Spear v. Commissioner of Social Security
DECISION AND ORDER - IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: 1. Plaintiffs Statement of Errors (Doc. 13) is OVERRULED; 2. The Court AFFIRMS the Commissioners non-disability determination; and 3. The case is terminated on the Courts docket. Signed by Magistrate Judge Caroline H. Gentry on 9/15/22. (pb)
Case: 3:20-cv-00400-CHG Doc #: 17 Filed: 09/15/22 Page: 1 of 12 PAGEID #: 1070
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
KENNETH S., 1
COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL
: Case No. 3:20-cv-00400
: Magistrate Judge Caroline H. Gentry
: (by full consent of the parties)
DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiff filed an application for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) on May 3,
2017. Plaintiff’s claim was denied initially and upon reconsideration. After a hearing at
Plaintiff’s request, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that Plaintiff was not
eligible for benefits because he was not under a “disability” as defined in the Social
Security Act. The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request for review. Plaintiff
subsequently filed this action.
Plaintiff seeks an order remanding this matter to the Commissioner for the award
of benefits or, in the alternative, for further proceedings. The Commissioner asks the
Court to affirm the non-disability decision. This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s
See S.D. Ohio General Order 22-01 (“The Committee on Court Administration and Case Management
of the Judicial Conference of the United States has recommended that due to significant privacy concerns
in social security cases federal courts should refer to claimants only by their first names and last
Case: 3:20-cv-00400-CHG Doc #: 17 Filed: 09/15/22 Page: 2 of 12 PAGEID #: 1071
Statement of Errors (Doc. 13), the Commissioner’s Memorandum in Opposition (Doc.
14), Plaintiff’s Reply (Doc. 15), and the administrative record (Doc. 10).
Plaintiff asserts that he has been under a disability since April 28, 2017. 2 He was
thirty years old on SSI application filing date. Accordingly, Plaintiff was considered a
“younger person” under Social Security Regulations. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.963(c).
Plaintiff has a “high school education and above.” See 20 C.F.R. § 416.963(b)(4).
The evidence in the administrative record is summarized in the ALJ’s decision
(Doc. 10-2, PageID 54-63), Plaintiff’s Statement of Errors (Doc. 13), the Commissioner’s
Memorandum in Opposition (Doc. 14), and Plaintiff’s Reply (Doc. 15). Rather than
repeat these summaries, the Court will discuss the pertinent evidence in its analysis
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Social Security Administration provides SSI to individuals who are under a
“disability,” among other eligibility requirements. Bowen v. City of New York, 476 U.S.
467, 470 (1986); see 42 U.S.C. §§ 402, 423(a)(1), 1382(a). The term “disability” means
“the inability to do any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically
determinable physical or mental impairment which . . . has lasted or can be expected to
last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.905(a).
Regardless of the actual or alleged onset of disability, an SSI claimant is not entitled to SSI benefits prior to the
date that the claimant files an SSI application. Thus, the relevant period of consideration in this case begins on May
3, 2017. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.335; Koster v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 643 Fed. Appx. 466, 478 (6th Cir. 2016) (“For
purposes of SSI, which is not retroactive, the relevant period here is . . . the date [Plaintiff] filed his protective
Case: 3:20-cv-00400-CHG Doc #: 17 Filed: 09/15/22 Page: 3 of 12 PAGEID #: 1072
This Court’s review of an ALJ’s unfavorable decision is limited to two inquiries:
“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,
406 (6th Cir. 2009); see 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (“The findings of the Commissioner of Social
Security as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive.”).
“Unless the ALJ has failed to apply the correct legal standards or has made findings of
fact unsupported by substantial evidence,” this Court must affirm the ALJ’s decision.
