Snyder v. Commissioner of Social Security

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
RODNEY ALLEN SNYDER, 	CASE NO. 3:25 CV 1219
Plaintiff,
v. 	JUDGE JAMES R. KNEPP II
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant. 	MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
ORDER
I NTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Rodney Allen Snyder seeks judicial review of an adverse Social Security
benefits decision under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). This case was referred to Magistrate Judge James
E. Grimes, Jr. for a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) under Local Civil Rule 72.2(b)(1).
Judge Grimes recommends this Court affirm the Commissioner’s final decision. (Doc. 15).
Plaintiff filed objections to the R&R (Doc. 16), and the Commissioner filed a response thereto
(Doc. 17). For the reasons set forth below, the Court overrules Plaintiff’s objections, adopts the
R&R, and affirms the Commissioner’s decision.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed for disability insurance benefits in August 2022, alleging a disability onset
date of July 14, 2022. See Tr. 203-19. Following the administrative process, an administrative law
judge (“ALJ”) issued a written decision on May 20, 2024, finding Plaintiff not disabled. (Tr. 17-
30). This appeal ultimately followed. (Doc. 1).
Plaintiff originally raised numerous interrelated arguments regarding the ALJ’s decision.
He argued the ALJ’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”) was not supported by substantial
Case: 3:25-cv-01219-JRK Doc #: 19 Filed: 05/29/26 1 of 8. PageID #: <pageID>

2
evidence, the ALJ erred in her evaluation of medical opinion evidence and prior administrative
medical findings, the ALJ did not properly evaluate Plaintiff’s subjective allegations pursuant to
relevant regulations, and the ALJ’s reliance on Plaintiff’s “improvement” was not supported. See
Doc. 11.
In his R&R, Judge Grimes concluded: (1) the ALJ did not err in relying on the absence of
records after September 2023 and the finding that Plaintiff improved after surgery is supported by
substantial evidence; (2) the ALJ did not fail to build an accurate and logical bridge regarding
Plaintiff’s ability to stand and walk and his off-task behavior; (3) the ALJ’s RFC is supported by
substantial evidence; and (4) there was no error in the ALJ’s evaluation of the opinion evidence or
Plaintiff’s symptoms. See Doc. 12, at 15-28. He recommends the Court affirm the Commissioner’s
decision. See id.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Under the relevant statute:
Within fourteen days after being served with a copy [of a Magistrate Judge’s R&R],
any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and
recommendations as provided by rules of court. A judge of the court shall make a
de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings
or recommendations to which objection is made.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2)-(3).
In Social Security cases, the Court “must affirm the Commissioner’s conclusions absent a
determination that the Commissioner has failed to apply the correct legal standards or has made
findings of fact unsupported by substantial evidence in the record.” Walters v. Comm’r of Soc.
Sec., 127 F.3d 525, 528 (6th Cir. 1997); see also 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). “Substantial evidence is
defined as ‘such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.’” Colvin v. Barnhart, 475 F.3d 727, 730 (6th Cir. 2007) (quoting Heston v. Comm’r
Case: 3:25-cv-01219-JRK Doc #: 19 Filed: 05/29/26 2 of 8. PageID #: <pageID>

3
of Soc. Sec., 245 F.3d 528, 534 (6th Cir. 2001)). If the Commissioner’s findings of fact are
supported by substantial evidence, those findings are conclusive. McClanahan v. Comm’r of Soc.
Sec., 474 F.3d 830, 833 (6th Cir. 2006).
DISCUSSION1
Plaintiff raises two numbered objections to the R&R. (Doc. 16). First, he argues the RFC
is not supported by substantial evidence, challenging numerous subparts of the Magistrate Judge’s
reasoning finding no error in the ALJ’s decision-making. Id. at 2-8. Second, he contends the
Magistrate Judge incorrectly found the ALJ’s reliance on improvement supported “when the most
recent treatment note does not support improvement.” Id. at 8. The Commissioner first responds
that Plaintiff “reiterates the very same argument made in his merits brief regarding the ALJ’s
purported failure when assessing the [RFC] and finding medical improvement after his surgery.”
(Doc. 17, at 1). The Commissioner also provides some substantive responses to Plaintiff’s multi-
part objections. See id. at 1-4.
RFC Objections
Plaintiff’s first objection directed at the ALJ’s RFC determination is multi-pronged. He
first contends the R&R’s reasoning “is contradictory.” (Doc. 16, at 2). Specifically, he asserts there
is a contradiction between (1) the R&R’s observation that his argument regarding standing and
walking and off-task behavior limitations “is untethered to any opinion evidence,” (Doc. 15, at
20), and (2) the R&R’s later determination that the ALJ did not have to rely on a medical opinion
1. Neither party objects to Judge Grimes’s summary of the medical record. Because the Court
incorporates the R&R into this Opinion, it need not repeat Plaintiff’s medical history, which Judge
Grimes thoroughly summarized.
Case: 3:25-cv-01219-JRK Doc #: 19 Filed: 05/29/26 3 of 8. PageID #: <pageID>

