Hollinger v. Commissioner of Social Security

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
DANA ELIZABETH HOLLINGER,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 1:25-CV-01133-CEH
JUDGE CARMEN E. HENDERSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
MEMORANDUM 	OPINION 	AND
ORDER
I. Introduction
Dana Elizabeth Hollinger (“Hollinger” or “Claimant”), seeks judicial review of the final
decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying her application for Supplemental
Security Income (“SSI”). This matter is before me by consent of the parties under 28 U.S.C. §
636(c) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73. (ECF No. 7). For the reasons set forth below, the
Court AFFIRMS the Commissioner of Social Security’s nondisability finding and DISMISSES
Plaintiff’s Complaint.
II. Procedural History
On June 7, 2023, Hollinger filed an application for SSI, alleging a disability onset date of
May 15, 2020. 	(ECF No. 8, PageID #: 45). The application was denied initially and upon
reconsideration, and Hollinger requested a hearing before an administrative law judge (“ALJ”).
(Id.). On March 5, 2024, an ALJ held a hearing, during which Claimant, represented by counsel,
and an impartial vocational expert testified. (Id. at PageID #: 62-83). On May 15, 2024 the ALJ
issued a written decision finding Hollinger was not disabled. 	(Id. at PageID #: 45-57). 	The
Case: 1:25-cv-01133-CEH Doc #: 14 Filed: 01/12/26 1 of 18. PageID #: <pageID>

2
ALJ’s decision became final on April 7, 2025, when the Appeals Council declined further
review. (Id. at PageID #: 29-31).
On June 2, 2025, Hollinger filed her Complaint to challenge the Commissioner’s final
decision. (ECF No. 1). The parties have completed briefing in this case. (ECF Nos. 10, 12, 13).
Hollinger asserts the following assignments of error:
(1) The ALJ erred when she failed to properly apply the criteria of
Social 	Security 	Ruling 	96-8p 	and 	consider 	all 	Plaintiff’s
impairments and related limitations when forming the residual
functional capacity evaluation.
(2) The ALJ erred at Step Three of the Sequential Evaluation when
she failed to comply with the relevant Social Security Ruling,
19-2p, and find that Plaintiff’s obesity equaled a listing.
(3) The ALJ committed harmful error when she failed to properly
apply the criteria of Social Security Ruling 16-3p and failed to
find that the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of
Plaintiff’s 	symptoms, 	including 	pain, 	precluded 	her 	from
engaging in substantial gainful activity on a full-time and
sustained basis.
(ECF No. 10 at 1).
III. Background
A. Relevant Hearing Testimony
The ALJ summarized the relevant testimony from Hollinger’s hearing:
The claimant alleges she is disabled from work due to low
back/pelvic pain, anxiety and depression. She testified she has
difficulty sitting due to back pain that travels down her right leg.
She has had some physical therapy but no injections. She stated
she is able to lift 15 pounds for a short period of time, sit for 45
minutes, stand for 2-3 minutes, and walk for 2-3 minutes. She said
she uses a cane that was not prescribed by a doctor. She stated she
drops 	things 	periodically. 	She is 	able to reach 	in 	front 	and
overhead. She testified she is able to go up and down stairs but it is
painful. She said she is unable to crawl.
The claimant testified to medication side effects including weight
Case: 1:25-cv-01133-CEH Doc #: 14 Filed: 01/12/26 2 of 18. PageID #: <pageID>

