Snyder v. Commissioner of Social Security

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
RODNEY ALLEN SNYDER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
CASE NO. 3:25-cv-1219
DISTRICT JUDGE
JAMES R. KNEPP II
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
JAMES E. GRIMES JR.
REPORT &
RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff 	Rodney 	Allen 	Snyder 	filed 	a 	Complaint 	against 	the
Commissioner of Social Security seeking judicial review of the Commissioner’s
decision denying disability insurance benefits. This Court has jurisdiction
under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c). The Court referred this matter to a
Magistrate Judge under Local Rule 72.2(b)(1) for the preparation of a Report
and Recommendation. Following review, and for the reasons stated below, I
recommend that the District Court affirm the Commissioner’s decision.
Procedural history
In August 2022, Snyder filed an application for disability insurance
benefits, alleging a disability onset date of July 14, 2022.1 Tr. 206. In his
application, Snyder claimed disability due to Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis,
1 	“Once a finding of disability is made, the [agency] must determine the
onset date of the disability.” McClanahan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 193 F. App’x
422, 425 (6th Cir. 2006).
Case: 3:25-cv-01219-JRK Doc #: 15 Filed: 02/10/26 1 of 29. PageID #: <pageID>

2
heart issues, spinal osteoarthritis, depression, boils, and “some vision issues.”
Tr. 256. The Social Security Administration denied Snyder’s application and
his motion for reconsideration. Tr. 77, 88. Snyder then requested a hearing
before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). Tr. 126.
In May 2024, an ALJ held a hearing, during which Snyder and a
vocational expert testified. Tr. 35–65. That month, the ALJ issued a written
decision finding that Snyder was not disabled. Tr. 21–30. The ALJ’s decision
became final on April 11, 2025, when the Social Security Appeals Council
declined further review. Tr. 1–3; see 20 C.F.R. § 404.981.
Snyder filed this action on June 10, 2025. Doc. 1. He asserts the
following assignment of error:
Whether 	the 	ALJ’s 	residual 	functional 	capacity
finding 	is 	unsupported 	by 	substantial 	evidence.
Whether the [ALJ] erred in her evaluation of the
opinion and prior administrative medical findings
when failing to comply with the revised regulations.
Whether 	the 	ALJ 	failed 	to 	evaluate 	Plaintiff’s
subjective allegations pursuant to SSR 16-3p and 20
C.F.R. § 404.1529.
Doc. 11, at 1.
Evidence
Personal and vocational evidence
Snyder was 41 years old on his alleged disability onset date. Tr. 28. He
completed eleventh grade and used to work as a forklift driver. Tr. 257.
Case: 3:25-cv-01219-JRK Doc #: 15 Filed: 02/10/26 2 of 29. PageID #: <pageID>

3
Relevant medical evidence2
In April 2022, x-rays of Snyder’s lumbar spine showed mild to moderate
degenerative facet arthrosis involving L4-5 and L5-S1.3 Tr. 348. X-rays of
Snyder’s cervical spine showed disc space narrowing at C5-6. Tr. 350.
In October 2022, Snyder went to the emergency room for neck pain and
stiffness that began three days before his visit. Tr. 387. He reported some
associated grip weakness that he had experienced for a year. Tr. 387. Snyder
also said that moving his neck caused sharp chest pain. Tr. 387. An exam
showed that Snyder had a normal range of motion in his cervical spine, a
supple neck, and no weakness or problematic “upper motor neuron signs.” Tr.
390. Cervical spine x-rays showed minimal disc space narrowing at C6-C7. Tr.
445.
About a week later, Snyder followed up with his gastroenterologist for
Crohn’s disease. Tr. 383. Snyder said that he was “doing fine lately.” Tr. 383.
2 	Snyder’s arguments relate to his spinal impairment and, to a lesser
extent, his Crohn’s disease and boils. So I only include facts related to these
impairments.
3 	Vertebrae in a person’s spine are given letter and number designations
according to their location. The neck—the cervical spine—has seven vertebrae
designated as C1 through C7. See Thomas Scioscia, MD, Vertebrae in the
Vertebral Column, Spine-health Resources, [https://perma.cc/R9MM-TBZT].
The twelve vertebrae compromising the upper spine—the thoracic spine—are
labeled at T1 through T12. Id. The five vertebrae in the lower spine—the
lumbar spine—are L1 through L5. Id. The five vertebrae at the bottom of the
spine—in the sacrum—are labeled as S1 through S5. Thomas Scioscia, MD,
Sacrum 	(Sacral 	Region), 	Spine-health 	Resources, 	[https://perma.cc/S2BR-
RBTB].
Case: 3:25-cv-01219-JRK Doc #: 15 Filed: 02/10/26 3 of 29. PageID #: <pageID>

4
He had experienced a small amount of painless bleeding. Tr. 383. The doctor
told Snyder to start Metamucil and follow up if the bleeding continued. Tr. 385.
In November 2022, Snyder visited the Orthopedic Institute of Ohio. Tr.
923, 936. He complained of cervical pain, hand numbness, cold sensation, and
difficulty opening jars. Tr. 936. Snyder also reported lower back and right hip
pain. Tr. 936. Snyder’s upper extremity exam showed cold hands, intact
sensation, and “5/5 grip strength, finger extension, wrist extension, elbow
flexion, elbow extension, and shoulder abduction.” Tr. 937. Snyder’s lower
extremity exam showed full strength and intact sensation. Tr. 937. Snyder had
no tenderness in his spine. Tr. 937. The provider ordered physical therapy for
Snyder’s cervical and lumbar spine. Tr. 938.
In December 2022, Snyder went to the emergency room for scrotal
abscesses. Tr. 370. He reported that his Crohn’s disease “was doing quite well.”
Tr. 370. A CT scan of his pelvis showed marked sacroiliac joint degenerative
changes. Tr. 967.
That month, Snyder started physical therapy. Tr. 377–78. Snyder
reported that he needed assistance doing dishes, mopping, sweeping, carrying
groceries, bending, and lifting. Tr. 378. He rated his pain a “4/10,” and
explained that his left-sided neck pain radiated into his left shoulder and his
lower back pain radiated to his left hip. Tr. 379. On exam, Snyder had slightly
decreased strength (4 or “4+” out of 5) in his lower extremities but retained
strength that was within functional limitations. Tr. 380. He had slightly
Case: 3:25-cv-01219-JRK Doc #: 15 Filed: 02/10/26 4 of 29. PageID #: <pageID>

