Hall v. Commissioner of Social Security

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
JAMES ROBERT HALL,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 1:25-CV-01147-DCN
JUDGE DONALD C. NUGENT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
CARMEN E. HENDERSON
REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
I. Introduction
Plaintiff, James Robert Hall (“Hall” or “Claimant”), seeks judicial review of the final
decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying his application for Disability Insurance
Benefits (“DIB”). This matter is before me pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c)(3), and
Local Rule 72.2(b). For the reasons set forth below, it is RECOMMENDED that the Court
OVERRULE Claimant’s Statement of Errors and AFFIRM the Commissioner’s decision.
II. Procedural History
On April 3, 2022, Hall filed an application for DIB, alleging a disability onset date of
March 8, 2013. 	(ECF No. 7, PageID #: 322). The application wase denied initially and upon
reconsideration, and Hall requested a hearing before an administrative law judge (“ALJ”). (Id.).
On February 14, 2024, an ALJ held a hearing, during which Claimant, represented by counsel,
and an impartial vocational expert testified. 	(See id. at PageID #: 337-63). 	After the hearing,
Hall amended his alleged onset date to April 2, 2021. 	(Id. at PageID #: 658). 	On March 13,
Case: 1:25-cv-01147-DCN Doc #: 14 Filed: 01/05/26 1 of 15. PageID #: <pageID>

2
2024, the ALJ issued a written decision finding Hall was not disabled. (Id. at PageID #: 322-32).
The ALJ’s decision became final on April 7, 2025, when the Appeals Council declined further
review. (Id. at PageID #: 28-31).
On June 3, 2025, Hall filed his Complaint to challenge the Commissioner’s final
decision. (ECF No. 1). The parties have completed briefing in this case. (ECF Nos. 10, 12, 13).
Hall asserts the following assignments of error:
(1) The ALJ erred when he 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 erroneously failed to comply with Social Security
Ruling 	16-3p 	when 	evaluating 	the 	totality 	of 	Plaintiff’s
symptoms.
(3) The ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff could perform work at the light
level of exertion was not supported by substantial evidence.
(ECF No. 10 at 1).
III. Background
A. Relevant Hearing Testimony
The ALJ summarized the relevant testimony from Hall’s hearing:
The claimant alleges disability due to his physical and mental
impairments. At the hearing, the claimant testified that he cannot
work primarily due to depression, anxiety, and mental confusion.
He indicated that at past jobs, his mind shut down when things get
busy, and he often became angry, which results in him yelling at
co-workers. 	According 	to 	the 	claimant, 	his 	mental 	confusion
causes him to look in a cookbook for a recipe that he made for 20
years, he gets lost while driving, and he gets confused around the
house 	while 	completing 	chores. 	Regarding 	physical 	health
impairments, the claimant testified that he experiences issues with
his hands shaking, he has a history of COPD, he was recently
diagnosed with a heart aneurysm during a heart checkup last
month, and he previously had one operation on his brain. The
claimant stated that his hands are constantly tingling, he has
Case: 1:25-cv-01147-DCN Doc #: 14 Filed: 01/05/26 2 of 15. PageID #: <pageID>