3
gain, thirst, fatigue, dizziness, and nausea.
The claimant testified to depression, stating some days she is
unable to get out of bed, does not shower, and has fluctuating
appetite. She stated she lost her job at Home Depot due to being
late, moving slowly, anxiety, and depression. She attends mental
health counseling every other week. She testified to difficulty
socializing and being in public, stating she feels very anxious and
awkward. She stated she has difficulty remembering things. She
uses a phone to keep track of medications and appointments. She
watches television, reads, and is able to follow plot of movie. She
stated she would need extra breaks due to pain and anxiety.
(ECF No. 8, PageID #: 51).
B. Relevant Medical Evidence
The ALJ also summarized Hollinger’s health records and symptoms:
The claimant attended physical therapy in November 2021 for
chronic right sided low back pain with sciatica, myofascial pain
and weakness. She was noted to have poor gait but good lumbar
range of motion (C1F/10).
In January 2023, claimant reported average back pain a 4/10, and
can jump to 7-8/10 with activity. She reported caring for a
neighbor with dementia for her day job. A 2019 lumbar x-ray
report was noted as showing “L4 is at the iliac crest level and the
last 	intervertebral 	disc 	space 	is 	L5/S1. 	There 	is 	no
spondylolisthesis. 	Vertebral 	body 	heights 	are 	maintained.
Intervertebral disc space heights are relatively well-maintained.
Pedicles appear intact. There is no evidence of acute osseous
abnormality. 	Posterior 	elements 	appear 	within 	normal 	limits”
(C1F/5-7).
In March 2023, claimant reported marijuana helped with pain and
anxiety. On exam, she had normal gait and station, 5/5 grip
strength, no lower extremity edema (C2F/32-35). Treatment notes
from 	June 	2023 	indicate 	normal 	gait 	and 	station. 	Claimant
prescribed Flexeril, Meloxicam and gabapentin (C3F/28, 29). In
July 2023, she was again noted as having normal gait and station
and no lower extremity edema (C3F/14, 15). Treatment notes from
October 2023 indicate she had antalgic gait and was using a cane.
She had some tenderness over the bilateral lumbar paraspinal
muscles and painful lumbar extension. However, she had 5/5
motor strength and tone and intact sensation (C5F/21).
Case: 1:25-cv-01133-CEH Doc #: 14 Filed: 01/12/26 3 of 18. PageID #: <pageID>

4
Notes 	from 	a 	November 	2023 	obesity 	medicine 	consultation
indicates claimant’s quality of life was moderately compromised
by her weight (C5F/10).
Claimant began physical therapy in November 2023 for myofascial
pain in the lumbar spine and legs. Antalgic gait but negative
straight leg raise test, normal lumbar range of motion (C5F/13-
15).
January 2024 pain management initial evaluation for right-sided
low back pain and right hip pain. 5/5 strength in the lower
extremities, intact sensation, normal deep tendon reflexes (C7F/34-
38).
The 	claimant 	has 	treated 	at 	Circle 	Health 	Services 	East 	for
individual counseling and medication management (C2F, C3F).
Diagnoses indicated as generalized anxiety disorder and bipolar
disorder. Claimant has been prescribed lamotrigine, buspirone,
doxepin, Vistaril and Latuda (C2F-C4F, C8F). Treatment notes
from January 2022 indicate claimant was experiencing stress and
depression related to her financial situation and the anniversary of
her pets’ and mother’s death. She reported her SSI application was
denied, and she had been distraught not knowing how she would
support herself. She appeared neutral or euthymic and did not
express current suicidal ideation (C2F/170).
Therapy notes and medication management notes consistently
indicate claimant presented in pleasant mood. She consistently
noted ongoing stressors regarding finances, paying rent, caring for
her neighbor (C2F/11, 21, 24, 71, 79, 81, 134, 151). Claimant
reported her strengths as writing, good listener, leadership skills,
and friends (C2F/122). In July 2022, claimant reported her mood
as “up and down, but it’s just situational stress.” She denied mood
swings or agitation. She stated her motivation was improving and
was starting to have an interest in cleaning her home. She reported
she was still having some fatigue related to her caregiving job from
8am-2pm 	(C2F/116). 	Notes 	from 	February 	2023 	indicate 	a
diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder (C2F/51).
At her June 2023 therapy visit, claimant presented in a pleasant,
calm mood. She reported feeling drained and overwhelmed as she
was still caring for her elderly neighbor (C3F/33). In July 2023,
claimant continued to make progress at home in cleaning and
decluttering, stating the achievements had improved her mood. She
appeared neutral or euthymic (C3F/9).
Case: 1:25-cv-01133-CEH Doc #: 14 Filed: 01/12/26 4 of 18. PageID #: <pageID>

