Jones v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 13

ORDER THAT: (1) THE ALJ'S NON-DISABILITY FINDING IS FOUND SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, AND AFFIRMED; AND (2) THIS CASE IS CLOSED. Signed by Judge Timothy S. Black on 2/21/2014. (mr1)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
CALVIN JONES,
Plaintiff,
vs.
COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No. 3:13-cv-201
Judge Timothy S. Black

ORDER THAT: (1) THE ALJ’S NON-DISABILITY FINDING IS FOUND
SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, AND AFFIRMED;
AND (2) THIS CASE IS CLOSED
This is a Social Security disability benefits appeal. At issue is whether the
administrative law judge (“ALJ”) erred in finding the Plaintiff “not disabled” and
therefore unentitled to disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) and supplemental security
income (“SSI”). (See Administrative Transcript (“PageID”) (PageID 66-75) (ALJ’s
decision)).
I.
Plaintiff filed applications for DIB and SSI benefits on February 25, 2010. 1
(PageID 175-185). Plaintiff alleged a disability onset date of November 9, 2006, due to
lung tumors, shortness of breath, hypertension, joint pain, and chest and leg cysts.
(PageID 175, 201). Plaintiff’s applications were denied initially and upon
reconsideration. (PageID 107-111, 113-118, 123-136). Plaintiff then requested a hearing

1

Plaintiff’s insured status expired on March 31, 2009. (PageID 186).

which was held before an ALJ on April 24, 2010. (PageID 137-138, 83-106). The ALJ
issued her decision on May 25, 2012, finding that Plaintiff was not disabled as defined by
the Social Security Act. (PageID 75).
The ALJ determined that Plaintiff had severe “[p]oorly controlled hypertension,
pulmonary amyloidosis 2 with mildly reduced DLCO, 3 and mitral valve prolapse 4…”
(PageID 68). She found that Plaintiff did not have an impairment or combination of
impairments that met or equaled the Listing of Impairments. (PageID 69). She decided
that Plaintiff had the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) 5 to perform a full range of
light exertional work activity6 except that he was restricted from extremes of heat, cold,
fumes, or gases. (PageID 69).

Amyloidosis is a group of diseases that results from the abnormal depositing in various tissues
of the body of a particular protein called amyloid. Depending on the structure of the particular
amyloid, the protein can accumulate in an isolated tissue or be widespread, affecting numerous
organs and tissues. Amyloidosis can result in abnormal functioning of the organs involved and
can include fatigue, shortness of breath, weight loss, lack of appetite, numbness, tingling, and
weakness.
2

DLCO (Diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide) is the extent to which oxygen
passes through the air sacs of the lungs into the blood.
3

Mitral valve prolapse (“MVP”) occurs when the valve between your heart’s left upper chamber
(left atrium) and the left lower chamber (left ventricle) does not close properly. In most people
mitral valve prolapse is not life-threatening and does not require treatment or changes in
lifestyle, but some people require treatment.

4

A claimant’s RFC is an assessment of “the most [he] can still do despite [his] limitations.” 20
C.F.R. § 416.945(a)(1).
5

Light work involves lifting no more than 20 pounds at a time with frequent lifting or carrying
of objects weighing up to 10 pounds. Even though the weight lifted may be very little, a job is in
this category when it requires a good deal of walking or standing, or when it involves sitting
most of the time with some pushing and pulling of arm or leg controls. To be considered capable
of performing a full or wide range of light work, you must have the ability to do substantially all
6

2

The Appeals Council denied review, making the ALJ’s decision the final decision
of the Commissioner. (PageID 54-57). Plaintiff then commenced this action in federal
court for judicial review of the Commissioner’s final decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
Section 405(g).
Plaintiff was born in 1959. (PageID 175). He has a twelfth grade education.
(PageID 202). His past relevant work consisted of machine operator, management
trainee, and liquor establishment manager. 7 (PageID 99-100).
The ALJ’s “Findings,” which represent the rationale of her decision, were as
follows:
1. The claimant meets the insured status requirements of the Social Security Act
through March 31, 2009.
2. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since March 26,
2006, the alleged onset date (20 C.F.R. 404.1571 et seq., and 416.971 et seq.).
3. The claimant has the following severe impairments: poorly controlled
hypertension, pulmonary, amyloidosis with mildly reduced DLCO, and mitral
valve prolapse (20 CFR 404.1520(c) and 416.920(c)).
4. The claimant does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that
meets or medically equals the severity of one of the listed impairments in 20
CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (20 CFR 404.1520(d), 404.1525,
404.1526, 416.920(d), 416.925 and 416.926).