5
decreased strength in his left shoulder, but his range of motion was within
functional limitations. Tr. 379.
In January 2023, Snyder followed up with his orthopedic provider. Tr.
933. Snyder reported that he completed four physical therapy sessions but
stopped attending because he developed an infection. Tr. 575, 933. Snyder said
that, during the three weeks before his appointment, he experienced worsening
cervical and left shoulder pain. Tr. 933. He also complained of worsening
weakness in his left upper extremity. Tr. 933. On exam, Snyder had “4/5”
weakness in his left upper extremity (grip testing, elbow flexion, and shoulder
adduction) compared to “5/5” in his right. Tr. 934. The provider ordered a
cervical spine MRI, which showed large bone spurs at C5-6 with severe spinal
stenosis and cervical cord flattening. Tr. 939. The provider indicated that
Snyder “would be a candidate for some type of decompressive surgery.” Tr. 940.
In May 2023, Snyder saw B.T. Onamusi, M.D., for a consultative exam.
Tr. 625–33. Snyder detailed his medical history, including that his surgeon had
recommended cervical spine surgery. Tr. 630. Snyder reported constant, severe
pain in his neck and back, aggravated by prolonged sitting, standing, walking,
lifting, or moving his neck. Tr. 630. Snyder said that pain radiated down his
left arm and he experienced left-arm numbness and tingling. Tr. 630. He had
pain “off and on” in his knees for 10 years. Tr. 640. Snyder indicated that he
could sit for 30 minutes, stand for five minutes, and walk two miles. Tr. 631.
He could lift up to 10 pounds and bending was painful. Tr. 631. He performed
Case: 3:25-cv-01219-JRK Doc #: 15 Filed: 02/10/26 5 of 29. PageID #: <pageID>

6
limited light housework, laundry, and grocery shopping; grooming activities;
used his hands for gross and fine motor tasks; and drove on a limited basis. Tr.
631. He was not at that time taking any medications. Tr. 631.
Dr. Onamusi observed that Snyder walked with a normal gait, was able
to walk on heels and toes, and was able to squat “only 50% of the way down.”
Tr. 632. He had mild to moderate diffuse tenderness to palpation along his
paracervical and paralumbar muscles. Tr. 632. A straight leg-raising test was
negative.4 Tr. 632. Snyder had a limited range of motion in his cervical and
lumbar spine and mild to moderate diffuse tenderness to palpation along his
paracervical and paraspinal muscles. Tr. 632. He had a full range of motion in
his joints, “no definite tenderness to palpation,” and he could reach forward,
push, and pull with his arms. Tr. 627, 632. Snyder had decreased grip strength
in his left hand, but could grip and grasp with both hands and perform fine
coordination and manipulative tasks (“tie knots, do buttons, do shoelaces, pick
up coins, hold pens, turn door handles, pull zippers and do fine fingering
movements”). Tr. 632. Dr. Onamusi opined that Snyder could sit frequently,
stand or walk on the “low end of frequently,” “bend to a limited extent
occasionally,” climb steps occasionally, lift up to 15 pounds occasionally, and
4 	In a straight leg-raising test, the patient lies down, fully extends the
knee, and lifts the leg. See Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary, 33rd
Edition, 2020, at 1871. Leg pain when raising the leg 30–90 degrees is a
positive test and indicates lumbar radiculopathy. Id.
Case: 3:25-cv-01219-JRK Doc #: 15 Filed: 02/10/26 6 of 29. PageID #: <pageID>

7
use his “upper extremities for gross or fine motor tasks on the low end of
frequently.” Tr. 633.
In early August 2023, Snyder underwent a cervical disk arthroplasty at
C5-C6. Tr. 762. He followed up two weeks later and reported “feeling very well
with improvement of neck pain and upper extremity radiculopathy.” Tr. 947.
Snyder’s exam showed a well-healed anterior neck incision, “full strength
including a 5 out of 5 handgrip, resisted wrist extension, elbow flexion[,] and
extension strength testing bilateral.” Tr. 947. Snyder was “neurologically
intact.” Tr. 947. The doctor advised him to “advance activities including
returning to work … as a dishwasher” and return in two months for a follow-
up. Tr. 947.
In late September 2023, Snyder saw his primary care provider for
treatment for boils. Tr. 959. He complained that four times in the month before
the appointment, when lying down trying to sleep, his legs started twitching
and pain shot up his spine. Tr. 959. He said that his “[ba]ck pain feels
unchanged since surgery.” Tr. 959. On exam, Snyder had cervical, thoracic,
and lumbar spine tenderness. Tr. 959. His neck was supple but with a limited
range of motion. Tr. 959. Snyder was prescribed medication. Tr. 960.
Case: 3:25-cv-01219-JRK Doc #: 15 Filed: 02/10/26 7 of 29. PageID #: <pageID>

