoms but it was noted that there was no emergent need for surgical intervention. Tr.
310.
A few days later, on October 21, 2014, Casebolt saw Dr. Jonathan M. Kwong, M.D., in
the general surgery department at MetroHealth for a consultation. 4 Tr. 325-331. Casebolt
4
Casebolt also saw Carol J. Sams, CNP, at MetronHealth on October 21, 2014, as a follow up to his emergency
room visit. Tr. 332-340. Nurse Sams diagnosed gastroesophageal reflux disease and prescribed medication. Tr.
333, 340.
4
described his abdominal pain, noting it had gotten worse over the prior month. Tr. 325.
Casebolt indicated that his pain was currently a 5/5 and constant. Tr. 325. He noted that the pain
was getting worse with weight lifting. Tr. 325. Dr. Kwong’s impression was epigastric and right
upper quadrant pain unrelated to his hernias. Tr. 328. Dr. Kwong recommended a referral to GI
for further evaluation of the epigastric pain and he did not feel that surgical intervention was
necessary, unless Casebolt’s hernia symptoms worsened. Tr. 328.
On October 28, 2014, Casebolt saw Dr. Stacy Beard, 5 Ph.D., at MetroHealth for a mental
health assessment. Tr. 341-349. Casebolt reported not knowing why he was referred for a
mental health evaluation. Tr. 341. Dr. Beard noted that Nurse Sams had made a notation
regarding mood issues and memory loss. Tr. 341. Recent stressors for Casebolt included being
homeless. Tr. 341. He was staying with family members at the time of his assessment. Tr. 341.
Casebolt reported suicidal ideation on occasion but no history of suicidal attempts or homicidal
ideation. Tr. 341. He reported having problems with worrying, occasionally being annoyed with
people, and anxiety. Tr. 342. Casebolt denied concentration problems but reported poor recent
and remote memory issues due to past head injury. Tr. 342, 345. Casebolt reported infrequent
panic attacks but indicated he experienced a panic attack about four months earlier. Tr. 342.
Casebolt indicated that, when he has a panic attack, he gets nervous and feels like people are
coming after him, his heart starts racing and he sweats. Tr. 342. Casebolt reported some
flashbacks from a traumatic incident that occurred when he was a teenager. Tr. 342. He denied
paranoia or hallucinations. Tr. 342. Dr. Beard’s diagnostic impression was “good attitude,
reported that there are things he cannot control but he tries daily, hx of trauma. Main concern is
his need to find housing and employment, used to live w/his older sister but she moved back to
5
The ALJ spelled the last name of doctor performing the mental health assessment “Board.” Tr. 22. It appears that
the correct spelling is “Beard.” Tr. 347.
5
WV[.]” Tr. 346. Dr. Beard’s diagnosis was adjustment disorder, R/O PTSD. Tr. 346. Casebolt
was not interested in counseling. Tr. 346.
On November 12, 2014, Casebolt saw Dr. Paul Cisarik, M.D., at MetroHealth for
abdominal pain and fatty liver. Tr. 350-364. Casebolt complained of abdominal bloating,
cramping, and epigastric pain in the left upper quadrant – symptoms that started about six
months prior and generally occurred daily for several hours. Tr. 350. Casebolt indicated that his
pain was worse if he went without eating. Tr. 350. He reported early satiety over the prior
month. Tr. 350. Dr. Cisarik’s assessment included fatty liver disease, GERD, and a
recommendation for a colonoscopy to screen for colon cancer. Tr. 354. Dr. Cisarik also noted
that Casebolt had a recent diagnosis of diabetes mellitus. Tr. 354. Dr. Cisarik’s treatment notes
indicate that Casebolt’s girlfriend was called to explain Casebolt’s medical plan because of
Casebolt’s short term memory issues and Casebolt’s request that they call his girlfriend with the
information. Tr. 354.
Also, on November 12, 2014, Casebolt saw Dr. Ikram Khan, M.D., in the neurology
department at MetroHealth for a consultation regarding his headaches and prior head injury. Tr.
365-373. Dr. Khan noted that Casebolt had a normal head MRI in September. Tr. 366. Dr.
Khan’s impressions/suggestions were:
51 year[] old male seen in consultation for headaches likely migraines with aura.
His MRI [is] negative for acute pathology. He is undergoing workup for his liver
and epigastric pain that limits prescribing him pain medication. [N]o visual
symptoms[.]
Tr. 369.
Dr. Khan prescribed Neurontin and advised him to return in six weeks. Tr. 369-370.
6
Casebolt had a colonoscopy on November 26, 2014. Tr. 374-414, 419-422. The postprocedure diagnoses were esophageal reflux; duodenal ulcer, unspecified as acute or chronic,
without hemorrhage, perforation or obstruction; and colonic polyp. Tr. 687.
On December 2, 2014, Casebolt saw Nurse Sams. Tr. 423-440. Casebolt reported that
his GERD was better but he was continuing to have headaches. Tr. 423. He relayed that he had
applied for SSI but he was still trying to find work. Tr. 423. He was still sleeping in his van but
hoping to move in with his girlfriend that week. Tr. 423. At Casebolt’s request, Nurse Sams
spoke with Casebolt’s girlfriend over the phone because of his short term memory issues. Tr.
424. Nurse Sams provided a care plan for Casebolt, which included medication to treat his
diabetes mellitus and GERD. Tr. 424-425.
