Gardner v. Commissioner of Social Security

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
WILLIAM F. GARDNER, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION
Defendant,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 1:25-cv-01410-CEH
CARMEN E. HENDERSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
I. Introduction
Plaintiff, William F. Gardner (“Gardner” or “Claimant”), seeks judicial review of the final
decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying his applications for Supplemental
Security Income (“SSI”) and Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”). This matter is before me by
consent of the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73. (ECF No. 21). For the
reasons set forth below, the Court AFFIRMS the Commissioner of Social Security’s nondisability
finding and OVERRULES Plaintiff’s Statement of Errors.
II. Procedural History
On November 11, 2022, Claimant filed applications for DIB and SSI, alleging a disability
onset date of August 16, 2022, and claiming he was disabled due to toe amputation, lumbar spine
injury, shoulder injury, tingling and numbness in left hand/arm, and anxiety. (ECF No. 7, PageID
# 205–225). The applications were denied initially and upon reconsideration, Claimant requested
a hearing before an administrative law judge (“ALJ”). (ECF No. 7, PageID #: 128–148). On
February 7, 2024, an ALJ held a hearing, during which Gardner, represented by counsel, and an
impartial vocational expert testified. (ECF No. 7, PageID #: 64–86). On March 27, 2024, the ALJ
Case: 1:25-cv-01410-CEH Doc #: 13 Filed: 02/09/26 1 of 12. PageID #: <pageID>

2
issued a written decision finding Claimant was not disabled. (ECF No. 7, PageID # 46–59). The
ALJ’s decision became final on May 9, 2025, when the Appeals Council declined further review.
(ECF No. 7, PageID #: 34).
On July 7, 2025, Claimant filed his Complaint to challenge the Commissioner’s final
decision. (ECF No. 1). The parties have completed briefing in this case. (ECF Nos. 9, at 11,12).
Claimant asserts the following assignment of error:
Whether the ALJ reversibly erred in evaluating Gardner’s symptom severity and
by failing to build a logical bridge between the evidence and the ALJ’s failure to
find essentially any standing or walking limitation whatsoever in his RFC
determination.
(ECF No. 9 at 1).
III. Background1
A. Relevant Hearing Testimony
The ALJ summarized the relevant testimony from Claimant’s hearing:
[Claimant] alleged difficulty with walking and balancing due to losing his toe, has
chronic pain, no balance even when using a cane, is always dizzy due to diabetes,
and medication dosage increased due to worsening anxiety (Ex. 5E/2, 5, 8E/2). He
also alleged he is unable to complete activities of daily living without assistance
from his ex-wife, has impaired balance and ability to walk, requires a cane for
balance and ambulation and even with an assistive device, walking and balance are
not corrected, cannot ambulate or balance safely, and is a fall risk (Ex. 8E/4). Side
effects from medications and chronic pain also impair ability to complete activities
of daily living.
The claimant reported conditions limit his ability to work because he is in a lot of
pain from back and shoulder, has anxiety from losing his big toe due to amputation
after being burned, and is learning how to walk again (Ex. 4E). He reported his no
longer able to play sports, can walk five minutes before needing to stop and rest for
10 minutes, and has difficulty with lifting, squatting, bending, standing, reaching,
sitting, kneeling, stair climbing, walking, memory, completing tasks, concentration,
understanding, and following instructions.
The claimant testified he has been using a prescribed cane full time since his toe
1 Gardner’s appeal relates to opinions regarding his physical impairments. Because he did not challenge anything
regarding his mental impairments, the Court’s discussion will relate to his physical impairment records only.
Case: 1:25-cv-01410-CEH Doc #: 13 Filed: 02/09/26 2 of 12. PageID #: <pageID>