8
State agency opinions5
In May 2023, Bradley Lewis, MD, reviewed Snyder’s record. Tr. 72–74.
Regarding Snyder’s physical residual functional capacity (RFC),6 Dr. Lewis
found that Snyder could stand, walk, and sit for about six hours in an eight-
hour workday. Tr. 73. He could lift and carry “(including upward pulling)” 50
pounds 	occasionally 	and 	25 	pounds 	frequently. 	Tr. 	73. 	Snyder 	could
occasionally push and pull with his left arm; frequently climb ladders, ropes
and scaffolds; and frequently stoop and crouch. Tr. 73–74. Dr. Lewis did not
assess handling or fingering limitations.
In October 2023, Leon Hughes, MD, reviewed Snyder’s record, including
the August 2023 neck surgery, and assessed Snyder’s RFC. Tr. 84–86. Dr.
Hughes opined that Snyder could stand, walk, and sit for about six hours in an
eight-hour workday. Tr. 84. He could lift and carry “(including upward
pulling)” 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently. Tr. 84. Snyder
5 	When a claimant applies for disability benefits, the State Agency creates
a record. The record includes the claimant’s medical evidence. A State Agency
disability examiner and a State Agency physician or psychologist review the
claimant’s record and determine whether and to what extent the claimant’s
condition affects his or her ability to work. If the State Agency denies the
claimant’s 	application, 	the 	claimant 	can 	ask 	for 	reconsideration. 	On
reconsideration, the State Agency updates the record and a second disability
examiner and doctor review the file and make a new determination. See, e.g.,
20 C.F.R. § 404.1615.
6 	An RFC is an “‘assessment of’” a claimant’s ability to work, taking his or
her “limitations … into account.” Howard v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 276 F.3d 235,
239 (6th Cir. 2002) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 416.945). Essentially, it’s the SSA’s
“description of what the claimant ‘can and cannot do.’” Webb v. Comm’r of Soc.
Sec., 368 F.3d 629, 631 (6th Cir. 2004) (quoting Howard, 276 F.3d at 239).
Case: 3:25-cv-01219-JRK Doc #: 15 Filed: 02/10/26 8 of 29. PageID #: <pageID>

9
could occasionally push and pull with his left arm; occasionally climb ramps
and stairs; never climb ladders, ropes or scaffolds; occasionally stoop and crawl;
and frequently kneel and crouch. Tr. 84. Snyder could frequently reach in front,
laterally, and overhead; should avoid all exposure to hazards, including
operating heavy machinery and being at unprotected heights; and should not
drive commercially. Tr. 85. Dr. Hughes assessed no handling, fingering or
feeling limitations. Tr. 85.
Hearing testimony
Snyder, who was represented by counsel, testified at the telephonic
administrative hearing held in May 2024. Snyder testified that he experiences
weakness in his left arm and hand, and that he can’t lift his left arm above his
head. Tr. 54 He experiences neck and back pain, which radiates down his arm
and leg. Tr. 50, 55. Pain medication caused constipation or diarrhea, requiring
him to use the bathroom six or seven times a day. Tr. 52–53.
Snyder said that he drives using his left hand, even though he is right-
hand dominant and his left hand is “wors[e]” than his right. Tr. 44, 58. He can
get in and out of the car, gas up the car, put air in a tire, check the oil, and
wash the front windshield, although he could not “stretch to get … the middle
part of the windshield.” Tr. 59.
The ALJ discussed with the vocational expert Snyder’s past work as a
forklift driver. Tr. 60. The ALJ asked the vocational expert to determine
whether a hypothetical individual with the same age, education, and work
Case: 3:25-cv-01219-JRK Doc #: 15 Filed: 02/10/26 9 of 29. PageID #: <pageID>

10
experience as Snyder could perform Snyder’s past work or any other work if
the individual had the limitations assessed in the ALJ’s RFC determination,
described below. Tr. 60–62. The vocational expert answered that such an
individual could not perform Snyder’s past work but could perform the
following jobs: tester, routing clerk, and sorter. Tr. 61–62. The ALJ asked the
vocational expert whether her answer would change if the individual would
miss two or more days of work a month and be off-task more than 15 percent
of the workday. Tr. 63. The vocational expert answered that there would be no
work such an individual could perform. Tr. 63.
The ALJ’s Decision
The ALJ made the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
1. 	The 	claimant 	meets 	the 	insured 	status
requirements of the Social Security Act through
September 30, 2025.
2. The claimant has not engaged in substantial
gainful activity since July 14, 2022, the alleged onset
date (20 CFR 404.1571 et seq.).
3. 	The 	claimant 	has 	the 	following 	severe
impairments: 	Chron’s 	disease; 	ulcerative 	colitis;
cervical 	and 	lumbar 	osteoarthritis; 	disc
degeneration 	of 	the 	cervical 	and 	lumbosacral
regions; 	spinal 	stenosis, 	status-post 	cervical
discectomy; and hidradenitis suppurativa (boils) (20
CFR 404.1520(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 and 404.1526).
Case: 3:25-cv-01219-JRK Doc #: 15 Filed: 02/10/26 10 of 29. PageID #: <pageID>

11
5. 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 	404.1567(b) 	except: 	he 	can
tolerate lifting/carrying 20 pounds occasionally, 15
pounds frequently, standing/walking 4 hours out of
an 8-hour day, sitting 6 hours, occasionally climbing
ramps and stairs, occasionally balancing, stooping,
kneeling, crouching, and crawling; he must avoid
hazards, 	including 	heavy 	machinery, 	moving
machinery, and unprotected heights; he must avoid
climbing ladders, ropes, and scaffolds; he must avoid
commercial driving; he can frequently reach in all
directions; and he would otherwise be off task 5% of
the workday.
6. 	The 	claimant 	is unable 	to 	perform 	any 	past
relevant work (20 CFR 404.1565).
7. The claimant was … 41 years old, which is defined
as a younger individual age 18–49, on the alleged
disability onset date (20 CFR 404.1563).
8. The claimant has a limited education (20 CFR
404.1564).
9. Transferability of job skills is not material to the
determination 	of 	disability 	because 	using 	the
Medical-Vocational Rules as a framework supports
a 	finding 	that 	the 	claimant 	is 	“not 	disabled,”
whether or not the claimant has transferable job
skills (See SSR 82-41 and 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart
P, Appendix 2).
10. 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 404.1569 and 404.1569a).
Case: 3:25-cv-01219-JRK Doc #: 15 Filed: 02/10/26 11 of 29. PageID #: <pageID>