of these activities. If someone can do light work, we determine that he or she can also do
sedentary work, unless there are additional limiting factors such as loss of fine dexterity or
inability to sit for long periods of time. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(b).
Past relevant work experience is defined as work that the claimant has “done within the last 15
years, [that] lasted long enough for [the claimant] to learn to do it, and was substantial gainful
activity.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.965(a).
7

3

5. After careful consideration of the entire record, the undersigned finds that the
claimant has the residual functional capacity to performs light work as defined
in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) and 416.967(b) except the claimant cannot be exposed
to extremes of heat, cold, fumes, or gases.
6. The claimant is capable of performing past relevant work as a machine
operator, classified as semiskilled work at the light exertion level, as a manager
trainee, classified as skilled work at the light exertion level, and as a restaurant
or nightclub manager. This work does not require the performance of workrelated activities precluded by the claimant’s residual functional capacity (20
CFR 404.1565 and 416.965).
7. The claimant has not been under a disability, as defined in the Social Security
Act, from March 26, 2006, through the date of this decision (20 CFR
404.1520(f) and 41.920(f)).
(PageID 68-75).
In sum, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff was not under a disability as defined by
the Social Security Regulations, and he was therefore not entitled to SSI or DIB.
(PageID 75).
On appeal, Plaintiff argues that: (1) the ALJ erred in rejecting the opinion of his
treating physician; and (2) the ALJ erred in finding that he was not credible. The Court
will address each error in turn.
II.
The Court’s inquiry on appeal is to determine whether the ALJ’s non-disability
finding is supported by substantial evidence. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Substantial evidence is
“such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.” Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971). In performing this
review, the Court considers the record as a whole. Hephner v. Mathews, 574 F.2d 359,
4

362 (6th Cir. 1978). If substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s denial of benefits, that
finding must be affirmed, even if substantial evidence also exists in the record upon
which the ALJ could have found plaintiff disabled. As the Sixth Circuit has explained:
“The Commissioner’s findings are not subject to reversal
merely because substantial evidence exists in the record to
support a different conclusion. The substantial evidence
standard presupposes that there is a “zone of choice” within
which the Commissioner may proceed without interference
from the courts. If the Commissioner’s decision is
supported by substantial evidence, a reviewing court must
affirm.”
Felisky v. Bowen, 35 F.3d 1027, 1035 (6th Cir. 1994).
The claimant bears the ultimate burden to prove by sufficient evidence that he is
entitled to disability benefits. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1512(a). That is, he must present
sufficient evidence to show that, during the relevant time period, he suffered an
impairment, or combination of impairments, expected to last at least twelve months, that
left him unable to perform any job in the national economy. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A).
A.
The record reflects that:
Plaintiff was seen in the emergency room on October 20, 2006 for hypertension.
His blood pressure was 220/120. (PageID 484). He also had complaints of shortness of
breath. (PageID 482). On July 16, 2009, his blood pressure was high and he stated that
he was prescribed medication but did not take it. (PageID 468). 8

8

These events occurred prior to Plaintiff’s November 9, 2006 alleged disability onset date.
5

A November 21, 2006 CT scan revealed small nodes in both of Plaintiff’s hila
regions. 9 There was an area of increased density in his right upper lobe that abutted the
right minor fissure and indicated some infiltration. There was a second area of increased
density in the right upper lobe that was either infiltration or scarring. (PageID 276, 282).
Plaintiff underwent a second CT scan on December 9, 2009. It revealed two nodules in
the right upper lobe of his lung which were thought to be either a large mass or
pneumonia. (PageID 270, 281). He was urged to consult with a physician immediately
for further evaluation of a possible tumor as a result of his possible exposure to toxic
substances from his employment at a Department of Energy facility. (PageID 271, 277).
Prior to his onset date, Plaintiff was treated for hypertension, exertional dyspnea,
shortness of breath, and pulmonary infiltration. (PageID 387-388). After his onset date,
Plaintiff was treated for palpitations, increased fatigue, anterior tibal cyst, and
uncontrolled hypertension. (PageID 384). Plaintiff was seen for lung infiltration and
shortness of breath and sent to a pulmonary specialist. (PageID 382). On December 27,
2006, the specialist noted that Plaintiff’s shortness of breath had decreased, but he still
had dyspnea 10 on moderately severe exertion. Spirometry testing 11 was sub-optimal and
indicated that he had a mild obstruction. (PageID 308, 332). Plaintiff continued to be