3
amputation and is unable to lift anything due to degenerative disc disease in his
back and left shoulder arthritis (Hearing Record, February 7, 2024). He stated he
used to go to physical therapy, but it did not work and has a prescription for
medication that provides partial relief. He had rotator cup [sic.] surgery that healed
but is not the same and does not want to have back surgery. He also developed
hammer toes due to the toe amputation, now has no balance, and is diabetic. He
testified he can stand in one place a maximum of one hour then has to sit, has
difficulty with walking and standing, sitting is hard so laying down helps and is
constantly up and down, cannot lift due to his back but can hold a cell phone, cannot
reach, kneel, crawl, or crouch, and has problems with lack of feeling, toes curling,
and pain in feet rated an 8/10 and 5/10 with medication.
(ECF No. 7, PageID #: 53).
B. Relevant Medical Evidence
The ALJ also summarized Claimant’s health records and symptoms:
The claimant was involved in a work-related injury that did not heal properly and
underwent amputation of the right big toe on October 12, 2022 (Ex. 2F/10-43,
6F/10). Additionally, the claimant has a history of right shoulder rotator cuff
surgery in 2017, current rotator cuff syndrome of the left shoulder, diabetes mellitus
type 2 and was diagnosed with diabetic retinopathy of both eyes without macular
edema (Ex. 1F/247, 251, 2F/11, 6F/10, 7F/9, 8F/3, 13F/4, 29). Updated x-ray
testing of the lumbar spine dated December 7, 2023 showed mild to moderate
dextroscoliosis of the thoracolumbar spine, 3mm retrolisthesis of L3 on L4 and
2mm retrolisthesis of L4 on L5, L3-4, L4-5, and L5-S1 degenerative disc disease
and moderate lumbar endplate spondylosis (Ex. 13F/8). The claimant’s treatment
plan has generally consisted of routine outpatient follow-up, instruction on
importance of regular A1c and glucose testing and good blood pressure control,
medication refills with some adjustments as needed, and injections for diabetes (Ex.
6F/10, 7F/10 10F/9, 11F/9, 12F/6-7, 13F/27, 56, 61).
The claimant presented to outpatient visits typically unaccompanied and reported
to experience some lightheadedness, dizziness, and foot pain but otherwise felt well
and blood sugar was improving with medication (Ex. 7F/9, 9F/9, 13, 11F/7, 12F/5,
13F/27, 33, 59). Examinations were unremarkable with normal heart rate and
rhythm, pulses, heart sounds, pulmonary effort, and breath sounds (Ex. 7F/10,
9F/10, 14, 11F/9, 12F/6, 13F/35, 38, 44, 60-61). He was ambulatory without an
assistive device and showed steady gait (Ex. 13F/25, 27, 33, 35). The claimant also
noted to be alert and oriented with normal mood and affect (Ex. 9F/15, 13F/27, 29,
35, 56).
In addition, the claimant complained of right shoulder pain and left shoulder pain,
moderate in severity, aggravated by motion, activity, and overhead lifting, and
alleviated by rest (Ex. 13F/21, 29). He noted to be right-hand dominant. He
Case: 1:25-cv-01410-CEH Doc #: 13 Filed: 02/09/26 3 of 12. PageID #: <pageID>

4
exhibited no gait instability and showed good air exchange, no upper extremity
edema or varicosities, bilateral eye EOM intact, no rashes or lesions, pain in the
affected extremity but grossly intact coordination (Ex. 13F/29). Left arm/shoulder
examination indicated tenderness about the anterior shoulder/supraspinatus and
bicipital groove, no joint instability or swelling, no clinical deformity or atrophy,
limited motion in forward flexion and abduction, sensation intact to light touch,
negative 	cervical 	lever/grind 	test, 	positive 	supraspinatus/impingement 	and
abdominal compression, and negative liftoff, AC shear, and apprehension (Ex.
13F/29). X-ray of the left shoulder showed mild glenohumeral joint degenerative
change, 	mild 	degenerative 	changes 	at 	the 	acromioclavicular 	joint, 	and
subcentimeter lucency in the left proximal humeral diaphysis of uncertain etiology
and clinical significance and no fracture or abnormal calcifications (Ex. 13F/21,
28). The claimant received a steroid injection and subsequently reported feeling
much better (Ex. 13F/21, 30).
During a consultative evaluation in March 2023, the examiner observed the
claimant to ambulate with a cane due to losing his right great toe to amputation (Ex.
8F/5). He reported that he had fallen and worried it could happen again, so the cane
helped with balance (Ex. 8F/5). The examiner noted posture, gait, and motor
behavior were otherwise normal, and the claimant exhibited no involuntary
movements. He reported he cooks and cleans once a week but cannot stand long
enough to do shopping or laundry, and showers and changes clothes daily.
During an examination in September 2023 the claimant reported swelling and pain
to the right lower leg and ankle that had been going on for about two months and
had driven to Florida in July and in August was cutting grass and felt a pop (Ex.
13F/54). He demonstrated antalgic gait and right lower leg with edema, erythema,
and warmth, but no left lower leg edema or abnormalities and no assistive device
(Ex. 13F/55-56). During a follow-up appointment in December 2023, the claimant
noted to be wearing a cast boot since September 2023 due to a right Achilles tendon
rupture (Ex. 13F/2, 52). He reported he removed the boot to drive. He described
some pain in the back of his calf at the rupture site, some weakness in the area, and
numbness in feet. Blood sugars have been improving. Foot examination indicated
structurally normal limits, right hallux toe amputation, +5/5 muscle strength
dorsiflexion and 3/5 strength plantarflexion, inversion, eversion left foot and
decreased plantarflexion right foot, decreased range of motion 1st MTPJ bilaterally,
decreased range of motion MTJ/STJ without pain or crepitus bilaterally, decreased
ankle joint range of motion bilaterally, rectus arch presented right with hammertoe
contractures 2, 3, 4, 5, and pain to palpation of the proximal end of the right Achilles
tendon (Ex. 13F/6). X-ray testing of the right tibia and ankle were unremarkable
and showed no acute fracture, dislocation, joint effusion, or other abnormality (Ex.
13F/10-11).
The claimant’s treatment plan consisted of wearing a brace with custom orthotic.
(ECF No. 7, PageID #: 54–55).
Case: 1:25-cv-01410-CEH Doc #: 13 Filed: 02/09/26 4 of 12. PageID #: <pageID>