12
11. The claimant has not been under a disability, as
defined in the Social Security Act, from July 14,
2022, through the date of this decision (20 CFR
404.1520(g)).
Tr. 19–30.
Standard for Disability
Eligibility for social security benefit payments depends on the existence
of a disability. 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(a), 1382(a). “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); see also 42 U.S.C.
§ 1382c(a)(3)(A).
An ALJ is required to follow a five-step sequential analysis to make a
disability determination:
1. 	Is the claimant engaged in substantial gainful
activity? If so, the claimant is not disabled.
2. 	Does 	the 	claimant 	have 	a 	medically
determinable impairment, or a combination of
impairments, 	that 	is 	“severe”? 	If 	not, 	the
claimant is not disabled.
3. 	Does the claimant’s impairment meet or equal
one of the listed impairments and meet the
duration requirement? If so, the claimant is
disabled. If not, the ALJ proceeds to the next
step.
4. 	What is the claimant’s residual functional
capacity and can the claimant perform past
relevant 	work? 	If 	so, 	the 	claimant 	is 	not
Case: 3:25-cv-01219-JRK Doc #: 15 Filed: 02/10/26 12 of 29. PageID #: <pageID>

13
disabled. If not, the ALJ proceeds to the next
step.
5. 	Can 	the 	claimant 	do 	any 	other 	work
considering the claimant’s residual functional
capacity, 	age, 	education, 	and 	work
experience? If so, the claimant is not disabled.
If not, the claimant is disabled.
20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. see Jordan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 548 F.3d
417, 422 (6th Cir. 2008). Under this sequential analysis, the claimant has the
burden of proof at steps one through four. Jordan, 548 F.3d at 423. The burden
shifts to the Commissioner at step five “to prove the availability of jobs in the
national economy that the claimant is capable of performing.” Id. “The
claimant, however, retains the burden of proving her lack of residual functional
capacity.” Id. If a claimant satisfies each element of the analysis and meets the
duration requirements, the claimant is determined to be disabled. Walters
Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 127 F.3d 525, 529 (6th Cir. 1997).
Standard of review
A reviewing court must affirm the Commissioner’s conclusions unless it
determines “that the ALJ has failed to apply the correct legal standards or has
made findings of fact unsupported by substantial evidence in the record.”
Jordan, 548 F.3d at 422. “‘[S]ubstantial evidence’ is a ‘term of art’” under which
“a court … asks whether” the “existing administrative record … contains
‘sufficien[t] evidence’ to support the agency’s factual determinations.” Biestek
v. Berryhill, 587 U.S. 97, 102 (2019) (citations omitted). The substantial
evidence standard “is not high.” Id. at 103. Substantial evidence “is ‘more than
Case: 3:25-cv-01219-JRK Doc #: 15 Filed: 02/10/26 13 of 29. PageID #: <pageID>

14
a mere scintilla’” but it “means only[] ‘such relevant evidence as a reasonable
mind might 	accept 	as 	adequate 	to 	support 	a 	conclusion.’” 	Id. 	(citations
omitted). The Commissioner’s “findings … as to any fact if supported by
substantial evidence [are] conclusive.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Biestek, 587 U.S. at
99.
A court may “not try the case de novo, resolve conflicts in evidence, or
decide questions of credibility.” Bass v. McMahon, 499 F.3d 506, 509 (6th Cir.
2007). Even if substantial evidence or 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). This is so because there is a “zone of choice within which”
the Commissioner can act, without fear of judicial “interference.” Lindsley v.
Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 560 F.3d 601, 605 (6th Cir. 2009) (quoting Felisky v.
Bowen, 35 F.3d 1027, 1035 (6th Cir. 1994)).
Discussion
Throughout his brief, Snyder bundles separate arguments and presents
them as one. See, e.g., Doc. 11, at 11, 15. Ten times he references the “accurate
and logical bridge” doctrine, including when challenging: limitations in the
ALJ’s RFC finding; limitations not in the ALJ’s RFC finding; the ALJ’s
evaluation of opinion evidence; and in reference to Social Security Ruling 85-
15, 1985 WL 56857, which addresses the Medical-Vocational Rules. Id. at 10–
Case: 3:25-cv-01219-JRK Doc #: 15 Filed: 02/10/26 14 of 29. PageID #: <pageID>

15
20. I untangle Snyder’s arguments into discrete parts and discuss them below,
sometimes out of the order that Snyder presented them.
1. The ALJ did not err by relying on the absence of records after
September 2023, and the finding that 	Snyder improved after surgery is
supported by substantial evidence
Snyder challenges the ALJ’s finding that he improved after surgery.
Doc. 11, at 15. To recap: Snyder had cervical spine surgery in early August
2023; 	reported 	and 	showed 	improvement 	at 	the 	two-week 	follow-up
appointment; and in late September complained to his primary care provider
that he experienced back pain. Tr. 25, 762, 947, 959. After discussing the
evidence in the record, Tr. 23–25, the ALJ evaluated Snyder’s reports of
symptoms and concluded that they were not entirely consistent with the
evidence. Tr. 25. The ALJ explained:
For instance, at the hearing, the claimant testified
that he experiences weakness and pain in his left
arm and hand, he cannot lift his left arm above his
head, and he experiences neck and back pain, which
radiates 	throughout 	his 	whole 	upper 	body. 	In
October of 2022, an examination showed a normal
range of motion, both generally and in the cervical
back, a supple neck, and no weakness or problematic
upper motor neuron signs. (2F/37). However, by
January 	of 	2023, 	an 	examination 	showed 	some
abnormalities. There was tenderness to palpation in
the 	left 	paraspinal 	musculature 	and 	trapezius
muscle, the claimant’s hands were sensitive to light
touch yet cold, and he exhibited weakness, graded
4/5, in his left-sided grip, elbow flexion, and shoulder
abduction, compared to 5/5 on the right side. (9F/12-
13). Due to these symptoms, the claimant underwent
a 	cervical 	disk 	arthroplasty 	at 	C5-C6. 	(7F/14).
Afterwards, [Snyder] reported improvement of neck
pain and upper extremity radiculopathy, and upon
Case: 3:25-cv-01219-JRK Doc #: 15 Filed: 02/10/26 15 of 29. PageID #: <pageID>