On December 17, 2014, Casebolt saw Dr. Khan. Tr. 441-449. Dr. Khan noted that
Casebolt was continuing to have headaches but Neurontin had helped so Dr. Khan increased
Casebolt’s dosage of Neurontin. Tr. 442, 445. That same day, Casebolt saw Dr. Cisarik for a
follow-up visit. Tr. 450-461. Casebolt reported having much less abdominal pain. Tr. 450. He
relayed that, if he forgets to take his medication, he gets left upper quadrant epigastric pain but
had not had pain for at least three weeks. Tr. 450. Other than a random episode of heartburn
when eating pizza, he had not had heartburn. Tr. 450. He was uncertain as to all the medications
he was taking but noted that he had his medications in his van. Tr. 450. Dr. Cisarik counseled
Casebolt regarding his various tests, procedures, and medication. Tr. 456.
On January 19, 2015, Casebolt saw Dr. Neil F. Sika, OD, at MetroHealth for a diabetes
mellitus eye examination. Tr. 462-479. Casebolt reported occasional blurring and pain in his
left eye. Tr. 462. He only wore over-the-counter reading glasses. Tr. 462, 463. For about a
year, Casebolt had been experiencing occasional white flashes. Tr. 462. Dr. Sika diagnosed a
7
compound hyperopic astigmatism in the right eye, hyperopia in the left eye, and presbyopia in
both eyes. Tr. 464. Dr. Sika provided Casebolt with a prescription for eyeglasses. Tr. 464.
However, Casebolt did not have insurance to cover the cost so Dr. Sika recommended that
Casebolt use over-the-counter reading glasses and monitor the situation over the next year. Tr.
464. Dr. Sika found no nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy at the time but advised Casebolt to
keep tight control on his diabetes mellitus. Tr. 464.
On October 9, 2015, Casebolt saw Dr. Gwen Haas, M.D., at Lake Health, to establish a
primary care physician relationship. Tr. 484-486. Casebolt complained of headaches and
memory issues since being kicked in the head and he also complained of low back pain, foot
numbness and a hernia. Tr. 484. Casebolt also relayed that he had a history of GERD and
diabetes mellitus. Tr. 484. On examination of Casebolt’s abdomen, Dr. Haas observed a ventral
herniation without strangulation. Tr. 484. Dr. Haas’s musculoskeletal examination was negative
for erythema, swelling or joint deformities but Dr. Haas noted that Casebolt was positive for
lumbar vertebral tenderness to percussion with no rashes. Tr. 484. Dr. Haas’s examination of
Casebolt’s extremities was generally normal with slightly diminished patellar reflexes on the left.
Tr. 484-485. Dr. Haas ordered blood work, provided prescriptions for treatment of sciatica,
GERD, and diabetes mellitus. Tr. 485. Casebolt declined a surgical consultation for his ventral
hernia. Tr. 485.
2.
Medical opinion evidence
Physical impairment opinions
On February 14, 2014, Casebolt saw Dorothy A. Bradford, M.D., for a consultative
physical evaluation. Tr. 279-287. Casebolt relayed numerous complaints – headaches, low back
pain, knot in stomach that hurt when trying to lift or sit up, right foot pain, and left knee pain.
8
Tr. 284. Casebolt reported that he did not use an assistive device and he could walk/stand for 20
minutes and lift 50 pounds. Tr. 284. Dr. Bradford’s physical examination was generally normal.
Tr. 285-286. For example, Casebolt exhibited normal range of motion, stability, strength and
tone in all extremities and in the head and neck. Tr. 286. Casebolt’s gait was normal. Tr. 286.
Dr. Bradford observed Casebolt’s judgment and insight to be appropriate; he was oriented to
person, place and time; he had normal recent and remote memory; his mood and affect were
appropriate; his language was normal; and his speech had a normal rate, articulation, and
spontaneity. Tr. 287. Dr. Bradford opined that:
Claimant has had multiple musculoskeletal injuries as outline[d] above and now
has pain that is probably due to DJD. On exam he has a very large and tender
diastasis recti.[ 6] In my medical opinion he should be restricted to sedentary
activity.
Tr. 287.
On July 9, 2014, state agency reviewing physician Eli Perencevich, D.O., completed a
physical RFC assessment. Tr. 87-89. Dr. Perencevich opined that Casebolt had the RFC to
lift/carry 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently; stand/walk about 6 hours in an 8hour workday; sit about 6 hours in an 8-hour workday; and push and pull unlimitedly, other than
as indicated for lift/carry. Tr. 87. Dr. Perencevich’s exertional limitations were based on
reported pain and diastasis recti. Tr. 87. Dr. Perencevich opined that Casebolt had the following
postural limitations – frequently climb ramps/stairs, never climb ladders/ropes/scaffolds,
occasionally stoop, kneel and crouch, and never crawl. Tr. 87-88. Dr. Perencevich’s postural
limitations were due to Casebolt’s 12 inch diastasis recti. Tr. 88. Dr. Perencevich also opined
6
Diastasis recti abdominis is a “separation of the rectus muscles of the abdominal wall[.]” See Dorland’s Illustrated
Medical Dictionary, 32nd Edition, 2012, at 511.
9
that Casebolt would have to avoid concentrated exposure to vibration and even moderate
exposure to hazards (machinery, heights, etc.). Tr. 88.