5
IV. 	The ALJ’s Decision
The ALJ made the following findings relevant to this appeal:
3. The claimant has the following severe impairments: other disorders of the skin
and subcutaneous tissues, amputation due to any cause (right big toe); left shoulder
rotator cuff syndrome and prior right shoulder rotator cuff surgery; lumbar spine
degenerative disc disease; and diabetes mellitus type II with retinopathy (20 CFR
404.1520(c) and 416.920(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, 404.1526,
416.920(d), 416.925 and 416.926).
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) and 416.967(b) except occasionally climb ramps or stairs; never
climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; frequently balance; occasionally stoop, kneel,
crouch, or crawl; occasionally reach overhead bilaterally; and must avoid all
exposure 	to 	hazards, 	such 	as 	unprotected 	heights, 	moving 	machinery, 	and
commercial driving.
6. The claimant is capable of performing past relevant work as an Automobile
Salesperson 	and 	Parking 	Lot 	Attendant. 	This 	work 	does 	not 	require 	the
performance of work-related activities precluded by the claimant’s residual
functional capacity (20 CFR 404.1565 and 416.965).
7. The claimant has not been under a disability, as defined in the Social Security
Act, from August 16, 2022, through the date of this decision (20 CFR 404.1520(f)
and 416.920(f)).
(ECF No. 7, PageID #: 49–50, 52, 57, 59).
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
Case: 1:25-cv-01410-CEH Doc #: 13 Filed: 02/09/26 5 of 12. PageID #: <pageID>

6
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. § 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
Case: 1:25-cv-01410-CEH Doc #: 13 Filed: 02/09/26 6 of 12. PageID #: <pageID>

7
(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
Gardener raises the following assignment of error on appeal:
Whether the ALJ reversibly erred in evaluating Gardner’s symptom severity and
by failing to build a logical bridge between the evidence and the ALJ’s failure to
find essentially any standing or walking limitation whatsoever in his RFC
determination.
(ECF No. 9, at 1). To support this argument, Gardner asserts that the ALJ’s analysis
summarized the medical evidence and provided “a generic boilerplate symptom severity analysis”
when concluding the Claimant’s allegations of functional limitations are not consistent with the
evidence of record. (ECF No. 9, at 8). Claimant also takes the position that much of the evidence
summarized by the ALJ does not support an RFC of light exertion work. Id.
However, the Commissioner argues that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s RFC.
Specifically, Commissioner noted,
[t]he ALJ considered Plaintiff’s hearing testimony, statements to the agency, the
objective medical evidence, and reasonably concluded that, while he had functional
limitations, Plaintiff failed to show that his symptoms were of the severity to
preclude light work given that he was ambulatory without an assistive device and
had a steady gait.
(ECF No. 11, at 6). Finally, The Commissioner concludes that the ALJ provided an adequate
explanation of his consideration of Claimant’s subjective complaints. 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
Case: 1:25-cv-01410-CEH Doc #: 13 Filed: 02/09/26 7 of 12. PageID #: <pageID>

8
provided by medical sources, and any other relevant evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. §
404.1529(c); Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 16-3p, 2016 SSR LEXIS 4, 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, 2016 SSR LEXIS 4, 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 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102150, 2019
WL 2465273, at *10 (N.D. Ohio April 24, 2019) (citing Rogers, 486 F.3d at 248–49), report &
recommendation adopted, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133701, 2019 WL 3752687 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 8,
2019).
Here, after summarizing the medical records, the ALJ provided the following explanation
of his consideration of Claimant’s symptom testimony:
The claimant’s allegations of disabling functional limitations are not entirely
consistent 	with 	the 	evidence 	of 	record. 	The 	claimant’s 	impairments 	could
Case: 1:25-cv-01410-CEH Doc #: 13 Filed: 02/09/26 8 of 12. PageID #: <pageID>