3
difficulty 	holding 	onto 	objects 	or 	using 	buttons/zippers, 	he
sometimes feels a surge up his chest, his ears become very loud,
and he started taking Gabapentin one month ago, but it is not
helpful so far. Regarding activities of daily living, the claimant
testified that he has a driver’s license and is able to drive, but he
generally gets rides to places because he does not have a car.
Finally, he said that on a typical day, he completes household
chores, 	occasionally 	goes 	grocery 	shopping, 	and 	has 	trouble
watching movies or shows because he struggles with maintaining
concentration (hearing testimony).
(ECF No. 7, PageID #: 327).
B. Relevant Medical Evidence
The ALJ also summarized Hall’s health records and symptoms:
The claimant has a history of degenerative disc disease of the
cervical spine and emphysema.
In September of 2022, the claimant obtained a pulmonary function
test based on a history of COPD. This study was mostly normal,
with a normal diffusing capacity, and the total lung capacity
indicated hyperinflation (Exhibit 15F, pg. 9). In June of 2023, the
claimant presented to the Neurological Institute of the Cleveland
Clinic for an evaluation regarding paresthesias. According to the
claimant, he was currently experiencing paresthesias that radiated
down his arms and fingers, and a previous right upper extremity
EMG was normal (Exhibit 13F, pg. 112). A physical examination
performed at this time revealed that the claimant was alert and
oriented to all spheres, cranial nerves were grossly normal, but
there was slight decreased sensation on the right side of the face,
and motor strength was four out of five on the right side in the
fingers and deltoids (Exhibit 13F, pg. 116-117). In addition, the
claimant’s gait was normal, there was a downward response to
plantar response bilaterally, and decreased sensation to vibration in
the 	right 	upper 	and 	lower 	extremity 	distally 	and 	improving
proximally (Exhibit 13F, pg. 118). Based on these findings, the
claimant’s provided [sic] diagnosed him with various conditions
such as demyelinating disease of the central 	nervous system
(Exhibit 13F, pg. 119). In July of 2023, the claimant obtained an
MRI of the brain and cervical spine. The cervical spine MRI was
unremarkable, 	without 	evidence 	of 	demyelinating 	lesions 	or
myelomalacia. 	In 	addition, 	there 	was 	a 	moderate 	degree 	of
narrowing of the left neural foramen due to facet arthropathy and
uncovertebral 	hypertrophy, 	and 	no 	significant 	central 	canal
Case: 1:25-cv-01147-DCN Doc #: 14 Filed: 01/05/26 3 of 15. PageID #: <pageID>

4
narrowing (Exhibit 13F, pg. 13). The MRI of the brain showed no
acute intracranial abnormalities, no evidence of demyelinating
lesions, and a previous left frontal craniotomy was evident with
stable left temporal lobe encephalomalacia/gliosis (Exhibit 13F,
pg. 31). The claimant also obtained an EEG study at this time,
which 	showed 	evidence 	of 	cerebral 	dysfunction 	in 	the 	left
frontotemporal region (Exhibit 13F, pg. 13).
In addition to the above physical impairments, the claimant has
mental 	impairments 	including 	major 	depressive 	disorder,
generalized 	anxiety 	disorder, 	and 	substance 	abuse 	(cannabis,
alcohol, 	and 	cocaine 	use 	disorders). 	The 	claimant 	had 	some
counseling and medication management sessions at Akron General
Behavioral Medicine since the alleged onset date. In June of 2023,
he presented there for a psychological evaluation, with reports that
he 	was 	experiencing 	symptoms 	of 	depression 	and 	anxiety.
According 	to 	the 	claimant, 	his 	current 	depressive 	symptoms
included a lack of energy, trouble concentrating, reduced mood,
and low motivation to complete daily tasks (Exhibit 14F, pg. 73).
The claimant further reported that his anxiety symptoms included
worrying all the trouble, difficulty relaxing, and limited-symptom
panic attacks that occurred several times per week and were
usually triggered by worry (Exhibit 14F, pg. 74). Treating notes
from Akron General Behavioral taken in September of 2023
indicate that the claimant missed three appointments in a row, and
he said it was due to transportation issues and confusion about the
dates of appointments. According to the claimant, his mood was “a
little up today,” which he attributed to helping stop a thief at a cell
phone 	store 	last 	night, 	he 	continued 	to 	experience 	anxiety
symptoms that he struggled to manage, and he was working on
reducing his alcohol consumption, with the goal of eventually
quitting 	entirely 	(Exhibit 	14F, 	pg. 	9). 	Upon 	mental 	status
examination at this time, the claimant was alert and oriented to all
spheres, 	there 	was 	mild 	impairment 	to 	his 	attention 	and
concentration skills, his mood was depressed and anxious, with a
broad range of affect, there was no evidence of hallucinations or
delusions, and his insight and judgment were good (Exhibit 14F,
pg. 10). Based on these findings and reports, Dr. Alexander
diagnosed the claimant with various impairments such as major
depressive disorder – recurrent and mild, and generalized anxiety
disorder (Exhibit 14F, pg. 11).
(ECF No. 7, PageID #: 327-29).
Case: 1:25-cv-01147-DCN Doc #: 14 Filed: 01/05/26 4 of 15. PageID #: <pageID>