5
In July 2023, she denied irritability, mood swings, agitation,
intrusive 	thoughts, 	and 	suicidal 	plant[sic]/intent. 	She 	was
cooperative, engaged, and fully oriented with no abnormal thought
content, moderate insight and no impairment in judgment (C3F/20-
22). In September 2023, she reported she was “a little bit better.
Busy and stressful.” She indicated she was burned out due to
caregiver stress (C6F/35). October 2023, claimant reported feeling
very tired due to moving. She expressed improved mood due to the
cleaning and packing (C6F/26). In December 2023, she reported
she was doing well on medication. She presented in pleasant mood
(C6F/13).
In February 2024, the claimant reported smoking more cannabis to
cope with stress related to her upcoming inspection. On exam she
was cooperative, engaged and fully oriented. She was anxious but
denied suicidal ideation (C8F/2-4).
(ECF No. 8, PageID #: 52-53).
IV. 	The ALJ’s Decision
The ALJ made the following findings relevant to this appeal:
1. 	The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since
June 7, 2023, the application date (20 CFR 416.971 et seq.).
2. 	The 	claimant 	has 	the 	following 	severe 	impairments: 	somatic
dysfunction of lumbar and sacral regions; obesity; bipolar disorder;
generalized anxiety disorder; posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD)
(20 CFR 416.920(c)).
3. 	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 416.920(d), 416.925 and 416.926).
4. 	After careful consideration of the entire record, the undersigned
finds that the claimant has the residual functional capacity to
perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 416.967(b) except the
claimant 	can 	occasionally 	climb 	ramps 	and 	stairs, 	but 	never
ladders, ropes or scaffolds. The claimant can occasionally balance,
stoop, kneel, crouch and crawl. The claimant can never be exposed
to 	unprotected 	heights, 	hazardous 	machinery 	and 	commercial
driving. The claimant is limited to simple, routine tasks, involving
only 	simple 	short 	instructions, 	simple 	decisions, 	occasional
Case: 1:25-cv-01133-CEH Doc #: 14 Filed: 01/12/26 5 of 18. PageID #: <pageID>

6
workplace changes and no strict production rate or hourly quotas.
The claimant is limited to occasional interaction with coworkers,
supervisors and the public.
5. 	The claimant is unable to perform any past relevant work (20 CFR
416.965).
…
9. 	Considering the claimant’s age, education, work experience, and
residual functional capacity, there are jobs that exist in significant
numbers in the national economy that the claimant can perform (20
CFR 416.969 and 416.969a).
10. The claimant has not been under a disability, as defined in the
Social Security Act, since June 7, 2023, the date the application
was filed (20 CFR 416.920(g)).
(ECF No. 8, PageID #: 48, 50, 55-56).
V. Law & Analysis
A. Standard of Review
The Court’s review “is limited to determining whether the Commissioner’s decision is
supported by substantial evidence and was made pursuant to proper legal standards.” Winn v.
Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 615 F. App’x 315, 320 (6th Cir. 2015); see also 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
“[S]ubstantial evidence is defined as ‘more than a scintilla of evidence but less than a
preponderance; it is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion.’” 	Rogers v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 486 F.3d 234, 241 (6th Cir. 2007)
(quoting Cutlip v. Sec’y of HHS, 25 F.3d 284, 286 (6th Cir. 1994)).
“After the Appeals Council reviews the ALJ’s decision, the determination of the council
becomes the final decision of the Secretary and is subject to review by this Court.” Olive v.
Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 3:06 CV 1597, 2007 WL 5403416, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 19, 2007)
(citing Abbott v. Sullivan, 905 F.2d 918, 922 (6th Cir. 1990); Mullen v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 535,
Case: 1:25-cv-01133-CEH Doc #: 14 Filed: 01/12/26 6 of 18. PageID #: <pageID>

7
538 (6th Cir. 1986) (en banc)). If the Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial
evidence, it must be affirmed, “even if a reviewing court would decide the matter differently.”
Id. (citing 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Kinsella v. Schweiker, 708 F.2d 1058, 1059–60 (6th Cir. 1983)).
B. Standard for Disability
The Social Security regulations outline a five-step process that the ALJ must use in
determining whether a claimant is entitled to supplemental-security income or disability-
insurance benefits: (1) whether the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) if not,
whether the claimant has a severe impairment or combination of impairments; (3) if so, whether
that impairment, or combination of impairments, meets or equals any of the listings in 20 C.F.R.
§ 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1; (4) if not, whether the claimant can perform her past relevant
work in light of her residual functional capacity (“RFC”); and (5) if not, whether, based on the
claimant’s age, education, and work experience, she can perform other work found in the
national economy. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(i)–(v); Combs v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 459 F.3d
640, 642–43 (6th Cir. 2006). The claimant bears the ultimate burden of producing sufficient
evidence to prove that she is disabled and, thus, entitled to benefits. 20 C.F.R. § 416.912(a).
Specifically, the claimant has the burden of proof in 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 residual functional capacity to perform available
work in the national economy. Id.
C. Discussion
Hollinger raises three issues on appeal: (1) whether the ALJ properly considered all her
impairments as required under Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 96-8p; (2) whether the ALJ erred
Case: 1:25-cv-01133-CEH Doc #: 14 Filed: 01/12/26 7 of 18. PageID #: <pageID>