4
when rejecting greater limitations opined by Dr. Onamusi. See Dc. 16, at 2-3. But the R&R simply
explained the articulation requirements of the regulations:
While [it is] 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 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 requirement.
(Doc. 15, at 20-21). Plaintiff contends that “[i]t is unclear from Judge Grimes’s reasoning whether
an opinion is required to support abilities and limitations contained in the RFC” and “[t]his
supports a double standard where Plaintiff cannot allege greater limitations in the absence of a
medical opinion, but the ALJ can make any finding in the absence of a medical opinion.” (Doc.
16, at 3). But nothing in the R&R suggests Plaintiff cannot allege greater limitations without a
supporting medical opinion. It is the ALJ’s duty to consider the evidence as a whole and formulate
the RFC. See Coldiron v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 391 F. App’x 435, 439 (6th Cir. 2010); Poe v.
Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 342 F. App’x 149, 157 (6th Cir. 2009). And that RFC must be supported by
substantial evidence. See Jordan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 548 F.3d 417, 422 (6th Cir. 2008). The
R&R simply explained regulatory articulation requirements. The Court finds Plaintiff has not
demonstrated error.
Second, Plaintiff argues the Magistrate Judge erred in his evaluation of Dr. Onamusi’s
opinion. (Doc. 16, at 3-5). Within this objection, Plaintiff specifically objects that the Magistrate
Judge “fault[ed] Plaintiff’s citation to Nichols to support his original argument,” contending
“Nichols is not the only case supporting Plaintiff’s argument.” (Doc. 16, at 4). The Magistrate
Judge referenced Nichols in the following footnote:
Indeed, the report and recommendation that Snyder extensively cites for his
“playing 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
Case: 3:25-cv-01219-JRK Doc #: 19 Filed: 05/29/26 4 of 8. PageID #: <pageID>

5
WL 3387289 (N.D. Ohio June 21, 2024), report and recommendation rejected,
2025 WL 2029765 (N.D. Ohio July 21, 2025).
(Doc. 15, at 23 n.7). The Magistrate Judge’s point on the citation was a simple one: Plaintiff should
not have cited and relied upon a rejected R&R. The Court finds Plaintiff has not demonstrated any
error in this regard. To the extent Plaintiff reiterates his general argument that the ALJ “played
doctor” when evaluating Dr. Onamusi’s opinion, the R&R correctly addressed that argument,
finding the ALJ did not interpret raw medical data and instead performed her duty to evaluate and
weigh the evidence when formulating the RFC. See Doc. 15, at 22-23 (citing Coldiron, 391 F.
App’x at 439, for the proposition 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”); see
also Poe, 342 F. App’x at157 (“The responsibility for determining a claimant’s [RFC] rests with
the ALJ, not a physician.”). The Court overrules Plaintiff’s objection in this regard.
Third, Plaintiff argues generally that “the ALJ is required to do more than summarize the
evidence in the record when making [her] findings.” (Doc. 16, at 5). He contends the Magistrate
Judge did no more than cite the ALJ’s summaries when finding the ALJ’s determinations regarding
standing and walking, off-task behavior, and arm/hand restrictions were supported by substantial
evidence. See id. at 5-8; id.at 6 (“The ALJ’s summation of evidence followed by the restatement
of the RFC finding is [not] sufficient to support the very specific abilities and limitations contained
in the RFC finding.”); id. at 8 (“[T]he generalization does not explain how the individual functional
abilities, such as the ability to stand, walk, sit, lift, carry, reach, handle, finger, feel, or stay on task
result from the record.”). He repeats the argument he made to the Magistrate Judge that the ALJ’s
reasoning fails to “build an accurate and logical bridge between the evidence and the result.” Doc.
16, at 7 (quoting Fleischer v. Astrue, 774 F. Supp. 2d 875, 877 (N.D. Ohio 2011))). This argument
is in large part a regurgitation of the argument Plaintiff presented to the Magistrate Judge. See Doc.
Case: 3:25-cv-01219-JRK Doc #: 19 Filed: 05/29/26 5 of 8. PageID #: <pageID>