10
Mental impairment opinions
On March 14, 2014, Casebolt saw Dr. J. Joseph Konieczny, Ph.D., for a consultative
psychological evaluation. Tr. 288-294. Dr. Konieczny observed that Casebolt was pleasant and
cooperative and occasionally vague in his presentation but responsive to all questions and tasks
posed to him. Tr. 289, 290. When asked about his current disability, Casebolt stated, “I have a
lack of memory since I had my head kicked in.” Tr. 289.
When asked about his education, Casebolt relayed that he was involved in special
education classes and repeated eighth grade. Tr. 290. He stated he dropped out of school during
his tenth grade year because his parents moved. Tr. 290. He indicated he had participated in
some adult education but did not obtain his Graduate Equivalency Diploma. Tr. 290.
Casebolt was unable to recall when he was assaulted but he relayed he was knocked
unconscious, has had ongoing headaches and left visual deficits, and significant memory
problems. Tr. 290.
Dr. Konieczny observed that Casebolt’s ability to concentrate and attend to tasks showed
no indications of impairment. Tr. 291. Casebolt performed serial three subtraction without error
but his responses were slow. Tr. 291. He showed moderate deficits in his ability to perform
logical abstract reasoning. Tr. 291. Dr. Konieczny observed that Casebolt exhibited mild
deficits in his overall level of judgment and opined that Casebolt “would appear to require some
degree of supervision and monitoring in the management of his daily activities and in handling
his financial affairs.” Tr. 291. Casebolt’s WAIS-IV Full Scale IQ score was 74, which Dr.
Konieczny opined placed him in the borderline range of adult intellectual functioning and Dr.
11
Konieczny indicated that Casebolt’s “overall level of functioning is at a slightly reduced level of
efficiency due to the impact of his intellectual deficits.” Tr. 291-292.
In summary, Dr. Konieczny stated:
. . . Casebolt suffers from a diagnosis of Borderline Intellectual Functioning. Again,
although [he] apparently suffered a traumatic brain injury as a result of an assault
episode some two to four years prior to the evaluation,[ 7] given his history, it would
not appear that he has suffered from any significant intellectual deficits that may
have been a residual effect of this history. No further diagnosis is offered.
Tr. 292.
Dr. Konieczny opined that Casebolt appeared sincere in his presentation and, while vague
at times, the information provided by Casebolt appeared to be a reliable reflection of his then
current situation. Tr. 292. Dr. Konieczny opined that Casebolt showed no significant limitations
in his ability to understand, remember and carry out instructions and showed no significant
limitations in his ability to pay attention and concentrate and persist in single and multi-step
tasks. Tr. 292. With respect to responding appropriately to supervision and coworkers in the
work setting, Dr. Konieczny opined that Casebolt would have some diminished tolerance for
frustration and diminished coping skills which would impact his ability to respond to severe
supervision and interpersonal situations in the work setting but he would seem capable of
responding appropriately to “normal such situations.” Tr. 292. With respect to Casebolt’s
ability to respond to pressure in the work setting, Dr. Konieczny opined that, because of his
intellectual limitations, Casebolt would have some diminished tolerance for frustration and
diminished coping skills which would impact his ability to respond to severe pressure situations
7
There is some discrepancy in the record as to when the assault occurred. Compare Tr. 290 (Dr. Konieczny notes
that medical records indicate that Casebolt’s head injury occurred two years prior to his evaluation, i.e., 2012) with
Tr. 442 (Dr. Khan’s 12/17/14 treatment notes (medical history section) indicate that Casebolt was assaulted in the
1990’s); see also Tr. 36 (Casebolt’s hearing testimony, indicating he could not remember the year of the assault).
12
in the work setting but he would seem capable of responding appropriately to “normal such
situations.” Tr. 292.
On July 17, 2014, state agency reviewing psychologist Acracelis Rivera, Psy.D.,
completed a Psychiatric Review Technique (“PRT”) and mental RFC assessment. Tr. 85-86, 8991. In the PRT, Dr. Rivera opined Casebolt had moderate restrictions in activities of daily
living; moderate difficulties in maintaining social functioning; and moderate difficulties in
maintaining concentration, persistence or pace; and no repeated episodes of decompensation,
each of an extended duration. Tr. 85.
In the mental RFC assessment, with respect to understanding and memory limitations,
Dr. Rivera opined that Casebolt was moderately limited in his ability to understand and
remember very short and simple instructions and markedly limited in his ability to understand
and remember detailed instructions. Tr. 89. Dr. Rivera further explained that Casebolt could
understand and remember one-to-three step instructions and, opined that, occasionally,
instructions may require repetition. Tr. 89. With respect to sustained concentration and
persistence limitations, Dr. Rivera opined that Casebolt was moderately limited in his ability to
carry out very short and simple instructions; moderately limited in his ability to maintain
attention and concentration for extended periods; moderately limited in his ability to sustain an
ordinary routine without special supervision; moderately limited in his ability to complete a
normal workday and workweek without interruptions from psychologically based symptoms and
to perform at a consistent pace without an unreasonable number and length of rest periods; and
markedly limited in his ability to carry out detailed instructions. Tr. 89-90. Dr. Rivera further
explained that Casebolt could perform one-to-three step tasks of a repetitive nature and, opined
that Casebolt would benefit from having a supervisor or coworker available to occasionally
13
explain tasks and redirect. Tr. 90. With respect to social interaction limitations, Dr. Rivera
opined that Casebolt was moderately limited in his ability to ask simple questions or request
assistance; moderately limited in his ability to accept instructions and respond appropriately to
criticism from supervisors; moderately limited in his ability to get along with coworkers or peers
without distracting them or exhibiting behavioral extremes; moderately limited in his ability to
maintain socially appropriate behavior and adhere to basis standards of neatness and cleanliness;
and markedly limited in his ability to interact with the general public. Tr. 90. Dr. Rivera further
explained that Casebolt would not be well-suited for work that entails customer service,
persuasion or conflict resolution but he could interact with supervisors or coworkers
superficially. Tr. 90. With respect to adaptation limitations, Dr. Rivera opined that Casebolt was
moderately limited in his ability to respond appropriately to changes in the work setting and
moderately limited in his ability to set realistic goals or make plans independently of others. Tr.