8
at step three when she failed to find that Plaintiff’s obesity equaled a listing; and (3) whether the
ALJ complied with SSR 16-3p in considering Plaintiff’s symptoms. (ECF No. 10 at 1).
1. 	Consideration of All Impairments
In her first argument, Hollinger argues the ALJ failed to consider all of her impairments,
specifically challenging the ALJ’s consideration of Plaintiff’s migraine headaches. (ECF No. 10
at 8). 	Hollinger asserts that her migraines were equal to Listing 11.02B such that she should
have been found to be disabled at step three of the sequential evaluation. 	(Id. at 8-10).
Additionally, Hollinger argues the ALJ “failed to discuss any effect the headaches would have
on Plaintiff’s ability to engage in substantial gainful activity on a full-time and sustained basis.”
(Id. at 10). 	Plaintiff also provides a general overview of the medical evidence and asserts that
the ALJ “failed to include any limitations related to Plaintiff’s complaints regarding her physical
or psychological limitations.” (Id. at 11).
The Commissioner responds that Plaintiff’s argument should be rejected because the ALJ
recognized the requirement that she consider all of Plaintiff’s impairments, including those that
were not severe, and “the ALJ explained that Plaintiff had a history of migraine headaches” but
“the record showed no ongoing significant symptoms or limitations related to the condition.”
(ECF No. 12 at 7). 	The Commissioner argues that the ALJ’s discussion, though brief, satisfied
the standard previously set forth in this District. 	(Id.). 	Further, the Commissioner argues that
even if this statement was insufficient, the ALJ’s decision is still supported by substantial
evidence because Plaintiff failed to provide evidence supporting limitations from her migraines.
(Id. at 8). 	As to Listing 11.02B, the Commissioner argues Plaintiff failed to present any listing
argument to the ALJ such that the ALJ was not required to discuss the listing. 	(Id. at 9).
Regardless, the Commissioner argues that Plaintiff failed to cite medical evidence showing that
Case: 1:25-cv-01133-CEH Doc #: 14 Filed: 01/12/26 8 of 18. PageID #: <pageID>

9
she equaled the listing. (Id. at 10-11).
Plaintiff replies that despite the Commissioner’s assertion that the ALJ considered her
migraines, the Commissioner “failed to provide any evidence which established this inclusion by
the ALJ in the RFC.” 	(ECF No. 13 at 1). 	Plaintiff asserts the “record contained evidence of
[her] continuing migraine headaches and the need to maintain medical compliance and resting on
a daily basis” but the ALJ ignored this evidence such that remand is required. (Id.).
Plaintiff’s argument challenges the ALJ’s consideration of her migraines at steps two
through four of the sequential evaluation. 	At step two, an ALJ considers the severity of a
claimant’s impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(ii). An impairment is not considered severe
if it does not “significantly limit [one’s] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.”
20 C.F.R. § 416.922(a). The Sixth Circuit “construes step two as a de minimis hurdle, intended
to ‘screen out totally groundless claims.’” Kestel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 756 F. App’x 593, 597
(6th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted). 	When an ALJ determines that one or more of a claimant’s
impairments are severe, the ALJ must proceed to consider the “limitations and restrictions
imposed by all of an individual’s impairments, even those that are not severe.” 	Id. (citation
modified). 	Typically, “any perceived failure to find additional severe impairments at step two
[does] not constitute reversible error” as long as the ALJ considered all of the claimant’s
impairments in the remaining steps. Id. (citation modified).
At step three, an ALJ must consider whether a claimant’s medical impairments meet or
equal one of the listed impairments. 	20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(iii). 	To meet a listing, the
claimant “must satisfy all of the [listing’s] criteria.” Nash v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 19-6321,
2020 WL 6882255, at *3 (6th Cir. Aug. 10, 2020). The claimant “bears the burden of showing
that an impairment meets or equals a listed impairment.” 	Id. 	If the ALJ’s listing finding is
Case: 1:25-cv-01133-CEH Doc #: 14 Filed: 01/12/26 9 of 18. PageID #: <pageID>