16
examination, he maintained full strength, including
5/5 handgrip, resisted wrist extension, elbow flexion
and extension bilaterally, and he was fully sensate
without swelling. (9F/26). On September 26, 2023,
the 	claimant 	complained 	of 	back 	pain, 	and 	an
examination showed cervical, thoracic, and lumbar
spine tenderness. (10F/1). However, after the fall of
2023, no other objective evidence appears in the
medical 	record 	to 	corroborate 	the 	claimant’s
testimony 	that 	his 	neck 	surgery 	was 	only
temporarily 	effective 	in 	managing 	his 	pain 	and
weakness. The evidence, mentioned here, suggests
that the claimant’s symptoms, including weakness,
restricted range of motion, and pain are not as
disabling as he alleged. Even so, the undersigned
has accounted for these symptoms by limiting the
claimant to work [as described in the RFC].
Tr. 26. Snyder alleges that the ALJ’s finding that his condition improved “is
unsupported by substantial evidence.” Doc. 11, at 15. But the ALJ cited
Snyder’s cervical spine surgery and subsequent improvement. Tr. 26. This is
substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s finding that Snyder’s cervical spine
impairment improved after surgery.
Snyder concedes that there was no evidence in the record after the
September 2023 treatment note. Doc. 11, at 15. But he disagrees with the ALJ’s
conclusion 	drawn 	from 	it. 	Snyder 	contends 	that 	“there 	is 	no 	evidence
contradicting the most recent findings. The absence of evidence does not equate
to substantial evidence.” Id., at 15–16. First, the September 2023 note showed
that Snyder reported “back pain” and had cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine
tenderness. Tr. 959. These findings don’t undercut the initial post-surgical
findings showing that Snyder’s radiculopathy symptoms improved and that he
Case: 3:25-cv-01219-JRK Doc #: 15 Filed: 02/10/26 16 of 29. PageID #: <pageID>

17
regained full strength in his upper extremities. Tr. 947. Moreover, “[i]t is
illogical to require that the ALJ cite to evidence that does not exist.” See Meyer
v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:12-cv-822, 2013 WL 6795606, at *5 (S.D. Ohio
Dec. 20, 2013), report and recommendation adopted, 2014 WL 221947 (S.D.
Ohio Jan. 21, 2014). This is especially so where, as here, Snyder, not the ALJ,
has the burden to provide evidence to show that he is disabled. 20 C.F.R. §
404.1512(a). And “[u]nder [the] regulations, an individual’s statements of
symptoms alone are not enough to establish the existence of a physical or
mental impairment or disability.” Soc. Sec. Ruling 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at
*2.
In any event, Snyder has waived any argument related to the absence
of post-September 2023 records and the conclusion that the ALJ drew from it.
At the May 2024 hearing, the ALJ asked Snyder’s attorney if the record was
complete. Tr. 38. The attorney said that it was not, explaining that “[Snyder]
had some relevant treatment from Orthopedic Institute of Ohio. He’s now
getting problems with his lower back.” Tr. 38. The attorney had requested but
had not received these and other records relating to Snyder’s boils. Tr. 38. The
attorney stated, “I don’t know if you want this” and discussed records he had
not received about Snyder’s boils, and again said that “if you want me to
request that record I can. I’ve not requested that.” Tr. 39. The following
conversation ensued:
ALJ: [Y]ou can, if you request them and they come
in 	we’ll 	receive 	them. 	These 	records 	from 	the
Case: 3:25-cv-01219-JRK Doc #: 15 Filed: 02/10/26 17 of 29. PageID #: <pageID>

18
Orthopedic Institute of Ohio, are these going to be
continuing 	treatment 	because 	I 	do 	also 	see
throughout the record the issues with the back.
ATTY: Yes.
ALJ: But I’m happy to—
ATTY: Yeah, I mean—
ALJ: —give you the window of time that you need.
ATTY: I mean, Judge, I mean we can certainly just
submit them when we get them. I mean the reality
is he’s got pain in his cervical spine after the surgery
in 	his 	lower 	back. 	He 	hasn’t 	had 	his—he’s 	got
Medicaid so they got to do the physical therapy to
get the MRI so there’s not an MRI on his lower back.
ALJ: Mm-hmm.
ATTY: It’s just going to show the pain and problems
but it is a continuation. If you want to close—I mean
there’s 1600 pages of record. If you want close we can
and if I get them I can send them in, whatever the
court would like.
ALJ: We can—
ATTY: There’s nothing, there’s no injections, no
surgeries, no MRIs from OIO in the records we
requested. It’s just him getting treatment to try to
get an MRI.
ALJ: Okay, okay, all right. So then what we’ll do
then is we’ll, if you all think there’s no newer
additional material evidence going to be in those
records then I’ll receive them if they come in, if not
we won’t hold the case in advance. Okay?
ATTY: Sounds good.
Tr. 39–40.
Case: 3:25-cv-01219-JRK Doc #: 15 Filed: 02/10/26 18 of 29. PageID #: <pageID>