The hila (lung roots) are structures consisting of the major bronchi and the pulmonary veins
and arteries. These structures pass through the narrow hila on each side and then branch as they
widen out into the lungs.
9

10

Dyspnea is shortness of breath.

11

Spirometry is the most common of the pulmonary function tests which measure lung function.
6

seen for shortness of breath, fatigue, hypertension, and allergies. (PageID 370, 372-373,
376, 379-380). He also had back pain. (PageID 378).
Plaintiff sought treatment from Dr. Ronald Warwar from September 9, 2008
through June 30, 2009 for his left eye moderate corneal edema. 12 (PageID 456-465). In
October 2008, Plaintiff complained of pain and a film over his vision. (PageID 459). He
still had eye floats in June 30, 2009. 13 (PageID 456).
On January 18, 2010, Plaintiff’s pulmonary specialist, Dr. Iberico, reported to
Plaintiff’s family physician, Dr. Chavez, that Plaintiff had been seen on a yearly basis by
Workmen’s Compensation because he spent five years machining beryllium. 14 After the
mass was discovered on the CT scan, Plaintiff was given antibiotics, but failed to notice a
difference. Plaintiff had shortness of breath. (PageID 283). The diagnosic impression
was “[r]ight upper lobe mass, suspicious for a malignant process…[and] [d]yspnea of
uncertain origin.” (PageID 284).
On March 23, 2010, Dr. Chavez completed a questionnaire. (PageID 287). She
stated that she had treated Plaintiff for years and last saw him on March 23, 2010. His
diagnosis was a new lung mass suspected of being lung cancer, dyspnea on exertion,
hypertension, and allergies. Dr. Chavez indicated that Plaintiff would need a biopsy and
Corneal edema is a swelling of the cornea, the thin transparent covering over the iris of the
eye, caused by fluid retention.
12

13

Eye floaters are small moving spots that appear in your field of vision.

Airborne beryllium particulates are toxic. Breathing very fine particles may cause serious
lung conditions in a small percentage of individuals.
14

7

possible surgery. (PageID 288). His compliance with treatment was good. She stated
that with lung cancer, he would not be able to perform sustained work activity. (PageID
289). Plaintiff had a biopsy done on April 6, 2010, which revealed amyloidosis. (PageID
294, 296-297).
On August 8, 2009, Plaintiff was seen in the ER for a hit on the head. He was
noted to have marked hypertension at the time. (PageID 338). On September 9, 2008, he
was seen for a cut on his eye and had blurry vision. (PageID 340-341, 344-347, 375). He
was diagnosed with “a diffuse non-layered hyphema of the left eye with moderate corneal
edema.” 15 (PageID 331). On October 19, 2009, Plaintiff noted that he was helping a
friend move. (PageID 371). In 2010, Plaintiff was treated for his lung mass, shortness of
breath, and hypertension. (PageID 368). Plaintiff was unable to pay for his medical
treatment. (PageID 365-366).
On May 3, 2010, the Mayo Clinic reported that testing confirmed AL-type
amyloid. The report stated that the amyloidosis could be part of systemic amyloidosis or
connected with “extranoldal marginal zone B-cell lymphomas of mucosa-associated
lymphoid tissue or solitary pulmonary amyloid nodules….” (PageID 508).
Dr. Damian Danopulos evaluated Plaintiff on June 8, 2010, at the request of the
State agency. On exam, Plaintiff’s chest excursions were diminished. (PageID 393).
Musculoskeletal testing was normal. (PageID 394). Pulmonary function studies revealed

Hyphema is blood in the front chamber of the eye and without treatment can result in
permanent visual impairment.
15