10
supported by substantial evidence, based on the record as a whole, the Court will defer to the
ALJ’s finding, “[e]ven if the record could support an opposite conclusion.” Id. at *4. Moreover,
if the ALJ’s listing finding is not supported by substantial evidence, the error is harmless if the
claimant cannot show that his impairments met or medically equaled a listing. 	See Forrest v.
Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 591 F. App’x 359, 366 (6th Cir. 2014).
If a claimant’s impairments do not meet or equal a listing, an ALJ must determine the
claimant’s RFC by considering all relevant medical and other evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(e).
In doing so, the ALJ must “consider limitations and restrictions imposed by all of an individual’s
impairments, even those that are not ‘severe.’” SSR 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184, at *5. “The RFC
assessment must include a discussion of why reported symptom-related functional limitations
and restrictions can or cannot reasonably be accepted as consistent with the medical or other
evidence.” Id. at *7. Thus, “[i]n rendering his RFC decision, the ALJ must give some indication
of the evidence upon when he is relying, and he may not ignore evidence that does not support
his decision, especially when that evidence, if accepted, would change his analysis.” Fleischer v.
Astrue, 774 F. Supp. 2d 875, 881 (N.D. Ohio 2011) (citations omitted). A court “cannot uphold
an ALJ’s decision, even if there is ‘enough evidence in the record to support the decision,
[where] the reasons given by the trier of fact do not build an accurate and logical bridge between
the evidence and the result.” Id. at 877.
Here, the Court agrees with the Commissioner that the ALJ did not err in considering
Plaintiff’s migraines. 	At step two, the ALJ found Plaintiff’s migraine headaches were not a
severe impairment because the record did not note “ongoing significant symptoms or limitations”
related to her migraines. (ECF No. 8, PageID #: 48). To try and rebut this conclusion, Plaintiff
points largely to notes from her counseling sessions with a social worker that indicate she will
Case: 1:25-cv-01133-CEH Doc #: 14 Filed: 01/12/26 10 of 18. PageID #: <pageID>

11
“maintain medication compliance and obtain[] rest daily” to reduce migraines. (Id. at PageID #:
883, 891, 897, 905, 1555, 1563, 1565, 1570, 1572, 1669, 1710). 	However, these notes do not
provide any information contrary to the ALJ’s conclusion that she did not have significant
ongoing symptoms or limitations. 	Nor does Plaintiff’s reliance on a prescribed medication for
migraines that she was to take as needed, notes of a history of migraines, or her prior testimony
that 	she 	experienced 	frequent 	migraines 	establish 	any 	ongoing 	significant 	symptoms 	or
limitations. (Id. at PageID #: 98, 520, 887, 1518, 1619). Further, even if the ALJ erred at step
two, any error is harmless because the ALJ concluded Plaintiff had at least one severe
impairment and proceeded through the sequential evaluation. Kestel, 756 F. App’x at 597.
Turning to step three, the Court again agrees with the Commissioner and finds no error in
the ALJ’s analysis. 	Importantly, because the ALJ reasonably concluded that Plaintiff’s
migraines were not a severe impairment, he did not err in failing to consider whether Claimant’s
migraines equaled a listing. See Robinson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 13-CV-11637, 2014 WL
3528434, at *13 (E.D. Mich. July 16, 2014) (“[B]ecause the ALJ found that plaintiff’s HIV and
depression were not severe impairments at Step Two, she was not required to perform a Step
Three analysis of those impairments.”) (collecting cases).
Further, even if the ALJ did err, such error is harmless because Plaintiff has not carried
her burden of showing that her migraines equaled Listing 11.02B. 	While Listing 11.02B
addresses epilepsy, SSR 19-4p explains that this listing “is the most closely analogous listed
impairment for an MDI of a primary headache disorder.” SSR 19-4p, 2019 WL 4169635, at *7.
SSR 19-4p further explains:
To evaluate whether a primary headache disorder is equal in
severity and duration to the criteria in 11.02B, we consider: A
detailed description from an AMS of a typical headache event,
including all associated phenomena (for example, premonitory
Case: 1:25-cv-01133-CEH Doc #: 14 Filed: 01/12/26 11 of 18. PageID #: <pageID>