19
“The doctrine of ‘invited error’ refers to the principle that a party may
not complain on appeal of errors that he himself invited or provoked the court
or the opposite party to commit.” Harvis v. Roadway Express, Inc., 923 F.2d 59,
60 (6th Cir. 1991). This doctrine “is a branch of waiver by which the courts
prevent a party from inducing an erroneous ruling and later seeking to profit
from the legal consequences of having the ruling set aside.” Id. at 61. The
invited error doctrine has been applied to administrative proceedings, see E.L.
ex rel. Lorsson v. Chapel Hill–Carrboro Bd. of Educ., 773 F.3d 509, 516 (4th
Cir. 2014), St. Anthony Hosp. v. Dept. of H.H.S, 309 F.3d 680, 696 (10th Cir.
2002), Johnson v. I.N.S., 971 F.2d 340, 343–44 (9th Cir. 1992), including social
security disability appeals, see Dowling v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:16-cv-
2180, 2017 WL 2417077, at *9 (N.D. Ohio May 18, 2017) (applying the invited
error doctrine when an attorney told the ALJ at the hearing that the evidence
didn’t support a finding that the claimant satisfied Listing 12.05 but argued
on appeal that the ALJ erred by not considering Listing 12.05), report and
recommendation adopted, 2017 WL 2416992 (N.D. Ohio June 3, 2017).
Here, Snyder’s attorney told the ALJ that the post-September 2023
records were not material to his disability case and he declined the ALJ’s
invitation to hold the record open to wait for that evidence. Tr. 39–40. Snyder
cannot now complain that the absence of post-surgical or lower back evidence
in the record was the ALJ fault, or that the ALJ was not permitted to rely on
the absence of evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1512(a) (the claimant, not the
Case: 3:25-cv-01219-JRK Doc #: 15 Filed: 02/10/26 19 of 29. PageID #: <pageID>

20
Agency, has the burden to provide evidence to demonstrate disability). The
ALJ found that there was no record evidence to corroborate Snyder’s testimony
that his surgery was “only temporarily effective,” Tr. 26, and her finding is
supported by substantial evidence.
2. The ALJ is not required to prove a negative
Snyder argues that “the ALJ erred when failing to build and accurate
and logical bridge from the evidence to the” RFC findings regarding Snyder’s
ability to stand and walk and his off-task behavior. Doc. 11, at 11. In doing so,
Snyder makes two separate arguments. He argues that the ALJ failed to
explain why she included in the RFC the specific limitations on standing,
walking, and off-task behavior. Id. But he also argues that the ALJ failed to
explain why she did not include different limitations on standing, walking, and
off-task behavior. See id. (the ALJ “does not explain why Plaintiff could
stand/walk 4 hours rather than 2 hours, 3 hours, or 5 hours out of an 8-hour
day” or “why Plaintiff would be off task 5% of the workday rather than 0%,
10%, 15%, or a greater amount of time during the workday.”); Doc. 14, at 1.
In essence, Snyder expects the ALJ to prove a negative. He cites no legal
authority stating that an ALJ must articulate reasons for not including a
variety of hypothetical limitations when assessing the RFC. While true that an
ALJ must explain, for instance, why she would reject certain limitations that
may have been offered in a medical opinion, see 20 C.F.R. § 416.920c(a),
Snyder’s argument here is untethered to any opinion evidence. No medical
Case: 3:25-cv-01219-JRK Doc #: 15 Filed: 02/10/26 20 of 29. PageID #: <pageID>

21
provider opined that Snyder could stand and walk for less than four hours a
day or would exhibit off-task behavior. Simply put, Snyder attempts to create
a new articulation standard. His arguments on this point, which permeate his
entire brief, fail.
3. The ALJ’s RFC is supported by substantial evidence
Snyder argues that the ALJ’s RFC is not supported by substantial
evidence. Doc. 11, at 11, 15–24. In doing so, Snyder challenges the ALJ’s
evaluation 	of 	the 	opinion 	evidence, 	Snyder’s 	statements 	regarding 	his
symptoms, and whether the ALJ sufficiently explained her findings. Id.
Snyder’s 	challenge 	to 	the 	ALJ’s 	evaluation 	of 	the 	portion 	of 	Dr.
Onamusi’s opinion regarding lifting and carrying limitations, Doc. 11, at 21,
fails to the extent it is based on Snyder’s argument that the ALJ erred when
she found that Snyder’s symptoms improved after surgery. As explained above,
Snyder’s challenge to this issue fails and is waived. Snyder’s challenge to the
ALJ’s evaluation of Dr. Onamusi’s opinion regarding arm use beyond the issue
of improvement after surgery, id., also fails. The ALJ found that Dr. Onamusi’s
strength findings on exam did not support Dr. Onamusi’s limitations regarding
Snyder’s “limitations using his upper extremities for gross or fine motor tasks.”
Tr. 27. The ALJ explained:
While [Dr. Onamusi] found that the claimant’s grip
strength 	was 	decreased 	in 	his 	left 	hand, 	the
claimant was still able to grip and grasp with both
hands, he could use his hands for fine coordination,
and he could reach forward and push/pull with his
upper extremities. (4F/9). Such evidence supports
Case: 3:25-cv-01219-JRK Doc #: 15 Filed: 02/10/26 21 of 29. PageID #: <pageID>