Emard v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 953 F.3d 844, 849 (6th Cir. 2020). Thus, the Court “may
not try the case de novo, nor resolve conflicts in evidence, nor decide questions of
“Under the substantial-evidence standard, a court looks to an existing
administrative record and asks whether it contains ‘sufficien[t] evidence’ to support the
agency’s factual determinations.” Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148, 1154 (2019)
(citation omitted). This limited standard of review does not permit the Court to weigh the
evidence and decide whether the preponderance of the evidence supports a different
conclusion. Instead, the Court is confined to determining whether the ALJ’s decision is
supported by substantial evidence, which “means—and means only—‘such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’” Id.
The other line of judicial inquiry—reviewing the correctness of the ALJ’s legal
criteria—may result in reversal even when the record contains substantial evidence
supporting the ALJ’s factual findings. Rabbers v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 582 F.3d 647, 651
Case: 3:20-cv-00400-CHG Doc #: 17 Filed: 09/15/22 Page: 4 of 12 PAGEID #: 1073
(6th Cir. 2009). “[E]ven if supported by substantial evidence, ‘a decision of the
Commissioner will not be upheld where the SSA fails to follow its own regulations and
where that error prejudices a claimant on the merits or deprives the claimant of a
substantial right.’” Id. (citations omitted). Such an error of law will require reversal even
if “the outcome on remand is unlikely to be different.” Cardew v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.,
896 F.3d 742, 746 (6th Cir. 2018) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
THE ALJ’S FINDINGS
As noted previously, the ALJ was tasked with evaluating the evidence related to
Plaintiff’s application for benefits. In doing so, the ALJ considered each of the five
sequential steps set forth in the Social Security Regulations. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920.
The ALJ made the following findings of fact:
Plaintiff has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since May 3,
2017, the SSI application date.
He has the severe impairments of schizoaffective disorder and
He does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that
meets or equals the severity of one in the Commissioner’s Listing of
Impairments, 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1.
His residual functional capacity (RFC), or the most he can do despite
his impairments, see Howard v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 276 F.3d 235,
239 (6th Cir. 2002), consists of a full range of work at all exertional
levels, subject to the following limitations: “[Plaintiff] can
understand, remember, and carry out simple instructions and make
simple work-related decisions. [Plaintiff] can sustain an ordinary
routine without special supervision, and can tolerate occasional
changes in the work setting. [Plaintiff] can tolerate less than
occasional interaction with coworkers and supervisors and no
interaction with the public.”
Case: 3:20-cv-00400-CHG Doc #: 17 Filed: 09/15/22 Page: 5 of 12 PAGEID #: 1074
He has no past relevant work.
Considering Plaintiff’s age, education, work experience, and residual
functional capacity, there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in
the national economy that he can perform.
(Doc. 10-2, PageID 56-63.) These findings led the ALJ to conclude that Plaintiff does not
meet the definition of disability and so is not entitled to benefits. (Id. at PageID 63.)
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Plaintiff contends that the ALJ erred by insufficiently evaluating whether
Plaintiff’s impairments met or equaled Listing 12.03. (Doc. 13, PageID 1041-44.)
Plaintiff also argues that the ALJ erred in evaluating Plaintiff’s RFC and failed to carry
the Step Five burden. (Id. at PageID 1044-46.) The Court concludes that these arguments
are not well-taken. For the reasons stated below, the Court finds that the ALJ sufficiently
evaluated Plaintiff’s impairments and the RFC is supported by substantial evidence.
The ALJ’s Step 3 Analysis
A claimant will be found “disabled” at Step Three of the sequential evaluation if
his impairment meets or equals one of the listings in the Listing of Impairments. 20
C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii); Turner v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 381 F. App'x 488, 491 (6th
Cir. 2010). Each listing specifies “the objective medical and other findings needed to
satisfy the criteria of that listing.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.925(c)(3); Reynolds v. Comm'r of Soc.