6
11, at 15-23. However, upon de novo review, the Court agrees with the well-reasoned R&R that
the ALJ’s RFC was supported by substantial evidence and that the ALJ adequately explained and
supported her reasoning as to each limitation. See Doc. 15, at 21-28.
Improvement
In his second numbered objection, Plaintiff contends “neither the ALJ nor Judge Grimes
cite evidence supporting improvement as of or after the most recent treatment note from September
26, 2023. (Doc. 16, at 9).
As the R&R explained:
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.
(Doc. 15, at 15).
As he did to the Magistrate Judge, Plaintiff argues the most recent treatment note in the
record indicates Plaintiff reported continued back pain. See Doc. 16, at 9-10. However, as the R&R
set forth, the ALJ evaluated the evidence as a whole, including this record, in determining the RFC,
finding Plaintiff’s subjective reports not entirely supported. (Doc. 15, at 15-16) (quoting Tr. 26).
As the Commissioner points out, “Plaintiff seems to think that his reports of back pain and
tenderness were evidence that he did not improve after surgery.” (Doc. 17, at 3).
Substantial evidence, specifically Plaintiff’s cervical spine surgery and subsequent
improvement (in the form of subjectively-reported improvement in neck pain and upper extremity
radiculopathy and objective findings of full strength) support the ALJ’s reliance on improvement.
See Tr. 947 (August 17, 2023, post-surgical record noting Plaintiff was “neurologically intact with
the relief of upper extremity radiculopathy” with “full strength including a 5 out of 5 handgrip,
Case: 3:25-cv-01219-JRK Doc #: 19 Filed: 05/29/26 6 of 8. PageID #: <pageID>

7
resisted wrist extension, elbow flexion and extension strength testing bilateral”). A later September
26, 2023, treatment note stated Plaintiff felt his “[b]ack pain feels unchanged since surgery” and
that he had cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine tenderness on examination. (Tr. 959). But the Court
agrees with the R&R that “[t]hese findings don’t undercut the initial post-surgical findings
showing that Snyder’s radiculopathy symptoms improved and that he regained full strength in his
upper extremities.” (Doc. 15, at 16-17). And the Court agrees with the R&R that the August 2023
record provides substantial evidence for the ALJ’s determination that Plaintiff’s cervical spine
impairment improved after surgery. See Fox v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 827 F. App’x 531, 534 (6th
Cir. 2020) (“The substantial evidence standard, while requiring ‘more than a mere scintilla’ of
evidence, is not a high bar; substantial evidence is ‘such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’”) (quoting Biestek v. Berryhill, 587 U.S. 97,
103 (2019)); see also Stewart v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 811 F. App’x 349, 356 (6th Cir. 2020) (“This
case is like many others under the deferential substantial-evidence standard. While the evidence
could support the opposite result, it supports the result that the administrative law judge reached.
We thus have no legal basis to overturn it.”) (citation modified).
Plaintiff further objects to the Magistrate Judge’s reference to waiver: “[i]t is further
unclear how ‘[Plaintiff] has waived any argument related to the absence of post-September 2023
records and the conclusion that the ALJ drew from it.’” (Doc. 16, at 10) (quoting Doc. 15, at 17).
But the ALJ here found “[a]fter the fall of 2023, no other objective medical 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.” (Tr. 26) (emphasis added). As set forth
in the R&R, the ALJ and Plaintiff’s counsel discussed whether there were additional relevant
records. Plaintiff’s counsel declined the invitation to hold the record open for additional records to
Case: 3:25-cv-01219-JRK Doc #: 19 Filed: 05/29/26 7 of 8. PageID #: <pageID>

8
be submitted and agreed there was no additional material evidence to submit. (Doc. 15, at 17-20)
(citing Tr. 39-40). It is Plaintiff’s burden to prove disability. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.912(a). The
ALJ’s determination he failed to provide record evidence corroborating his subjective reports that
his surgery did not result in improvement is supported by substantial evidence and the ALJ did not
err in relying on the absence of records in this instance.
Plaintiff’s second numbered objection is overruled.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED, Judge Grimes’s R&R
(Doc. 15) is ADOPTED as the Order of this Court, and the Commissioner’s decision is
AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ James R. Knepp II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: May 29, 2026
Case: 3:25-cv-01219-JRK Doc #: 19 Filed: 05/29/26 8 of 8. PageID #: <pageID>