22
limiting the claimant to occasionally lifting/carrying
20 pounds, rather than just 15 pounds, and it does
not support any limitations regarding gross or fine
motor tasks.
Tr. 27; see also Tr. 625–29, 632 (Dr. Onamusi’s exam findings and conclusions).
The ALJ then described how, after his surgery, Snyder retained “full strength,
5/5, in his handgrip, and with resisted wrist extension and elbow flexion and
extension 	bilaterally,” 	which 	the 	ALJ 	also 	found 	inconsistent 	with 	the
limitations 	Dr. 	Onamusi 	assessed. 	Tr. 	27. 	Thus, 	the 	ALJ 	provided 	an
explanation as to why she rejected Dr. Onamusi’s opinion, contrary to Snyder’s
assertion, Doc. 11, at 21, and the ALJ’s explanation is supported by substantial
evidence.
Snyder argues that when the ALJ weighed Dr. Onamusi’s opinion, she
improperly “interpreted … raw medical data.” Doc. 11, at 22. This is not so. As
explained by another court in this Circuit:
“Raw medical data,” however, generally includes
testing such as x-rays, Rudd v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.,
531 F. App’x 719, 727 (6th Cir. 2013), MRI images,
Holland v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 4:13-CV-10295,
2014 WL 1118521, at *7 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 20, 2014)
or an EMG, Kidder v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:18-
CV-661, 2020 WL 1080413, at *5 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 6,
2020), 	report 	and 	recommendation 	adopted, 	No.
1:18-CV-661, 2020 WL 5201080 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 1,
2020). Treatment notes or reports from 	medical
professionals following various testing, on the other
hand, are not considered raw medical data beyond
the ALJ’s expertise.
Lonnie F. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 2:23-cv-890, 2024 WL 3506946, at *3 (S.D.
Ohio July 23, 2024) (“an ALJ does not improperly ‘interpret raw medical data’
Case: 3:25-cv-01219-JRK Doc #: 15 Filed: 02/10/26 22 of 29. PageID #: <pageID>

23
simply by evaluating the medical evidence …. ‘[f]ar from prohibiting ALJs from
directly evaluating medical evidence, the law requires it.’”) (collecting cases).
Snyder’s complaint that the ALJ “played doctor” when he evaluated Dr.
Onamusi’s opinion, Doc. 11, at 23, likewise fails. As the Commissioner says,
“what 	[Snyder] 	characterizes 	as 	‘playing 	doctor,’ 	the 	Sixth 	Circuit 	has
consistently characterized as ‘weighing the evidence.’”7 Doc. 13, at 14 (citing
Coldiron v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 391 F. App’x 435, 439 (6th Cir. 2010)
(explaining that “[a]n ALJ does not improperly assume the role of a medical
expert by weighing the medical and non-medical evidence before rendering an
RFC finding”), in turn citing Poe v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 342 F. App’x 149, 157
(6th Cir. 2009)).
Next, Snyder argues that the ALJ erred when she evaluated Snyder’s
reports of symptoms. Doc. 11, at 22. He contends that the ALJ only relied on
objective findings, and asserts that an ALJ may not rely only on objective
findings to discount a claimant’s reports of symptoms. Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. §
404.1529(c)(2)). But the ALJ also relied on Snyder’s treatment, Tr. 26, which
is a separate basis on which an ALJ may rely when evaluating a claimant’s
reports of symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(v). Snyder lists what an
ALJ must consider when evaluating a claimant’s symptoms, Doc. 11, at 22, but
7 	Indeed, the report and recommendation that Snyder extensively cites
for his “played doctor” argument was rejected by the district court before
Snyder filed his brief. Doc. 11, at 23 (citing Nichols v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No.
1:23-cv-2063, 2024 WL 	3387289 	(N.D. Ohio 	June 	21, 	2024), 	report 	and
recommendation rejected, 2025 WL 2029765 (N.D. Ohio July 21, 2025).
Case: 3:25-cv-01219-JRK Doc #: 15 Filed: 02/10/26 23 of 29. PageID #: <pageID>

24
a duty to “consider” the evidence is different than a duty to “discuss” the
evidence. See Kornecky v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 167 F. App’x 496, 508 (6th Cir.
2006) (“[a]n ALJ can consider all the evidence without directly addressing in
his written decision every piece of evidence submitted by a party”) (quoting
Loral Defense Systems–Akron v. NLRB, 200 F.3d 436, 453 (6th Cir. 1999)). And
Snyder has not shown that the ALJ failed to consider other evidence.
Snyder argues that the ALJ “failed to explain how the evidence supports
the ability to perform standing/walking for a total of 4 hours of an 8-hour
workday.” Doc. 11, at 15. But the ALJ wrote:
Dr. Onamusi opined that the claimant could sit
frequently, 	stand, 	or 	walk 	on 	the 	low 	end 	of
frequently, [etc.] .… The undersigned finds this
opinion 	somewhat 	persuasive. 	Dr. 	Onamusi’s
opinion 	that 	the 	claimant 	would 	have 	difficulty
sitting, standing, walking, bending, and climbing
steps is supported by his examination. He found that
although the claimant’s gait was normal, he had
mild to moderate diffuse tenderness to palpation
along the paralumbar muscles, and he could only
squat 50% of the way down. (4F/9). This portion of
Dr. 	Onamusi’s 	opinion 	is 	consistent 	with 	the
remainder of the medical evidence.
Tr. 27. The ALJ’s finding that Snyder can stand and walk for four hours is
consistent with Dr. Onamusi’s opinion that Snyder can stand and walk on the
“low end of frequently.” Tr. 27, 633. This is substantial evidence that supports
the ALJ’s standing and walking limitations.
Snyder complains that the ALJ ignored his testimony about his lumbar
spine impairment, Doc. 11, at 17, but the ALJ mentioned that Snyder testified
Case: 3:25-cv-01219-JRK Doc #: 15 Filed: 02/10/26 24 of 29. PageID #: <pageID>