12
symptoms, 	aura, 	duration, 	intensity, 	and 	accompanying
symptoms); 	the 	frequency 	of 	headache 	events; 	adherence 	to
prescribed treatment; side effects of treatment (for example, many
medications used for treating a primary headache disorder can
produce drowsiness, confusion, or inattention); and limitations in
functioning that may be associated with the primary headache
disorder or effects of its treatment, such as interference with
activity during the day (for example, the need for a darkened and
quiet 	room, 	having 	to 	lie 	down 	without 	moving, 	a 	sleep
disturbance that affects daytime activities, or other related needs
and limitations).
Id. 	The records Plaintiff cites fail to include the required description of her migraines, side
effects of treatment, and, perhaps most critically, any limitations associated with her migraines.
Thus, Plaintiff has failed to establish that she equaled Listing 11.02B. See Snyder v. Comm’r of
Soc. Sec., No. 22-5948, 2023 WL 3673265, at *4 (6th Cir. May 26, 2023).
Finally, Plaintiff’s argument that the ALJ failed to consider her migraines at step four
also fails. The Sixth Circuit has previously held that an “ALJ’s express reference to SSR 96-8p,
along with her discussion of the functional limitations imposed by [the claimant’s] nonsevere
impairments at step two of her analysis” support that the ALJ complied with the requirement that
she consider all impairments in crafting the RFC. Emard v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 953 F.3d 844,
852 (6th Cir. 2020). Here, in setting forth the relevant law, the ALJ recognized the requirement
that she “consider all of the claimant’s impairments, including impairments that are not severe”
and cited SSR 96-8p. 	(ECF No. 8, PageID #: 47). 	As discussed above, the ALJ concluded at
step two that Plaintiff did not have any significant limitations from her migraines such that they
were not a severe impairment but indicated that she “considered all of the claimant’s medically
determinable impairments, including those that are not severe, when assessing the claimant’s
residual functional capacity.” 	(Id. at PageID #: 48). 	The ALJ was not required to provide any
further discussion or explanation regarding her consideration of Plaintiff’s headaches, especially
Case: 1:25-cv-01133-CEH Doc #: 14 Filed: 01/12/26 12 of 18. PageID #: <pageID>

13
given Plaintiff’s failure to cite any evidence supporting additional limitations that should have
been considered.
2. 	Consideration of Plaintiff’s Obesity
Hollinger next argues that the ALJ failed to comply with SSR 19-2p in considering her
obesity and asserts the ALJ should have determined that her obesity met or equaled a listing.
(ECF No. 10 at 14). 	Plaintiff argues the “evidence supported the fact that the effects of
Plaintiff’s obesity precluded her from engaging in substantial gainful activity on a full-time and
sustained basis” but “the ALJ failed to properly consider the effect of Plaintiff’s documented
obesity which resulted in the RFC not being supported by substantial evidence.” 	(Id. at 16).
Additionally, she asserts “the ALJ erred when she failed to consider whether the combination of
Plaintiff’s obesity in conjunction with her other severe impairments precluded her from engaging
in substantial gainful activity on a full-time and sustained basis.” (Id. at 17).
The Commissioner responds that “the ALJ considered Plaintiff’s obesity when assessing
the RFC and reasonably concluded that she could perform a limited range of light work.” (ECF
No. 12 at 11). 	The Commissioner highlights the ALJ’s discussion of Plaintiff’s obesity and
asserts the “ALJ found Plaintiff’s obesity severe; limited her to a reduced range of light work and
the RFC was more restrictive than the physical [prior administrative medical findings] finding no
severe physical impairment, despite both physicians considering treatment records nothing that
Plaintiff was obese.” 	(Id. at 12). 	The Commissioner argues the ALJ also explicitly stated that
she considered the combination of all impairments. (Id. at 13).
Plaintiff replies that “[t]he issue is not whether the RFC was more restrictive than the
state agency who found no severe physical impairments, rather the issue is whether the ALJ’s
conclusions were supported by substantial evidence.” 	(ECF No. 13 at 2). 	She argues that the
Case: 1:25-cv-01133-CEH Doc #: 14 Filed: 01/12/26 13 of 18. PageID #: <pageID>