90-91. Dr. Rivera further explained that Casebolt could adapt to a static work setting. Tr. 91.
C.
Testimonial evidence
1.
Plaintiff’s testimony
Casebolt was represented and testified at the hearing. Tr. 35-44.
When the ALJ asked Casebolt to explain what his health problems were, Casebolt relayed
that he has frequent headaches, which started following an incident a few years prior when his
head was kicked in by individuals while he was working at a gas station. Tr. 36. Casebolt could
not remember exactly when the incident occurred but indicated he was working at a Shell gas
station. Tr. 36. Casebolt has a headache almost daily. Tr. 42. When Casebolt has a headache,
he sleeps for about three or four hours and then his headache is gone. Tr. 42. After his injury,
Casebolt had problems keeping up pace while at work. Tr. 43. He was told he “need[ed] to pick
14
up the slack[,]” was “too slow[,]” “need[ed] to pick up the pace[.]” Tr. 43-44. Casebolt would
explain that he was moving as quickly as he could because he was hurt. Tr. 44.
Casebolt also indicated that he has a hard time breathing; he has three hernias, and he has
a hard time remembering things. Tr. 36. Since the incident at the Shell gas station, remembering
things is a daily struggle for Casebolt and he stresses out about it, which causes headaches and
causes his eyes to hurt. Tr. 36, 41, 43. When Casebolt sees his doctors, they will call his
girlfriend when he is at a visit with information so that she can provide Casebolt with reminders.
Tr. 42. His girlfriend provides reminders about most things. Tr. 42. Also, because of the
headaches, his vision is blurry. Tr. 36. Casebolt also has diabetes and hearing loss in his left ear.
Tr. 37, 40. He does not wear a hearing aid but has ringing in this ear. Tr. 40.
On an average day, Casebolt hangs around his house; takes the dogs out for a walk;
cleans up a little around the house; and, if he can find a small job to do for a couple of dollars, he
will do that. Tr. 38. He is unable to lift a lot of weight because of his hernias. Tr. 38. He
estimated being able to lift about 10-20 pounds. Tr. 38. Casebolt estimated being able to stand
for about two hours before his lower back starts to hurt. Tr. 43. As for hobbies, Casebolt builds
model cars. Tr. 38. Casebolt gets tired frequently and falls asleep easily. Tr. 39. Casebolt’s
girlfriend has told him that she thinks he sleeps too much. Tr. 39. He does not recall being
tested for sleep apnea but indicated he has been told that his tiredness may be related to an
underactive thyroid. Tr. 39. Casebolt is able to drive. Tr. 43. He uses GPS to help him know
where he is going. Tr. 43.
2.
Vocational Expert’s testimony
Vocational Expert (“VE”) Paula Zinmeister testified at the hearing. Tr. 44-46. The VE
described Casebolt’s past work as follows: light truck driver (SVP 3, medium level); security
15
guard (SVP 3, light level); automobile service attendant (SVP 3, medium level); and
groundskeeper (SVP 3, medium level). 8 Tr. 44.
The ALJ asked the VE to assume a hypothetical person who is male, 52 years old, with
less than a high school education who can lift/carry 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds
frequently; stand/walk for 6 out of 8 hours; sit for 6 out of 8 hours; frequently push, pull and foot
pedal; frequently use a ramp or stairs; occasionally climb a ladder, rope or scaffolds; constantly
balance; frequently stoop, kneel, crouch or crawl; no manipulative, visual or communicative
limitations; should avoid high concentrations of noise and perform no complex tasks but can
perform simple tasks; no high production quotas; no piece rate work; no work involving
arbitration, confrontation, negotiation, or supervision; and no work involving commercial
driving. Tr. 44-45. The VE indicated that the described individual would be unable to perform
any of Casebolt’s past work. Tr. 45. However, the VE indicated there were other jobs that the
described individual could perform, including (1) cleaner, housekeeping (SVP 2, light level); (2)
cashier (SVP 2, light level); and (3) cafeteria attendant (SVP 2, light level). 9 Tr. 45-46.
The ALJ then asked the VE a second hypothetical, which was the same as the first
hypothetical except the individual would require redirection 15% of the time, every day. Tr. 46.
The VE indicated that the second hypothetical would preclude employment in competitive work.
Tr. 46.
In response to an inquiry from Casebolt’s counsel, the VE indicated that the customary
tolerances for absences in unskilled work is no more than one day per month. Tr. 46.
8
SVP refers to the DOT’s listing of a specific vocational preparation (SVP) time for each described occupation.