Sec., 424 F. App'x 411, 414 (6th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). A claimant must satisfy all
of the criteria to “meet” the listing. Id. A claimant is also disabled if his impairment
“equals” the listing—if the impairment is “at least equal in severity and duration to the
Case: 3:20-cv-00400-CHG Doc #: 17 Filed: 09/15/22 Page: 6 of 12 PAGEID #: 1075
criteria of any listed impairment.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)(4)(iii), 416.926(a); Reynolds,
424 F. App’x at 414 (citation omitted).
Listing 12.03 addresses schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorders. 20
C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)(4)(iii); Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1 § 12.03. Listing 12.03 requires
either A and B, or A and C:
Medical documentation of one or more of the following:
1. Delusions or hallucinations;
2. Disorganized thinking (speech); or
3. Grossly disorganized behavior or catatonia.
Extreme limitation of one, or marked limitation of two, of the
following areas of mental functioning (see 12.00F):
1. Understand, remember, or apply information (see 12.00E1).
2. Interact with others (see 12.00E2).
3. Concentrate, persist, or maintain pace (see 12.00E3).
4. Adapt or manage oneself (see 12.00E4).
Your mental disorder in this listing category is “serious and
persistent;” that is, you have a medically documented history of the
existence of the disorder over a period of at least 2 years, and there is
evidence of both:
1. Medical treatment, mental health therapy, psychosocial
support(s), or a highly structured setting(s) that is ongoing and
that diminishes the symptoms and signs of your mental
disorder (see 12.00G2b); and
2. Marginal adjustment, that is, you have minimal capacity to
adapt to changes in your environment or to demands that are
not already part of your daily life (see 12.00G2c).
20 C.F.R. § Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, § 12.03.
At Step 3, the ALJ found that Plaintiff’s mental impairments do not meet or
medically equal the criteria of Listing 12.03. (Doc. 10-2, PageID 57.) The ALJ provided
Case: 3:20-cv-00400-CHG Doc #: 17 Filed: 09/15/22 Page: 7 of 12 PAGEID #: 1076
a detailed analysis of each of the “paragraph B” areas of functioning and found moderate
limitation in each one. (Id. at PageID 57-58.) The ALJ also found Plaintiff’s impairments
do not meet the “paragraph C” criteria:
The undersigned has also considered whether the “paragraph C” criteria are
satisfied. In this case, the evidence fails to establish the presence of the
“paragraph C” criteria. While [Plaintiff] has a mental health impairment, the
record does not indicate that [Plaintiff] has marginal adjustment, including
minimal capacity to adapt to changes in his environment or to demands that
are not already part of his daily life.
(Id. at PageID 58.)
Plaintiff does not contest the ALJ’s analysis of the “paragraph B” criteria; instead,
she challenges the ALJ’s “boilerplate, conclusory” analysis of the “paragraph C”
criteria. 3 (Doc. 13, PageID 1041-44.) Yet although the ALJ’s “paragraph C” findings
initially appear conclusory, this Court may consider the ALJ’s evaluation of the evidence
at other steps of the decision to determine how to “credit the evidence at issue in this
appeal.” Smith-Johnson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 579 Fed. Appx. 426, 435 (6th Cir. 2014)
(citing Bledsoe v. Barnhart, 165 F. App'x 408, 411 (6th Cir. 2006) (finding that the ALJ
appropriately considered a claimant's combined impairments at step three in part because
he “described evidence pertaining to all impairments, both severe and non-severe, for five
pages earlier in his opinion and made factual findings”)). In this case, the ALJ provided a
significantly more detailed analysis of Plaintiff’s mental impairments in the “paragraph
Plaintiff also contends that “the ALJ failed to even consider the “paragraph A” criteria. (Doc. 13, PageID 1041).
Yet Listing 12.03 requires the record to show either “paragraph A” and “paragraph B,” or “paragraph A” and
“paragraph C.” 20 C.F.R. § Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, § 12.03. Plaintiff does not challenge the ALJ’s “paragraph B”
analysis. For the reasons discussed in this decision, the ALJ’s “paragraph C” conclusion is supported by substantial
evidence. Accordingly, because the requirements of neither “paragraph B” nor “paragraph C” are met, the
“paragraph A” criteria are inconsequential to the outcome of this case.