5
IV. 	The ALJ’s Decision
The ALJ made the following findings relevant to this appeal:
1. 	The claimant meets the insured status requirements of the Social
Security Act through June 30, 2025.
2. 	The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since
April 2, 2021, the amended alleged onset date (20 CFR 404.1571
et seq.).
3. 	The claimant has the following severe impairments: degenerative
disc disease of the cervical spine, emphysema, major depressive
disorder, 	generalized 	anxiety 	disorder, 	and 	substance 	abuse
(cannabis, 	alcohol, 	and 	cocaine 	use 	disorders) 	(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).
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 no
climbing of ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; occasional climbing of
ramps 	or 	stairs, 	and 	balancing; 	frequently 	stooping; 	avoid
concentrated 	exposure 	to 	extreme 	heat/cold, 	humidity, 	and
pulmonary irritants such as fumes, odors, dusts, gases, or poorly
ventilated areas; no exposure to workplace hazards; limited to
simple instructions; limited to routine, repetitive tasks; and no
more than infrequent workplace changes.
6. 	The claimant is unable to perform any past relevant work (20 CFR
404.1565).
…
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).
11. The claimant has not been under a disability, as defined in the
Social Security Act, from April 2, 2021, through the date of this
decision (20 CFR 404.1520(g)).
Case: 1:25-cv-01147-DCN Doc #: 14 Filed: 01/05/26 5 of 15. PageID #: <pageID>

6
(ECF No. 7, PageID #: 324-27, 330-31).
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,
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.
Case: 1:25-cv-01147-DCN Doc #: 14 Filed: 01/05/26 6 of 15. PageID #: <pageID>

7
§ 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. § 404.1520(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. § 404.1512(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
Hall raises three issues on appeal: (1) the ALJ erred when he failed to properly apply the
criteria of Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 96-8p and consider all Plaintiff’s impairments and
related limitations when forming the residual functional capacity evaluation; (2) the ALJ
erroneously failed to comply with SSR 16-3p when evaluating the totality of Plaintiff’s
symptoms; and (3) the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff could perform work at the light level of
exertion was not supported by substantial evidence. (ECF No. 10 at 1).
1. 	Consideration of All Impairments
Plaintiff first argues the ALJ failed to consider all of his impairments because “[n]o
mention was made … regarding Plaintiff’s complaints regarding the paresthesia, numbness, and
tingling in his upper extremities or his memory complaints or the fact that he was currently
observed with a cane.” 	(ECF No. 10 at 9). 	Plaintiff asserts the ALJ “continued through the
sequential evaluation and clearly failed to consider any of these impairments and their related
Case: 1:25-cv-01147-DCN Doc #: 14 Filed: 01/05/26 7 of 15. PageID #: <pageID>