25
that he experiences back pain, Tr. 23. The ALJ discussed Snyder’s lumbar
impairment when she evaluated the opinion evidence. Tr. 27 (discussing the
opinions of Dr. Onamusi and the state agency reviewers). In fact, the ALJ
assessed greater restrictions on Snyder’s ability to stand and walk than the
state agency reviewers had. In rejecting the state agency reviewers’ opinions,
including that Snyder could stand and walk for six hours in an eight-hour day,
the ALJ explained:
The undersigned concludes that these findings are
unpersuasive. While some of them may have been
supported by the evidence in the file at the time of
Dr. Lewis’s review, they are not consistent with the
complete evidence in the file. In August of 2023,
after 	he 	underwent 	neck 	surgery, 	the 	claimant
exhibited full strength in his upper extremities.
(9F/26). However, just one month later, the claimant
complained 	of 	back 	pain, 	and 	an 	examination
revealed 	cervical, 	thoracic, 	and 	lumbar 	spine
tenderness. (10F/1). Such evidence is not consistent
with Dr. Lewis’s overly lenient limitations.
Tr. 27 (emphasis added). In other words, the state agency reviewers considered
Snyder’s lumber spine impairment, Tr. 72–73, 83; found that Snyder could
stand and walk for six hours a day, id.; and the ALJ evaluated these opinions
and further limited Snyder based in part on his lumbar impairment, Tr. 27. So
the 	ALJ 	considered 	Snyder’s 	lumbar impairment 	and accounted for 	his
associated symptoms in the RFC. See also Laney v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No.
5:21-cv-1290, 2022 WL 2176539, at *7 (N.D. Ohio June 16, 2022) (“The Court
will not fault the ALJ for finding more restrictions” in the RFC than were
suggested in the state agency reviewers’ opinions) (citations omitted); Ferris v.
Case: 3:25-cv-01219-JRK Doc #: 15 Filed: 02/10/26 25 of 29. PageID #: <pageID>

26
Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 5:16-cv-2459, 2017 WL 5187796, at *11 n.4 (N.D. Ohio
Nov. 9, 2017).
Snyder 	references 	“[t]he 	need 	for 	position 	changes” 	and 	cites 	his
testimony at the administrative hearing in which he said that after sitting for
15 minutes, his legs go numb and he walks around “to get the feeling back.”
Doc. 11, at 17–18 (citing Tr. 58). He argues that remand is required “for proper
explanation for the exclusion of the need to walk after being seated.” Id. at 18.
There are number of problems with this argument. First, Snyder did not
include any of his testimony in the Facts section of his brief, as is required to
rely on that testimony to support his claim. See Doc. 7, at 4 (“The Court will
not consider facts referenced in a party’s argument unless those facts have
been set out in the Facts section of the party’s brief.”). Next, the ALJ’s failure
to mention one statement, particularly in a 1,600-page record, Tr. 39, is not
error. See, e.g., Dickey-Williams v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 975 F. Supp. 2d 792,
807 (E.D. Mich. 2013) (“[T]he fact an ALJ did not specifically state every piece
of evidence or every symptom is not an error”). Finally, there is no opinion
evidence stating that Snyder must change positions. Snyder has not cited legal
authority that requires an ALJ to explain why he did not include in the RFC a
limitation that no medical provider assessed. The ALJ considered Snyder’s
Case: 3:25-cv-01219-JRK Doc #: 15 Filed: 02/10/26 26 of 29. PageID #: <pageID>

27
lower back impairment, Tr. 20, 22, 24–28, and Snyder has not shown that the
ALJ erred.8
Snyder complains that “the ALJ failed to provide any explanation for
the finding regarding time off task and why the evidence supports the specific
5% of the workday where Plaintiff would be off task.” Doc. 11, at 18. He submits
that the ALJ also “failed to explain what symptoms or impairments would
cause” the off-task limitation. Id. But the ALJ assessed the off-task limitation
“due to [Snyder’s] pain.” Tr. 26. So she explained what symptom caused the off-
task limitation. Snyder cites a case in which the court remanded because the
percentage of time the ALJ assessed the claimant to be off-task “appears to be
nothing more than an arbitrary number slightly below the ‘Unemployability’
threshold identified by the [vocational expert].’” Doc. 11, at 19 (citing Farley v.
Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 2020 WL 772330, *6 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 18, 2020), report and
recommendation adopted, 2020 WL 1042383 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 4, 2020)). But in
Farley, a doctor opined that the claimant would need unscheduled breaks, and
the court’s ruling was tied to the ALJ’s evaluation of that opinion. Id. Here, no
medical opinion in the record assessed Snyder with off-task limitations. Snyder
has not shown that the ALJ erred. See Tammy W. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.
Admin., No. 2:23-cv-1196, 2024 WL 4284251, at *6 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 25, 2024)
(“no medical opinion found that Plaintiff required an off-task limitation
8 	As explained above, Snyder chose not to pursue updating the record with
treatment notes regarding his lower back impairment. Tr. 39–40.
Case: 3:25-cv-01219-JRK Doc #: 15 Filed: 02/10/26 27 of 29. PageID #: <pageID>

28
whatsoever, meaning the ALJ’s off-task limitation was a further limitation
than found within the record,” and that, as a result, the plaintiff’s argument
was “not well-taken”).
Snyder claims that the vocational expert testified that being off-task “is
not 	really 	allowed,” 	so 	the 	ALJ’s 	“step 	five 	finding 	is 	unsupported 	by
ambiguous testimony.” Doc. 11, at 19. But the vocational expert continued her
answer as follows:
But most people can produce an average amount
with 	average 	quality 	and 	thus 	maintain
employment if they’re not off task 15 percent of the
time or more.
Tr. 63. The vocational expert’s testimony does not doom the ALJ’s step five
finding.
Conclusion
For the reasons explained above, I recommend that the Court affirm the
Commissioner’s decision.
Dated: February 10, 2026
/s/ James E. Grimes Jr.
James E. Grimes Jr.
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Case: 3:25-cv-01219-JRK Doc #: 15 Filed: 02/10/26 28 of 29. PageID #: <pageID>

29
OBJECTIONS
Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed with
the Clerk of Court within 14 days after the party objecting has been served
with a copy of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Failure
to file objections within the specified time may forfeit the right to appeal the
District Court’s order. See Berkshire v. Beauvais, 928 F.3d 520, 530–31 (6th
Cir. 2019).
Case: 3:25-cv-01219-JRK Doc #: 15 Filed: 02/10/26 29 of 29. PageID #: <pageID>