Social Security Ruling No. 00-4p, 2000 WL 1898704, *3 (Dec. 4, 2000). Using the skill level definitions in 20
CFR § 416.968, unskilled work corresponds to an SVP of 1-2; semi-skilled work corresponds to an SVP of 3-4; and
skilled work corresponds to an SVP of 5-9 in the DOT. Id.
9
The VE provided state and national job numbers for each of the identified jobs. Tr. 45-46.
16
III. Standard for Disability
Under the Act, 42 U.S.C § 423(a), eligibility for benefit payments depends on the
existence of a disability. “Disability” is defined as the “inability to engage in any substantial
gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which
can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous
period of not less than 12 months.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). Furthermore:
[A]n individual shall be determined to be under a disability only if his physical or
mental impairment or impairments are of such severity that he is not only unable to
do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work
experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the
national economy10 . . . .
42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A).
In making a determination as to disability under this definition, an ALJ is required to
follow a five-step sequential analysis set out in agency regulations. The five steps can be
summarized as follows:
1.
If the claimant is doing substantial gainful activity, he is not disabled.
2.
If claimant is not doing substantial gainful activity, his impairment must
be severe before he can be found to be disabled.
3.
If claimant is not doing substantial gainful activity, is suffering from a
severe impairment that has lasted or is expected to last for a continuous
period of at least twelve months, and his impairment meets or equals a listed
impairment, 11 claimant is presumed disabled without further inquiry.
4.
If the impairment does not meet or equal a listed impairment, the ALJ must
assess the claimant’s residual functional capacity and use it to determine if
claimant’s impairment prevents him from doing past relevant work. If
10
“’[W]ork which exists in the national economy’ means work which exists in significant numbers either in the
region where such individual lives or in several regions of the country.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A).
11
The Listing of Impairments (commonly referred to as Listing or Listings) is found in 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P,
App. 1, and describes impairments for each of the major body systems that the Social Security Administration
considers to be severe enough to prevent an individual from doing any gainful activity, regardless of his or her age,
education, or work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 416.925.
17
claimant’s impairment does not prevent him from doing his past relevant
work, he is not disabled.
5.
If claimant is unable to perform past relevant work, he is not disabled if,
based on his vocational factors and residual functional capacity, he is
capable of performing other work that exists in significant numbers in the
national economy.
20 C.F.R. § 416.920; see also Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 140-42 (1987). Under this
sequential analysis, the claimant has the burden of proof at Steps One through Four. Walters v.
Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 127 F.3d 525, 529 (6th Cir. 1997). The burden shifts to the Commissioner
at Step Five to establish whether the claimant has the RFC and vocational factors to perform
work available in the national economy. Id.
IV. The ALJ’s Decision
In his March 14, 2016, decision, the ALJ made the following findings: 12
1.
2.
Casebolt had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since October 3,
2013, the amended alleged onset date. Tr. 17-18.
3.
Casebolt had the following severe impairments: unspecified arthropathies,
headaches, obesity and borderline intellectual functioning. Tr. 18.
Diabetes mellitus and hypothyroidism were non-severe impairments. Tr.
18.
4.
Casebolt did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that
met or medically equaled the severity of one of the listed impairments. Tr.
18-20.
5.
12
Casebolt met the insured status requirements of the Social Security Act
through March 31, 2009. Tr. 17
Casebolt had the RFC to perform light work as defined in 20 CFR
404.1567(b) and 416.967(b) except he could frequently push/pull and
frequently use foot pedals bilaterally; can frequently climb ramps and
stairs; can occasionally climb ladders, ropes or scaffolds; can constantly
balance; can frequently stoop, kneel, crouch and crawl; has no
manipulative, visual or communicative limitations; cannot be exposed to
high concentration of noise; cannot perform complex tasks; can perform
simple, routine tasks; can perform low stress work, and cannot have high
The ALJ’s findings are summarized.
18
production quotas or piece rate work; cannot do work involving arbitration,
confrontation, negotiation and supervision or commercial driving. Tr. 2025.
6.
Casebolt was unable to perform any past relevant work because it exceeded
his exertional and/or mental limitations. Tr. 25.
7.
Casebolt was born in 1963 and was 49 years old, defined as a younger
individual 18-49, on the amended alleged disability onset date and
subsequently changed age category to closely approaching advanced age.
Tr. 25.
8.
Casebolt had a limited education and was able to communicate in English.
Tr. 25.
9.
Transferability of job skills was not material to the determination of
disability. Tr. 25.
10.
Considering Casebolt’s age, education, work experience and RFC, there
were jobs that existed in significant numbers in the national economy that
Casebolt could perform, including cleaner, housekeeping; cashier; and
cafeteria attendant. Tr. 26.
The ALJ determined that, based on the SSI application filed on December 24, 2013,
Casebolt was not disabled under the Social Security Act. Tr. 26-27.
V. Plaintiff’s Arguments
Casebolt raises two arguments. First, he argues that the ALJ’s credibility determination
is not supported by substantial evidence. Doc. 13, pp. 9-11. Second, he argues that the ALJ
erred by failing to address all supported non-exertional limitations in his RFC analysis. Doc. 13,
pp. 12-13.
VI. Law & Analysis
A reviewing court must affirm the Commissioner’s conclusions absent a determination
that the Commissioner has failed to apply the correct legal standards or has made findings of fact
unsupported by substantial evidence in the record. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Wright v. Massanari, 321
F.3d 611, 614 (6th Cir. 2003). “Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla of evidence but less
19
than a preponderance and is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion.” Besaw v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 966 F.2d 1028,
1030 (6th Cir. 1992) (quoting Brainard v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 889 F.2d 679, 681
(6th Cir. 1989).
