Dustin L. Bowers v. Commissioner of Social Security

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
File Name: 22a0183n.06
No. 21-4069
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
DUSTIN L. BOWERS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
OHIO
OPINION
Before: KETHLEDGE, STRANCH, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.
JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge. Dustin Bowers appeals the district court’s opinion
affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of Social Security disability insurance
benefits and supplemental security income benefits for a closed period of August 30, 2009 to
September 21, 2014. On appeal, Bowers makes the same argument that he presented in district
court: that the Administrative Law Judge erred in determining that he did not require a job coach
during the relevant period.
We review district court decisions regarding social security benefits determinations de
novo. Gentry v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 741 F.3d 708, 722 (6th Cir. 2014). When reviewing the
Commissioner’s determination of whether a claimant is disabled and entitled to benefits, we are
“limited to determining whether it is supported by substantial evidence and was made pursuant to
proper legal standards.” Rogers v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 486 F.3d 234, 241 (6th Cir. 2007).
Substantial evidence means “more than a scintilla of evidence but less than a preponderance; it is

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 21-4069, Bowers v. Commissioner of Social Security
-2-
such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”
Id. (quoting Cutlip v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 25 F.3d 284, 286 (6th Cir. 1994)). “An
ALJ’s failure to follow agency rules and regulations ‘denotes a lack of substantial evidence, even
where the conclusion of the ALJ may be justified based upon the record.’” Cole v. Astrue, 661 F.3d
931, 937 (6th Cir. 2011) (quoting Blakley v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 581 F.3d 399, 407 (6th Cir.
2009)). Finally, at issue in social security cases is not whether we would have reached the same
decision on this record. When determining whether to affirm the Commissioner’s decision, we
need not “agree with the Commissioner’s finding”; we instead ask whether the decision followed
legal standards and “is substantially supported in the record.” Rogers, 486 F.3d at 241. The district
court’s decision establishes that the applicable standard was satisfied here.
After considering the record and the parties’ briefs, we find that the district court’s Opinion
& Order of September 16, 2021 sufficiently articulates the relevant facts, governing law, and the
reasoning underlying its decision. Issuing a full opinion would be duplicative and serve no other
purpose. We therefore AFFIRM the judgment and adopt the district court’s decision as this court’s
opinion.

-- 2 of 2 --