8

a “mild degree of restrictive lung disease without obstructive component.” (PageID 394,
404). Left elbow x-rays showed mild degeneration of the olecranon. 16 (PageID 394,
401). The diagnosis was mild degree of lung disease which triggered shortness of breath
when Plaintiff walked long distances, bilateral elbow and knee arthralgias, and poorly
controlled hypertension at stroke level. (PageID 395). Dr. Danopulos opined that
Plaintiff’s fatigue was a result of his poorly controlled hypertension. (PageID 396).
There was no indication that Dr. Danopulos was ever informed about Plaintiff’s
amyloidosis.
The record was reviewed on June 25, 2010 by Dr. Linda Hall, a non-examining
physician, at the request of the State agency. She opined that Plaintiff could occasionally
lift/carry up to twenty pounds and frequently lift/carry up to ten pounds, and stand/walk
for six hours out of eight and sit for six hours out of eight. (PageID 415). Plaintiff could
occasionally climb ramps and stairs, but he was never to climb ladders, ropes, and
scaffolds. He could occasionally crawl. (PageID 416). He was to avoid concentrated
exposure to extreme cold, heat, humidity, and even moderate exposure to fumes, odors,
dusts, gases, poor ventilation, and hazards. (PageID 418).
On December 21, 2010, Dr. Danopulos stated that Plaintiff suffered from
shortness of breath. Plaintiff was advised to have either radiation or chemotherapy after
his lung biopsy, but he had neither of them. He used only blood pressure medication and
had no resting dyspnea. (PageID 440). Plaintiff’s blood pressure was 220/120 and he
The olecranon is a large, thick, curved bony eminence of the forearm that projects behind the
elbow.
16

9

had no evidence of congestive heart failure. Dr. Danopulos noted that Plaintiff “suffers
from unusually high hypertension. He had a lung biopsy…which revealed ‘Fragments of
fibroinflamatory tissue with amyloidosis.’” (Id.) Dr. Danopulos found that Plaintiff’s
shortness of breath was a result of his obesity, his poorly controlled hypertension, and his
suggested amyloidosis. (Id.)
Plaintiff underwent an echocardiogram on December 21, 2010 by Dr. Frank
Wenzke. The left ventricle had underlying moderate to severe concentric hypertrophy
and trivial tricuspid insufficiency. 17 (PageID 443).
Dr. Bradley Lewis, another non-examining physician, reviewed the medical record
on January 10, 2011, at the request of the State agency. He affirmed the previous
assessment. (PageID 448).
On September 16, 2011, Dr. Chavez completed a medical assessment of Plaintiff’s
ability to perform work activity. She opined that Plaintiff could lift/carry twenty pounds
occasionally and ten pounds frequently. Plaintiff could walk a total of one hour out of
eight owing to his dyspnea on exertion, and could sit for two to three hours out of eight.
(PageID 516). He was never to climb or crawl, but could occasionally balance, stoop,
crouch, or kneel. His ability to see and push/pull was affected. (PageID 517). He was
restricted from dust, chemicals, temperature extremes, humidity, and fumes, because it
could cause worsening of his shortness of breath. (PageID 518). Dr. Chavez opined that
Tricuspid insufficiency is a valvular heart disease which refers to the failure of the heart’s
tricuspid valve to close properly during systole. As a result, with each heart beat some blood
passes from the right ventricle to the right atrium, the opposite of the normal direction.
17

10

Plaintiff could perform sedentary work activity, but not light work activity. (PageID
519). In answers to interrogatories, she stated that she had treated Plaintiff since 1997
for hypertension, increased lipids, allergic rhinitis, amyloidosis, and LVH. 18 (PageID
521). He was unable to withstand the pressure of meeting normal standards of work
productivity and work accuracy because of his shortness of breath and reduced endurance
owing to his lung mass. (PageID 523). Treatment notes show that Plaintiff was fatigued,
had shortness of breath, continued to have hypertension, and started have hip pain.
(PageID 529-538).
B.
First, Plaintiff alleges that the ALJ erred in rejecting the opinion of his treating
physician to find that he could perform work activity.
In March 2010, Dr. Chavez, Plaintiff’s treating physician, concluded that she was
“pretty certain that [Plaintiff] has lung cancer and will not be able to perform sustained
work activity.” (PageID 289). The ALJ declined to given this opinion controlling weight
because it was based on the mistaken belief that Plaintiff had lung cancer. (PageID 73).
In September 2011, Dr. Chavez concluded that Plaintiff could perform sedentary work, as
long as he limited his postural activities and restricted his exposure to chemicals, extreme
temperatures, dust fumes, and humidity. (PageID 524-27). The ALJ found that this
opinion was not entitled to controlling or significant weight because it was based
primarily on Plaintiff’s subjective complaints of dyspnea on exertion and joint arthralgia,
Left ventricular hypertrophy (“LVH”) is the thickening of the myocardium (muscle) of the left
ventricle of the heart.
18