8
limitations when forming his RFC.” (Id. at 11). Thus, Plaintiff argues “the ALJ erroneously did
not build an accurate and logical bridge between the evidence documenting Plaintiff’s disabling
problems and the ALJ’s decision to deny benefits.” (Id. at 12).
The Commissioner responds that rather than identifying specific impairments the ALJ
failed to find severe, the Plaintiff merely identifies subjective complaints. (ECF No. 12 at 6-7).
As to the need for a cane, the Commissioner argues Plaintiff made “no attempts whatsoever to
show a cane was required under the Agency’s rules” as set forth in SSR 96-9p. 	(Id. at 7).
Regardless, the Commissioner argues “the ALJ considered Plaintiff’s impairments in crafting the
RFC and specifically discussed Plaintiff’s alleged paresthesia, numbness, tingling, memory
issues, and gait limitations later in the decision.” (Id.).
Plaintiff replies that “the ALJ herein improperly failed to consider the totality of the
functional 	limitations when 	creating 	his 	RFC 	and 	finding 	that 	Plaintiff 	was 	capable of
performing work at the light level of exertion with no limitations regarding the use of his upper
extremities or needing a cane.” (ECF No. 13 at 1-2).
As an initial matter, to the extent Plaintiff’s argument can be interpreted as a challenge to
the ALJ’s step two determination regarding the severity of Plaintiff’s impairments, any error at
step two is harmless because the ALJ concluded Plaintiff had at least one severe impairment and
proceeded through the sequential evaluation. 	See Kestel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 756 F. App’x
593, 597 (6th Cir. 2018) (“[B]ecause an ALJ considers all of a claimant’s impairments in the
remaining steps of the disability determination, any perceived failure to find additional severe
impairments at step two does not constitute reversible error.” (citation modified)). 	Rather,
Plaintiff’s challenge is more appropriately considered at step four in relation to his RFC.
At step four, the ALJ must determine a claimant’s RFC by considering all relevant
Case: 1:25-cv-01147-DCN Doc #: 14 Filed: 01/05/26 8 of 15. PageID #: <pageID>

9
medical and other evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). 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. Further, “[t]he 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 which 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 undersigned agrees with the Commissioner that the “impairments” Plaintiff
identifies as failing to be considered by the ALJ are actually subjective complaints. Regardless,
contrary to Plaintiff’s argument, the ALJ did discuss Plaintiff’s complaints regarding his upper
extremities and memory problems in crafting the RFC. 	Specifically, the ALJ noted that while
Plaintiff complained of paresthesias in his arms and fingers, physical examination showed only
“slight decreased sensation on the right side of the face, and motor strength was four out of five
on the right side in the fingers and deltoids.” (ECF No. 7, PageID #: 328 (citing id. at PageID #:
1784-85)). 	The ALJ determined these findings were consistent with the reduced range of light
work set forth in the RFC. (Id. at PageID #: 329). As to Plaintiff’s mental impairments, the ALJ
explained that “the claimant’s allegations of ‘brain confusion’ are not supported by the record or
a specific etiology, and the above residual functional capacity accommodates deficits in
maintaining 	attention 	and 	concentration/understanding, 	remembering, 	and 	carrying 	out
Case: 1:25-cv-01147-DCN Doc #: 14 Filed: 01/05/26 9 of 15. PageID #: <pageID>

10
instructions.” (Id.). Based on this discussion, it is clear the ALJ considered these complaints in
rendering the RFC but found that they did not warrant additional limitations.
Plaintiff is correct that the ALJ did not discuss his alleged cane use or explain why a
limitation regarding a cane was not included in the RFC. (See generally ECF No. 7, PageID #:
322-32). 	However, as the Commissioner argues, Plaintiff has failed to show that a cane was
medically necessary under the relevant regulations. As explained in SSR 96-9p, an ALJ should
find that a hand-held assistive device is medically required only where there is medical
documentation establishing the need for such a device to aid in walking or standing, and
describing the circumstances for which it is needed (i.e. whether all the time, periodically, or
only in certain situations; distance and terrain; and any other relevant information). 	Jones v.
Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 815 F. App’x 926, 931 (6th Cir. 2020) (citing SSR 96-9p, 1996 WL
374185, at *7). 	Here, Plaintiff identifies only two instances where Plaintiff’s “history of cane
use” was noted by providers and a single report of being a fall risk. (See ECF No. 7, PageID #:
432, 1678, 1786). 	However, this minimal evidence falls far short of establishing the medical
need for a cane under SSR 96-9p. 	Further, Plaintiff did not indicate in his testimony or his
function report that he needed a cane and repeatedly denied falls and cane use to medical
providers. (See, e.g. id. at PageID #: 90, 106, 380, 677, 774, 1388, 1965). Accordingly, the ALJ
did not error in failing to discuss Plaintiff’s cane use. 	See Jones, 815 F. App’x at 931 (where
record contained only a single mention of cane use, the ALJ “was not required to discuss such
minimal evidence, especially given that no other evidence in the record supports a finding that a
cane was medically necessary, and [plaintiff] never mentioned the need for a cane in his
testimony”).
Overall, the decision indicates that the ALJ considered all of Plaintiff’s impairments in
Case: 1:25-cv-01147-DCN Doc #: 14 Filed: 01/05/26 10 of 15. PageID #: <pageID>