14
ALJ failed to consider the totality of the limitations associated with Plaintiff’s obesity” such that
the ALJ failed to support her RFC with substantial evidence. (Id.).
Plaintiff’s challenge to the ALJ’s consideration of her obesity is meritless. 	The ALJ
concluded Plaintiff’s obesity was a severe impairment but found that even under the guidance of
SSR 19-2p, Plaintiff’s impairments or combination of impairments did not equal a listing. (ECF
No. 8, PageID #: 48-49). 	In discussing the medical evidence, the ALJ noted records indicating
Plaintiff’s “quality of life was moderately compromised by her weight.” 	(Id. at PageID #: 52).
The ALJ explained that “[t]he objective evidence indicates the claimant experiences some
limitation, but not to such a degree that she is prevented from performing work at the light level
of exertional level with limitations that take into account her back pain.” (Id. at PageID #: 53).
The ALJ specifically indicated that she “also considered the effects of the claimant’s obesity in
reducing the claimant’s residual functional capacity pursuant to SSR 19-2p.” 	(Id. at PageID #:
53-54). 	Thus, the ALJ clearly considered Plaintiff’ obesity in formulating the RFC. 	Plaintiff
fails to “explain what more the ALJ was required to do or how [her] cited objective evidence
indicates any more limitations that [her] obesity imposed” or “point to any medical opinions that
establish that [her] obesity imposed greater limitations than those encompassed in [her] RFC
determination.” Jurcago v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 5:23-CV-01187-JG, 2024 WL 2786694, at
*10 (N.D. Ohio May 2, 2024), report & recommendation adopted, 2024 WL 2784334 (N.D.
Ohio May 30, 2024). Accordingly, her argument fails.
3. 	Plaintiff’s Symptoms
Finally, Plaintiff argues the ALJ committed harmful error when she failed to properly
apply the criteria of SSR 16-3p in analyzing Plaintiff’s symptom testimony. (ECF No. 19 at 17).
Plaintiff 	asserts 	that 	“the ALJ 	erroneously 	opined 	that 	although 	the Plaintiff 	had 	some
Case: 1:25-cv-01133-CEH Doc #: 14 Filed: 01/12/26 14 of 18. PageID #: <pageID>

15
limitations, it was not to such a degree that she was prevented from performing work at the light
level of exertion” but “the ALJ failed to support her decision with substantial evidence” or
account for Plaintiff’s continuing pain. (Id. at 20-21).
The Commissioner responds that the ALJ “gave more than an adequate explanation of
her consideration of Plaintiff’s subjective complaints, so her findings must stand.” (ECF No. 12
at 14). The Commissioner argues the ALJ considered the complaints of pain “but noted that the
physical 	examinations 	did 	not 	demonstrate 	significantly 	limited 	range 	of 	motion, 	motor
weakness, neurological deficits, or sensation loss that were associated with intense and disabling
pain.” 	(Id. at 15). 	Further, the Commissioner points to the ALJ’s consideration of Plaintiff’s
daily activities and the opinion evidence in finding that Plaintiff’s allegations did not support
greater limitations. (Id. at 15-16).
The evaluation of a claimant’s subjective complaints rests with the ALJ. 	See Siterlet v.
Sec’y of HHS, 823 F.2d 918, 920 (6th Cir. 1987); Rogers, 486 F.3d at 248 (noting that
“credibility determinations regarding subjective complaints rest with the ALJ”). In evaluating a
claimant’s symptoms, an ALJ must look to medical evidence, statements by the claimant, other
information provided by medical sources, and any other relevant evidence in the record. 	20
C.F.R. § 404.1529(c); Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304.
Beyond the medical evidence, an ALJ should consider daily activities; location, duration,
frequency, and intensity of the pain or other symptoms; factors that precipitate and aggravate the
symptoms; type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medication to alleviate pain or other
symptoms; treatment other than medication; any measures other than treatment the individual
uses 	to 	relieve 	symptoms; 	and 	any 	other 	factors 	concerning 	the 	individual’s 	functional
limitations and restrictions. SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304 at *7-8. The ALJ need not analyze
Case: 1:25-cv-01133-CEH Doc #: 14 Filed: 01/12/26 15 of 18. PageID #: <pageID>