11

despite there being no diagnostic evidence of joint disease. 19 (PageID 73). See, e.g.,
Bledsoe v. Barnhart, 165 F. App’x 408, 412 (6th Cir. 2006) (“The ALJ reasoned that Dr.
Lin’s conclusions are ‘not well supported by the overall evidence of record and are
inconsistent with other medical evidence of record.’ This is a specific reason for not
affording controlling weight to Dr. Lin.”).
In order to give Dr. Chavez’s opinions controlling weight, they had to be wellsupported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not
inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d),
416.927(d). The ALJ was not required to assign controlling weight to Dr. Chavez’s
opinions if these two requirements were not met. SSR 96-6p (“In appropriate
circumstances, opinions from…program physicians…may be entitled to greater weight
than the opinions of treating or examining sources.”).
Plaintiff maintains that the ALJ should have accepted Dr. Chavez’s opinions
because Plaintiff had amyloidosis, a rare and potentially life threatening medical
condition. (Doc. 7 at 11). However, Plaintiff failed to present evidence that the
condition did in fact affect his ability to work. “The mere diagnosis of [an
impairment]…says nothing about the severity of the condition.” Higgs v. Brown, 880
F.2d 860, 863 (6th Cir. 1988). In order to provide that he was disabled, Plaintiff had to
provide evidence that the amyloidosis would prevent him from performing any

If the ALJ adopted Dr. Chavez’s opinion that Plaintiff could only perform sedentary work, he
would have “grid out” as disabled in 2009 at age 50. 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, Subpt. P, app. 2, Section
201.00(g).
19

12

substantial gainful activity for 12 continuous months. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1512(c),
416.912(c) (“You must provide medical evidence showing…how severe [your
impairment] is during the time you say that you are disabled. You must provide evidence
showing how your impairment(s) affects your functioning during the time you say that
you are disabled.”). Although Plaintiff was diagnosed with pulmonary amyloidosis, his
pulmonary function study and diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide test
(DCLO) was normal. (PageID 416, 448). Additionally, two medical professionals
concluded that Plaintiff’s pulmonary amyloidosis would not preclude him from working.
(PageID 71, citing 414-28, 448). Therefore, the ALJ properly declined to find the
condition disabling and reasonably concluded that Plaintiff could perform light work, as
long as he avoided extreme temperatures, fumes, and gases. (PageID 69).
Plaintiff also maintains that the ALJ erred in giving great weight to the opinions of
the consultative physician and the state agency reviewing physicians instead of the
treating physician.
Dr. Danopulos examined Plaintiff in June 2010. (PageID 391-412). Plaintiff told
Dr. Danopulos that he could not work because he had difficulties due to shortness of
breath, hypertension, and pain in his elbows, knee, neck, and low back. (PageID 391).
On examination, Dr. Danopulos noted that Plaintiff’s lungs were clear to auscultation, his
chest excursions were diminished, and his pulmonary function study revealed mild
degree restrictive lung disease without obstructive component. (PageID 395). Dr.
Danopulos also noted that Plaintiff’s elbows, knees, and spine revealed normal and
13