11
crafting the RFC and substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s RFC.
2. 	Symptom Testimony
Plaintiff next argues the ALJ failed to comply with the criteria of SSR 16-3p for
considering Plaintiff’s symptom testimony. (ECF No. 10 at 13). Plaintiff argues the ALJ failed
to provide adequate explanation for his conclusion that the medical records did not support
limitations beyond those included in the RFC, and because “[t]he testimony and medical
evidence established the limited nature of Plaintiff’s daily activities and the difficulties he had
due to his symptoms,” substantial evidence did not support the ALJ’s decision. (Id. at 16-17).
The Commissioner responds that “[d]espite Plaintiff’s protestations otherwise, the ALJ
properly evaluated his subjective symptoms and an ALJ’s subjective symptom determination is
given great weight and deference.” (ECF No. 12 at 12 (citing Jones v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 336
F.3d 469, 476 (6th Cir. 2003))). 	The Commissioner asserts the ALJ considered “the location,
duration, 	frequency, 	and 	intensity 	of 	Plaintiff’s 	symptoms 	along 	with 	precipitating 	and
aggravating factors, as well as the effectiveness of Plaintiff’s medication, treatments that he
received other than medication, and other measures he used to relieve his symptoms” as well as
Plaintiff’s daily activities. 	(Id. at 13-14). 	The Commissioner argues all of these were
appropriate factors to consider in determining whether to find Plaintiff’s statements credible.
(Id.).
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
Case: 1:25-cv-01147-DCN Doc #: 14 Filed: 01/05/26 11 of 15. PageID #: <pageID>

12
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 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, the ALJ summarized Plaintiff’s symptom testimony but concluded that “the
medical evidence is consistent with the residual functional capacity” the ALJ ultimately adopted.
(ECF No. 7, PageID #: 327). 	The ALJ then provided a summary of the medical evidence and
provided the following explanation for finding Plaintiff’s symptom testimony not fully credible:
The claimant’s allegations are determined to be less than fully
consistent with the evidence. The nature and degree of pain and
Case: 1:25-cv-01147-DCN Doc #: 14 Filed: 01/05/26 12 of 15. PageID #: <pageID>

13
functional limitations alleged by the claimant is not supported by
medical and non-medical sources. Diagnostic test results and
physical examination findings have been largely unremarkable,
and the claimant had a mostly conservative treatment history for
his physical health impairments since the alleged onset date such
as taking pain medications. For example, a physical examination
performed in June of 2023 revealed that the claimant was alert and
oriented to all spheres, in no acute distress, cranial nerves were
grossly normal, but there was slight decreased sensation on the
right side of the face, and motor strength was four out of five on
the right side in the fingers and deltoids (Exhibit 13F, pg. 116-
117). Likewise, MRI’s of the cervical spine and brain/EEG studies
were largely unremarkable (Exhibit 13F, pg. 13, 31). Moreover,
the claimant’s allegations of “brain confusion” are not supported
by the record or a specific etiology, and the above residual
functional capacity accommodates deficits in maintaining attention
and concentration/understanding, remembering, and carrying out
instructions.
Regarding 	the 	consistency 	of 	the 	claimant’s 	mental 	health
allegations, 	he 	admitted 	seeing 	a 	positive 	response 	to 	his
psychotropic 	medications 	and 	counseling 	sessions 	despite 	his
prolonged history of alcohol/substance abuse, without significant
medication side effects, and there is no evidence of psychiatric
hospitalization in the record. Additionally, the claimant reported
mostly mild to moderate symptoms to providers at Akron General
Behavioral 	and 	other 	sources, 	and 	during 	his 	psychological
consultative examination with Dr. Magleby, without evidence of
hallucinations, 	delusions, 	obsessions, 	compulsions, 	cognitive
disorder, 	current 	suicidal/homicidal 	ideation, 	or 	other 	serious
issues (Exhibit 4F; 9F; 11F; 14F). Thus, there are no indications in
the medical record of limitations beyond the performance of light
level work with the non-exertional restrictions listed above.
(Id. at PageID #: 329).
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 unremarkable diagnostic test results and
examination findings. 	(See id. at PageID #: 1180-82, 1514, 1681, 1784-86, 1918, 1941-42,
2006). The ALJ also noted the conservative nature of Plaintiff’s treatment. (See id. at PageID #:
Case: 1:25-cv-01147-DCN Doc #: 14 Filed: 01/05/26 13 of 15. PageID #: <pageID>