Case: 3:20-cv-00400-CHG Doc #: 17 Filed: 09/15/22 Page: 8 of 12 PAGEID #: 1077
B” evaluation, as well as in the subsequent RFC analysis. (Doc. 10-2, PageID 57-58, 6062.) Accordingly, this Court will consider the ALJ’s evaluation of Plaintiff’s mental
impairments earlier in Step Three and in the RFC analysis when evaluating Plaintiff’s
assignment of error.
As Defendant points out, the ALJ thoroughly discussed Plaintiff’s ability to adapt
in the preceding “paragraph B” analysis. (Doc. 10-2, PageID 58; Doc. 14, PageID 1056.)
The ALJ acknowledged Plaintiff’s subjective complaints related to adaptation. (Doc. 102, PageID 58.) She acknowledged Plaintiff’s homelessness and reported difficulties with
some personal hygiene activities. (Id.) The ALJ balanced this evidence with medical
records that documented Plaintiff’s abilities in this area, such as being able to prepare
meals, do chores, shop, and adequately groom himself on many occasions. (Doc. 10-2,
PageID 58.) The ALJ’s conclusion that Plaintiff experiences only moderate limitation in
the ability to adapt or manage herself is supported by substantial evidence. And so the
ALJ’s conclusion that Listing 12.03(C) is not met—because Plaintiff does not have a
“minimal capacity to adapt to changes in his environment or to demands that are not
already part of his daily life”—is supported by substantial evidence.
The ALJ’s 12.03(C) conclusion is also supported by substantial evidence in the
RFC analysis. The ALJ provided a detailed summary of Plaintiff’s medical records and
mental health treatment history. (Doc. 10-2, PageID 60-62.) She acknowledged Plaintiff’s
history of incarcerations—where he sometimes experienced increased symptoms but
other times did well with medication compliance. (Id. at PageID 60-61.) The ALJ
discussed Plaintiff’s history of psychological hospitalizations: she acknowledged his
Case: 3:20-cv-00400-CHG Doc #: 17 Filed: 09/15/22 Page: 9 of 12 PAGEID #: 1078
subjective complaints which included depression, suicidal ideation, and hallucinations,
but she also explained that Plaintiff sometimes vaguely and inconsistently reported
symptoms. (Id.) The ALJ cited to outpatient treatment records that documented some
improvement with medication, as well as malingering on one occasion. (Id.) She
discussed Plaintiff’s daily activities, including Plaintiff’s part-time work. (Id.) The ALJ
also acknowledged many of the abnormal objective examination findings which included
below average intelligence, uncooperative behavior, and a mildly unkempt appearance on
some occasions. (Id. at PageID 61.) The ALJ compared these findings to other
examinations which showed intact memory, average intelligence, cooperative behavior,
and at least adequate grooming. (Id.)
Additionally, the ALJ evaluated the prior administrative medical findings from the
State agency psychological consultants. (Doc. 10-2, PageID 61-62.) She found that the
initial consultant’s findings were persuasive, but the reconsideration consultant’s findings
were less persuasive. (Id.) Significantly, initial consultant Vicki Warren, Ph.D. found
only moderate impairment in the “paragraph B” areas of functioning, and she concluded
that the evidence did not establish the presence of the paragraph C” criteria. (Doc. 10-3,
PageID 106.) The ALJ complied with applicable regulations by citing to many of the
findings discussed above and explaining that Dr. Warren’s findings were overall
supported by her review of the record and consistent with the medical record. (Id.; see 20
C.F.R. § 416.920c.)