The Commissioner’s findings “as to any fact if supported by substantial evidence shall be
conclusive.” McClanahan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 474 F.3d 830, 833 (6th Cir. 2006) (citing 42
U.S.C. § 405(g)). Even if substantial evidence or indeed a preponderance of the evidence
supports a claimant’s position, a reviewing court cannot overturn the Commissioner’s decision
“so long as substantial evidence also supports the conclusion reached by the ALJ.” Jones v.
Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 336 F.3d 469, 477 (6th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, a court “may not try the
case de novo, nor resolve conflicts in evidence, nor decide questions of credibility.” Garner v.
Heckler, 745 F.2d 383, 387 (6th Cir. 1984).
A.
The ALJ did not err in assessing Casebolt’s credibility
Casebolt argues that the ALJ did not properly assess his credibility. Doc. 13, pp. 9-11.
Social Security Ruling 96–7p, Evaluation of Symptoms in Disability Claims: Assessing
the Credibility of an Individual’s Statements, 1996 WL 374186, at 3 (July 2, 1996) (“SSR 967p”) 13 and 20 C.F.R. § 416.929 describe a two-part process for assessing the credibility of an
individual's subjective statements about his or her symptoms. First, the ALJ must determine
whether a claimant has a medically determinable physical or mental impairment that can
reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms alleged; then the ALJ must evaluate the
13
SSR 96-7p was in effect on March 14, 2016, the date of the ALJ’s decision. SSR 16-3p, with an effective date of
March 28, 2016, supersedes SSR 96-7p. 2016 WL 1119029 (March 16, 2016); 2016 WL 1237954 (March 24,
2016).
20
intensity and persistence associated with those symptoms to determine how those symptoms
limit a claimant’s ability to work.
When evaluating the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms, consideration is
given to objective medical evidence and other evidence, including: (1) daily activities; (2) the
location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain or other symptoms; (3) precipitating and
aggravating factors; (4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication taken
to alleviate pain or other symptoms; (5) treatment, other than medication, received for relief of
pain or other symptoms; (6) any measures used to relieve pain or other symptoms; and (7) other
factors concerning functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. 20
C.F.R. § 416.929(c); SSR 96–7p.
“An ALJ's findings based on the credibility of the applicant are to be accorded great
weight and deference, particularly since an ALJ is charged with the duty of observing a witness's
demeanor and credibility. Nevertheless, an ALJ's assessment of a claimant's credibility must be
supported by substantial evidence.” Calvin v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 437 Fed. Appx. 370, 371 (6th
Cir. 2011) (citing Walters v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 127 F.3d 525, 531 (6th Cir.1997)).
Consistent with the Regulations, the ALJ considered Casebolt’s allegations, stating:
[B]ased on the claimant’s ability to work at or near the level of substantial gainful
activity for an extended time period, I find his allegations of a total inability to work
less credible
Tr. 18.
[T]he claimant told Dr. Gustavo Gomez, M.D. that he was "looking to be classified
as disabled for financial assistance" (Exhibit 4F:1). The claimant reported that he
was homeless (Exhibit 4F:58). In addition, the claimant worked at or near SGA
levels for nearly six months in 2015 (Exhibit 17E:2). The claimant told Dr. Cisarik
that he was working odd jobs (Exhibit 4F:58). On December 2, 2014, the claimant
reported to his nurse practioner [sic] that he was trying to find work (Exhibit 4F:
129). Despite the claimant's reports of severe pain, he was able to work on cars
(Exhibit 4F:51). In combination, this suggests that the claimant may have sought
21
benefits due to his financial situation and homelessness, rather than an inability to
work.
Tr. 21.
Casebolt takes issue with the ALJ’s consideration of his ability to work at or near SGA
when assessing his credibility, arguing that the ALJ did not take into account the fact that his
output while at work was below average; that he had to miss work because of his disability, and
that doctors opined that Casebolt would require additional guidance. Doc. 13, p. 10. The
regulations make clear that daily activities is an appropriate factor to consider when assessing an
individual’s credibility. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.929(c)(3)(i). Further, an ALJ may consider “other
factors” as well when assessing credibility. 20 C.F.R. § 416.929(c)(3)(vii). In light of these
regulations, it was not improper for the ALJ to consider Casebolt’s daily activities, which
included both working at or near SGA for a period of time as well as working odd jobs. Further,
Casebolt’s claim that the ALJ ignored evidence that his output was below average while working
at Heisler Tool for six months or that consultative and/or reviewing physicians opined that
Casebolt would need additional guidance is unsupported by the record. The ALJ did not ignore
this evidence. See Tr. 18 (“His employer reported that he was terminated, and he had below
average work quality and attendance issues[.]”); Tr. 19, 22 (“Dr. Konieczny wrote that the
claimant would appear to require some degree of supervision and monitoring in the management
of his daily activities and in handling his financial affairs.”); Tr. 24 (Dr. Rivera stated, “the
claimant will benefit from having a supervisor or coworker available to occasionally explain
tasks and redirect[.]”). The ALJ considered the entirety of the evidence, including the medical
evidence, and included both physical and mental limitations in the RFC. Tr. 20. And, as
discussed more fully below in addressing Casebolt’s second argument, Casebolt has not shown
that the ALJ erred in weighing the medical opinion evidence or in formulating Casebolt’s RFC.