painless motions, and a x-ray of the elbow revealed minimal degeneration. (PageID 395).
Dr. Danopulos’ clinical impression was arthralgias of the cervical and lumbar spine and
very poorly controlled hypertension. (PageID 395). He concluded that Plaintiff’s ability
to do work-related activities was affected by his high blood pressure and mild lung
disease. (PageID 395).
Plaintiff maintains that the ALJ should not have relied on Dr. Danopulos’ June
2010 opinion because he was not aware of Plaintiff’s severe amyloidosis until December
2010. However, Dr. Danopulos did not assess any additional work-related restrictions
when he issued his December 2010 opinion. (PageID 440). In fact, he did not assess any
restrictions at all. (Id.) Dr. Danopulos merely explained that Plaintiff suffered from
unusually high hypertension, had a lung biopsy which revealed fragments of
fibroinflammatory tissue with amyloidosis, and did not have clinical evidence of cardiac
amyloidosis or congestive heart failure. (PageID 440). Although Plaintiff maintains that
“the ALJ picked and chose the medical evidence that supported her decision and
erroneously reject[ed] the evidence favorable to Mr. Jones”, the ALJ discussed Plaintiff’s
allegations (PageID 69), Dr. Danopulos’ findings (PageID 71), and Dr. Chavez’s medical
opinions (PageID 72-73) in reaching her findings. Accordingly, the ALJ followed the
correct legal standard, and reasonably concluded that Dr. Danopulos’ opinion was
entitled to great weight.
Drs. Hall and Lewis reviewed Plaintiff’s medical records and found that Plaintiff
could do light work. Specifically, Dr. Hall noted that Plaintiff’s pulmonary function
14

study and DCLO tests were only slightly abnormal and did not account for Plaintiff’s
shortness of breath and difficulties walking. (PageID 71 citing 416). Other than poorly
controlled hypertension and minimal degeneration of the elbow, Dr. Hall did not identify
any significant abnormalities in Plaintiff’s physical examination. (PageID citing 416).
Dr. Lewis noted that Plaintiff’s physical examination showed full range of motion and
strength in all muscle groups and no evidence of congestive heart failure or cardiac
amyloidosis. (PageID 71). Dr. Lewis also noted that Plaintiff did not comply with the
treatment recommendations of her treating sources which led to poorly controlled
hypertension. (PageID 72). Since the opinions of Drs. Danopulos, Hall and Lewis were
consistent with the evidence, the ALJ reasonably gave them great weight. 20
C.
Next, Plaintiff maintains that the ALJ erred in finding that he was not entirely
credible.

Plaintiff criticizes the opinions of Drs. Hall and Lewis because they did not review all of the
evidence. However, it was Plaintiff’s burden to prove that he was disabled. Plaintiff was
responsible for furnishing the ALJ with the relevant medical evidence. Several of the exhibits
that were submitted after Drs. Hall and Lewis provided their opinions were dated before June
2010, so they were presumably in existence when they reviewed Plaintiff’s medical records. See
20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1512(a), 416.912(a) (“In general, you have to prove to us that you
are…disabled. Therefore, you must bring to our attention everything that shows that you
are…disabled. This means that you must furnish medical and other evidence that we can use to
reach conclusions about your medical impairment(s).”). Moreover, The ALJ cited the medical
evidence that was submitted after Drs. Hall and Lewis issued their opinions and explained why it
did not necessitate a finding of disability. (PageID 73). See also Kelly v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.,
314 F. App’x 827, 831 (6th Cir. 2009) (“There will always be a gap between the time the agency
experts review the record and give their opinion with respect to the Listing and the time the
hearing decision is issued. Absent a clear showing that the new evidence renders the prior
opinion untenable, the mere fact that a gap exists does not warrant the expense and delay of a
judicial remand.”).
20

15

The ALJ, not the reviewing court, has the responsibility to evaluate the credibility
of witnesses, including that of the claimant. Walters v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 127 F.3d
525, 531 (6th Cir. 1997). An ALJ’s credibility determinations about the claimant are to
be given great weight. Cruse v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 502 F.3d 532, 542 (6th Cir. 2007).
Specifically, Plaintiff argues that he had amyloidosis, a potentially life-threatening
condition, and therefore was disabled. However, while Plaintiff was diagnosed with
amyloidosis, there is no significant evidence that it was disabling. Dr. Hall explained that
Plaintiff’s pulmonary function study and DCLO tests were only mildly impaired and his
oxygen saturation was normal. (PageID 419).
Given the lack of medical evidence, it was reasonable for the ALJ to discredit the
Plaintiff’s claim that the amyloidosis was disabling and to conclude that Plaintiff was not
in fact disabled.
III.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s assignments of error are unavailing. The
ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and is affirmed.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT the decision of the Commissioner, that
Calvin Jones was not entitled to supplemental security income and disability insurance
benefits, is found SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, and AFFIRMED.

16

The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly, and, as no further matters remain pending
for the Court’s review, this case is CLOSED.
Date: 2/21/14

/s/ Timothy S. Black
Timothy S. Black
United States District Judge

17