The ALJ found that on balance, the evidence did not support Plaintiff’s allegations
of symptom severity. (Doc. 10-2, PageID 59.) She concluded that Plaintiff could carry
Case: 3:20-cv-00400-CHG Doc #: 17 Filed: 09/15/22 Page: 10 of 12 PAGEID #: 1079
out the range of simple tasks in the RFC. (Id. at PageID 59-62.) All of these findings
support the ALJ’s Step 3 conclusion that the evidence failed to establish the “paragraph
C” criteria. This Court concludes that the ALJ’s findings are supported by substantial
evidence, which is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion.” Biestek, 139 S.Ct. at 1154. The Court is not permitted
to weigh the evidence to determine whether it might support a different result. Id.
B. The ALJ’s RFC
A claimant’s RFC is “the most [he] can still do despite [his] limitations.” 20
C.F.R. § 416.945(a)(1). The Social Security regulations, rulings, and Sixth Circuit
precedent charge the ALJ with the final responsibility for determining a claimant’s RFC.
See, e.g., 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(d)(2) (the final responsibility for deciding the RFC “is
reserved to the Commissioner”); 20 C.F.R. § 416.946(c) (“the [ALJ] . . . is responsible
for assessing your [RFC]”); Webb v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 368 F.3d 629, 633 (6th Cir.
2004) (“the ALJ is charged with the responsibility of evaluating the medical evidence and
the claimant’s testimony to form an ‘assessment of [his] [RFC]’”). The Commissioner
determines a claimant’s RFC based on relevant evidence in the record, including
objective medical evidence, medical opinions, other medical evidence, evidence from
non-medical sources, and prior administrative medical findings. See 20 C.F.R.
Plaintiff contends that the ALJ “failed to sustain the Step Five burden by citing
hardly any—much less the required ‘substantial’—evidence that [Plaintiff] could be ontask at a full-time competitive job for 90 percent of each workday or absent from work
Case: 3:20-cv-00400-CHG Doc #: 17 Filed: 09/15/22 Page: 11 of 12 PAGEID #: 1080
less than three times a month with no emotional outbursts.” 4 (Doc. 13, PageID 1045.)
Plaintiff’s contentions are not well-taken. His argument is based on speculation,
not any objective medical evidence. The record contains no medical opinion that Plaintiff
would consistently be off-task, miss work, or experience recurrent emotional outbursts.
Further, as discussed above, the ALJ balanced Plaintiff’s subjective complaints with a
detailed analysis of Plaintiff’s medical records and treatment history. (Doc. 10-2, PageID
57-61.) She evaluated the prior administrative medical findings pursuant to the applicable
regulations. (Id. at PageID 61-62.) The ALJ concluded that the balance of the objective
evidence did not support Plaintiff’s allegations of symptom severity. (Id. at PageID 59.)
The ALJ accounted for this evidence by limiting Plaintiff to tasks involving simple
instructions, simple work-related decisions, an ordinary routine with no special
supervision, occasional changes in the work setting, less than occasional interaction with
coworkers and supervisors, and no interaction with the public. (Id.) For the reasons
discussed above, these conclusions are supported by substantial evidence and thus cannot
be reversed by this Court.
In sum, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s Step Three finding. Substantial
evidence also supports the ALJ’s RFC, and the ALJ did not err by failing to include
additional limitations in the RFC for off-task behavior, absenteeism, or emotional
outbursts. Plaintiff’s assertions to the contrary are without merit and are overruled.
The Vocational Expert testified that off-task behavior occurring ten percent or more of the workday, absenteeism
three times or more per month, and/or emotional outbursts “every other day on an ongoing basis” would “lead to job
loss.” (Doc. 10-2, PageID 98-99.)
Case: 3:20-cv-00400-CHG Doc #: 17 Filed: 09/15/22 Page: 12 of 12 PAGEID #: 1081
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
Plaintiff’s Statement of Errors (Doc. 13) is OVERRULED;
The Court AFFIRMS the Commissioner’s non-disability determination;
The case is terminated on the Court’s docket.
/s/ Caroline H. Gentry
Caroline H. Gentry
United States Magistrate Judge
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?