22
Casebolt also contends that the ALJ’s consideration of his financial hardships was
improper, arguing “Most claimants seeking benefit from Social Security are in need of financial
assistance, and it is one of the prerequisites to obtaining SSI benefits. It then does not logically
follow to deny someone benefits because they are in financial need.” Doc. 13, p. 17. The ALJ
did not deny Casebolt benefits because of his financial situation. Rather, the ALJ considered
Casebolt’s own statements to medical providers about why he was seeking social security
benefits in conjunction with his reported daily activities, his reported attempts to look for work,
and his ability to work at or near SGA for nearly six months and work odd jobs, to find his
allegations not entirely credible.
Casebolt also argues that the ALJ’s credibility determination is flawed because
examining and reviewing physicians found him reliable. Doc. 13, p. 11. An ALJ is not bound
by a physician’s statements or opinions. Rather, “an ALJ is charged with the duty of observing a
witness's demeanor and credibility.” Calvin, 437 Fed. Appx. at 371. Further, as required by the
regulations, the ALJ considered and weighed the opinion evidence. In doing so, the ALJ
provided little weight to Dr. Bradford’s opinion and partial weight to the opinions of Dr.
Konieczny and Dr. Rivera. Tr. 23-25. Thus, the fact that the ALJ did not adopt their opinions
wholesale is not surprising or error.
The ALJ’s decision makes clear that the ALJ fully considered the record and assessed the
credibility of Casebolt’s subjective statements and did not limit his credibility assessment to one
piece of evidence. Having reviewed the ALJ’s decision, and considering that an ALJ’s
credibility assessment is to be accorded great weight and deference, the undersigned finds that
the ALJ’s credibility analysis regarding the severity of Casebolt’s impairments is supported by
23
substantial evidence. Accordingly, reversal and remand is not warranted based on the ALJ’s
credibility assessment.
B.
The ALJ did not err in weighing the medical opinion evidence or in formulating
Casebolt’s RFC
Casebolt argues that the ALJ erred by not including non-exertional limitations in the RFC
that Casebolt contends are supported by the record. In particular, he argues that the ALJ should
have included a limitation in the RFC to account for Dr. Rivera’s opinion that Casebolt needs
“instructions to be occasionally repeated, and requires a supervisor to be available to explain
tasks and to redirect.” Doc. 13, p. 17. Dr. Rivera offered other opinions, including that,
Casebolt can understand one-to-three step instructions, can perform one-to-three step tasks of a
repetitive nature, and can adapt to a static work setting. Tr. 89-91.
As a non-examining reviewing psychologist, Dr. Rivera did not have an ongoing
treatment relationship with Casebolt and, therefore, Dr. Rivera’s opinion was not entitled to
deference or controlling weight under the treating physician rule. See Kornecky v. Comm’r of
Soc. Sec, 167 Fed. Appx. 496, 508 (6th Cir. 2006); Daniels v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 152 Fed.
Appx. 485, 490 (6th Cir. 2005). It is the ALJ’s responsibility to evaluate the opinion evidence
using the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 416.927. Those factors include (1) the length of the
treatment relationship and the frequency of the examination, (2) the nature and extent of the
treatment relationship, (3) the supportability of the opinion, (4) the consistency of the opinion
with the record as a whole, (5) the specialization of the source, and (6) any other factors that tend
to support or contradict the opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(c).
Furthermore, although Dr. Rivera was not treating physician, the ALJ considered the
opinion and, consistent with the regulations explained the weight assigned to Dr. Rivera’s
opinion, stating,
24
On July 17, 2014, state agency psychological consultant Dr. Aracelis Rivera, Psy.D.
opined that the claimant could understand and remember one to three step
instructions of a repetitive nature (Exhibit 6A:11). Occasionally, instructions may
require repetition (Exhibit 6A:10). The claimant will benefit from having a
supervisor or coworker available to occasionally explain tasks and redirect (Exhibit
6A:11). The claimant would not be well suited for work that entails customer
service, persuasion or conflict resolution. The claimant can interact with
supervisors or coworkers superficially. The claimant can adapt to a static work
setting (Exhibit 6A:12). I give partial weight to this opinion, however the medical
evidence of record as a whole does not persuade me that the claimant's is so limited.
Particularly, the claimant was able to work at or near SGA levels for almost six
months in 2015 (Exhibit 17E:2). This persuades me that the claimant is more
capable to the extent described in the residual functional capacity findings above.
In addition, Dr. Konieczny, and expert in disability evaluation, opined that the
claimant had no significant limitation in the ability to understand, remember and
carry out instructions (Exhibit 3F:5). He had no significant limitations in attention,
concentration, persistence and single and multi-step tasks. He would have some
diminished tolerance for frustration and diminished coping skills, which would
impact his ability to respond to severe supervision and interpersonal situations in
the work stetting. He would seem capable of responding appropriately to normal
such situations. This suggests that the claimant has greater abilities than Dr. Rivera
opined.
Tr. 24-25.