16
all seven factors but should show that he considered the relevant evidence. See Cross v. Comm’r
of Soc. Sec., 373 F. Supp. 2d 724, 733 (N.D. Ohio 2005). 	An ALJ’s “decision must contain
specific reasons for the weight given to the individual’s symptoms … and be clearly articulated
so the individual and any subsequent reviewer can assess how the adjudicator evaluated the
individual’s symptoms.” Id.; see also Felisky v. Bowen, 35 F. 3d 1027, 1036 (6th Cir. 1994) (“If
an ALJ rejects a claimant’s testimony as incredible, he must clearly state his reason for doing
so.”). While a reviewing court gives deference to an ALJ’s credibility determination, “the ALJ’s
credibility determination will not be upheld if it is unsupported by the record or insufficiently
explained.” 	Carr v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 3:18-cv-1639, 2019 WL 2465273, at *10 (N.D.
Ohio April 24, 2019) (citing Rogers, 486 F.3d at 248-49), report & recommendation adopted,
2019 WL 3752687 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 8, 2019).
Here, after summarizing the medical records, the ALJ provided the following explanation
of her consideration of Plaintiff’s symptom testimony:
After careful consideration of the evidence, the undersigned finds
that the claimant’s medically determinable impairments could
reasonably be expected to cause the alleged symptoms; however,
the claimant’s statements concerning the intensity, persistence and
limiting effects of these symptoms are not entirely consistent with
the medical evidence and other evidence in the record for the
reasons explained in this decision.
Inconsistencies between the claimant's statements and the rest of
the medical evidence cause the undersigned to determine that the
individual’s 	alleged 	symptoms 	are 	less 	likely 	to 	reduce 	the
claimant's 	capacity 	to 	perform 	work-related 	activities. 	The
undersigned has also considered the consistency of the claimant's
testimony concerning symptoms with statements in the record
made prior to the hearing. Evaluation of the claimant's symptoms
in comparison to the claimant's prior statements and the medical
records as a whole is described below with specific examples
supporting 	the 	undersigned’s 	decision 	that 	the 	claimant’s
symptoms are less likely to reduce the claimant's capacity to
perform work-related activities (See SSR 16-3p).
Case: 1:25-cv-01133-CEH Doc #: 14 Filed: 01/12/26 16 of 18. PageID #: <pageID>

17
First, the objective evidence of record is inconsistent with the
claimant's allegations in this case, as set forth above. The record
does not demonstrate the significantly limited range of motion,
motor weakness, neurological deficits, or sensation loss that are
associated with intense and disabling pain (C1F, C3F, C5F, C7F).
The record also does not contain the level of abnormal psychiatric
signs of behavior, affect, thought, memory, orientation, and contact
with reality that are normally associated with intense and disabling
psychiatric symptoms (C2F-C4F, C6F, C8F).
The objective evidence indicates the claimant experiences some
limitation, but not to such a degree that she is prevented from
performing work at the light exertional level with limitations that
take into account her back pain. The undersigned also considered
the effects of the claimant’s obesity in reducing the claimant’s
residual functional capacity pursuant to SSR 19-2p.
(ECF No. 8, PageID #: 53-54).
This discussion shows that the ALJ properly considered Plaintiff’s symptom allegations
in accordance with SSR 16-3p. 	The ALJ found that the objective medical evidence did not
support the severity of Plaintiff’s allegations given the lack of objective evidence showing
limited range of motion, motor weakness, neurological deficits, sensation loss, or abnormal
psychiatric signs. 	(See id. at PageID #: 334 (poor gait but good lumbar range of motion); 498
(denying changes in behavior, irritability, mood swings, agitation, and intrusive thoughts); 508-
09 (reporting “hanging in there” and well controlled anxiety); 522 (normal gait, station, grip
strength); 603 (citing “situational stress” as cause of her moods); 638 (pleasant mood despite
ongoing stressors); 887 (normal gait and station); 901 (normal gait and station); 1524 (antalgic
gait but negative straight leg test); 1530 (antalgic gait but normal motor strength and tone)).
Additionally, throughout the decision, the ALJ discussed Plaintiff’s ability to care for her elderly
neighbor and perform activities of daily living. (Id. at PageID #: 49-53). The ALJ also relied on
the State agency consultants’ opinions, which concluded Plaintiff had only moderate limitations
Case: 1:25-cv-01133-CEH Doc #: 14 Filed: 01/12/26 17 of 18. PageID #: <pageID>

18
in the areas of mental functioning and retained the ability to complete simple, routine tasks but
not a production rate pace with only occasional routine workplace changes and frequent
interactions with supervisors, coworkers, and the public. 	(Id.at PageID #: 54, 121-24, 130-33).
Thus, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s conclusion, and the Court must defer to the ALJ’s
decision, “even if there is substantial evidence in the record that would have supported an
opposite conclusion.” 	Wright v. Massanari, 321 F.3d 611, 614 (6th Cir. 2003) (quoting Key v.
Callahan, 109 F.3d 270, 273 (6th Cir. 1997)).
VI. Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the Court AFFIRMS the Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration’s final decision denying Plaintiff benefits. Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED.
Dated: January 12, 2026
Case: 1:25-cv-01133-CEH Doc #: 14 Filed: 01/12/26 18 of 18. PageID #: <pageID>