14
1514 (denying medication in favor of counseling)). 	Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s
conclusion. 	Thus, 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)).
3. 	Light Work RFC
Finally, Plaintiff argues substantial evidence does not support the ALJ’s finding that he
could perform work at the light level of exertion because “[o]bjective evidence supported the
fact that Plaintiff was unable to stand/walk and/or use his arms and hands for the time necessary
to perform work at the light level of exertion.” (ECF No. 10 at 18-19). Plaintiff argues the ALJ
“erroneously failed to include any limitations related to his continuing numbness and tingling
resulting in an inability to even button clothes” and also “failed to include any limitations related
to [his] continuing confusion.” (Id. at 20). 	Thus, Plaintiff argues the RFC did not account for
all of his limitations such that there was not substantial evidence to support the step five
conclusion that other work existed that Plaintiff could perform. (Id. at 21).
The Commissioner responds that “[i]n determining that Plaintiff could perform light
work, the ALJ properly considered the objective and opinion evidence” and “Plaintiff’s
argument is little more than a recitation of the facts most favorable to him with a request for a de
novo review of the evidence.” 	(ECF No. 12 at 8). 	The Commissioner highlights the ALJ’s
consideration of relatively normal medical examinations and medical opinion evidence as
substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s decision. (Id. at 8-11).
Although presenting this argument as a challenge to the ALJ’s step five determination,
Plaintiff is merely renewing his challenge to the ALJ’s RFC determination and asserting that
because the RFC did not account for all his limitations, it could not support the ALJ’s step five
Case: 1:25-cv-01147-DCN Doc #: 14 Filed: 01/05/26 14 of 15. PageID #: <pageID>

15
determination. 	However, as discussed above with respect to Plaintiff’s earlier arguments, the
ALJ considered all of Plaintiff’s impairments in formulating the RFC and substantial evidence
supports the ALJ’s decision. 	While Plaintiff argues the objective evidence supports additional
limitations, he largely cites to his own subjective complaints within the medical records rather
than objective findings or medical opinions supporting additional limitations. 	Thus, as the
Commissioner asserts, it appears Plaintiff is simply highlighting favorable facts and asking the
Court to reach a different conclusion than the ALJ. However, it is not the role of this Court “to
reconsider the facts, re-weigh the evidence, resolve conflicts in evidence, decide questions of
credibility, or substitute its judgment for that of the ALJ.” Reynolds v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 424
F. App’x 411, 414 (6th Cir. 2011) (citing Youghiogheny & Ohio Coal Co. v. Webb, 49 F.3d 244,
246 (6th Cir. 1995)). Plaintiff’s final argument is without merit.
VI. Recommendation
Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Court OVERRULE Hall’s
Statement of Errors and AFFIRM the Commissioner’s decision.
Dated: January 5, 2026
_______________________________________________________
OBJECTIONS
Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed with the Clerk of
Courts within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this document. 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: 1:25-cv-01147-DCN Doc #: 14 Filed: 01/05/26 15 of 15. PageID #: <pageID>