Here, the ALJ assigned partial weight to Dr. Rivera’s opinion, finding that Casebolt’s
ability to work at or near SGA levels for almost six months demonstrated that Casebolt was not
as limited as Dr. Rivera opined. Casebolt challenges the ALJ’s reliance on his ability to work at
or near SGA levels for almost six months, arguing again, as he did when challenging the ALJ’s
credibility determination, that the ALJ did not take into account statements from Casebolt’s
former employer that indicated that Casebolt’s work was below average and he needed more
instructions. Doc. 13, p. 12 (citing Tr. 264 – statement from former employer). As discussed
above, the ALJ did not ignore evidence regarding Casebolt’s performance while working at
Heisler Tool. See Tr. 18. In fact, the ALJ specifically referred to the report from Heisler Tool
and acknowledged that the work might have been accommodated work. Tr. 18. Thus, it is clear
25
that ALJ considered this evidence and it is not for this Court to try the case de novo. Garner,
745 F.2d at 387.
Casebolt also contends that the ALJ erred in not including a limitation in the RFC for
increased supervision because both Dr. Rivera’s opinion and Dr. Konieczny’s opinion support
such a limitation. Casebolt points to Dr. Konieczny’s statement that Casebolt “would appear to
require some degree of supervision and monitoring in the management of his daily activities and
in the handling of his financial affairs.” Doc. 13, p. 13. However, this statement does not
address the need for supervision in a work setting. As noted by the ALJ, Dr. Konieczny opined
that Casebolt had no significant limitations in his ability to understand, remember and carry out
instructions and no significant limitations in his ability to concentrate and persist in single and
multi-step tasks. Tr. 24, 292. However, considering the other evidence in the record, including
Dr. Rivera’s opinion, the ALJ gave partial weight to Dr. Konieczny’s opinion because he
concluded that Casebolt had greater limitations with regard to understanding, remembering and
carrying out instructions and Casebolt’s IQ suggested greater limitations than those found by Dr.
Konieczny. Tr. 24. Casebolt appears to take issue with the ALJ’s consideration of Dr. Rivera’s
opinion when weighing Dr. Konieczny’s opinion and the ALJ’s consideration of Dr.
Konieczny’s opinion when weighing Dr. Rivera’s opinion. However, the ALJ’s analysis shows
that the ALJ did as instructed by the regulations, i.e., the ALJ considered the consistency and
supportability of both opinions with the record as a whole.
Casebolt also argues that Casebolt’s most recent IQ testing, which places him in the
borderline range of adult intellectual functioning, shows that Casebolt has further mental
limitations. Casebolt does not identify what those further limitations are and, as is clear from the
ALJ’s discussion and weighing of Dr. Konieczny’s opinion, the ALJ considered Casebolt’s IQ
26
testing. In fact, the ALJ concluded that the IQ testing suggested greater limitations than those
opined by Dr. Koniecczy and included mental limitations in the RFC that the ALJ found
supported by the record: namely,
[Casebolt] cannot perform complex tasks. He can perform simple, routine tasks,
can perform low stress work, and cannot have high production quotas or piece rate
work. He cannot do work involving arbitration, confrontation, negotiation and
supervision or commercial driving.
Tr. 20.
Casebolt also argues that the ALJ, a layperson, ignored the conclusions of medical
professionals. The regulations, however, make clear that a claimant’s RFC is an issue reserved
to the Commissioner and the ALJ assesses a claimant’s RFC “based on all of the relevant
evidence” of record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.945(a); 416.946(c). It is the responsibility of the ALJ, not
a physician, to assess a claimant’s RFC. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.946(c); Poe v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.,
342 Fed. Appx. 149, 157 (6th Cir.2009). Further, the ALJ “is not required to recite the medical
opinion of a physician verbatim in his residual functional capacity finding . . . [and] an ALJ does
not improperly assume the role of a medical expert by assessing the medical and non-medical
evidence before rendering a residual functional capacity finding.” Id. (internal citations omitted);
see also Coldiron v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 391 Fed. Appx. 435, 439 (6th Cir. 2010) (“The Social
Security Act instructs that the ALJ—not a physician—ultimately determines a claimant’s RFC”).
Here, the ALJ considered the evidence of record, sufficiently explained the weight
assigned to the medical opinion evidence, and Casebolt has not shown that the ALJ’s decision to
assign partial weight to the opinions of Dr. Konieczny and Dr. Rivera is unsupported by
substantial evidence. Further, Casebolt has not shown that the RFC is not supported by
substantial evidence. As indicated, an ALJ, not a physician, assesses the claimant’s RFC. Thus,
even if “great weight” is assigned to an opinion, which did not occur in this case, an ALJ is not
27
required to adopt wholesale limitations contained therein. Moore v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 2013
WL 6283681, * 7-8 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 4, 2013) (M.J. White) (even though the ALJ did not
incorporate into the RFC all limitations from a consultative examiner’s opinion that the ALJ
assigned great weight to, the ALJ’s decision was not procedurally inadequate nor unsupported by
substantial evidence); see also Smith v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 2013 WL 1150133, * 11 (N.D.
Ohio Mar. 19, 2013) (M.J. Knepp), affirmed, 6th Cir. 13-3578 (Jan. 30, 2014) (ALJ not obligated
to explain each and every limitation or restriction adopted or not adopted from a non-examining
physician’s opinion).
Having considered Casebolt’s arguments, the Court finds no error with respect to the
ALJ’s weighing of the medical evidence or the RFC assessment. Accordingly, reversal and
remand is not warranted.
VII. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth herein, the Court finds no error by the ALJ and finds that the
ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, the Court AFFIRMS the
Commissioner’s decision.
Dated: February 21, 2018
Kathleen B. Burke
United States Magistrate Judge
28
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?