9
reasonably be expected to produce the alleged symptoms, but the intensity of the
symptoms and impact on functioning are not consistent with the totality of the
evidence. The medical record does not establish functional limitations that would
preclude the restrictions stated above. Despite allegations of limitations, the
claimant has generally maintained intact system functioning as demonstrated
during examinations. The record of evidence also demonstrated symptoms were
stable and improved with a generally conservative course of treatment. In sum, the
claimant’s alleged functional limitations are not entirely consistent with the
claimant’s reported daily functioning, the examination findings of record, and the
persuasive portions of the medical opinions. Nonetheless, the above evidence
supports that the claimant has experienced the degree of limitation reflected in the
residual functional capacity assessment above and discussed above. Accordingly,
the undersigned finds the record does not establish limitations that would preclude
work activity within the residual functional capacity defined in this decision.
(ECF No. 7, PageID #: 55).
This discussion shows that the ALJ properly considered Claimant’s symptom allegations
in accordance with SSR 16-3p, 2016 SSR LEXIS 4. The ALJ built a logical bridge between the
objective medical evidence and his conclusion that the evidence did not support the severity of
Claimant’s allegations due to the lack of objective evidence showing, standing or walking
limitations, difficulty with balance, ambulation, or coordination, leg numbness, and unstable gait.
(ECF No. 7, at PageID #: 1111, 1113, 1119, 1121 (ambulatory without an assistive device and
showed steady gait); 1115 (exhibit[ing] no gait instability… [and] pain in the affected extremity
but grossly intact coordination); 1016 (examiner noted posture, gait, and motor behavior were
normal); 1016-1017 (x-ray testing of the right tibia and ankle were unremarkable and showed no
acute fracture, dislocation, joint effusion, or other abnormality)).
Additionally, in his decision, the ALJ discussed Claimant’s ability to cut grass, drive to
Florida, cook and clean once a week, but inability to stand long enough to do shopping or laundry,
and shower and change clothes daily. (Id. at PageID #: 55). The ALJ also relied on the State
agency consultants’ opinions which opined, “the claimant could lift and/or carry 20 pounds
occasionally and 10 pounds frequently, stand and/or walk about six hours in an eight-hour workday,
Case: 1:25-cv-01410-CEH Doc #: 13 Filed: 02/09/26 9 of 12. PageID #: <pageID>

10
sit about six hours in an eight-hour workday, and occasionally stoop.” (Id. at PageID #:
56). Therefore, the ALJ properly considered Gardner’s subjective symptoms. Thus, substantial
evidence supports the ALJ's conclusion, and the Court must defer to the ALJ’s decision, “even if
there 	is 	substantial 	evidence 	in 	the 	record 	that 	would 	have 	supported 	an 	opposite
conclusion.” Wright v. Massanari, 321 F.3d 611, 614 (6th Cir. 2003) (quoting Key v. Callahan,
109 F.3d 270, 273 (6th Cir. 1997)).
Turning to the RFC, in determining the adequacy of the ALJ’s RFC determination, a
reviewing court must focus on the explanation given by the ALJ’s decision without finding further
support in the records not specifically included in the decision. See Ripley v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.,
415 F. Supp. 3d 752, 764 (N.D. Ohio 2019) (“In determining whether an ALJ’s findings are
supported by substantial evidence, the Court does not review the evidence de novo, make
credibility determinations, or weigh the evidence”). Prior to determining that Gardner could
perform light exertional work at Step Four, the ALJ determined Gardner’s RFC. (ECF No. 7,
PageID #: 52). The RFC determination sets out an individual’s work-related abilities despite his
or her limitations. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.945(a). The ALJ formulated an RFC determining that
Gardner had the ability to, “… perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) and
416.967(b) except occasionally climb ramps or stairs; never climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds;
frequently balance; occasionally stoop, kneel, crouch, or crawl; occasionally reach overhead
bilaterally; and must avoid all exposure to hazards, such as unprotected heights, moving machinery,
and commercial driving.” (ECF No. 7, PageID #: 52). In formulating the RFC, the ALJ considered
medical and non-medical evidence, including Claimant’s self-described limitations, as required by
20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3) building a logical bridge between the evidence, including Claimant’s
treatment records and medical opinions, and his conclusions. (ECF No. 7, PageID #: 52–57); see
Case: 1:25-cv-01410-CEH Doc #: 13 Filed: 02/09/26 10 of 12. PageID #: <pageID>

11
20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3).
Moreover, in formulating the RFC, the ALJ considered State agency physical consultants’
opinions. (ECF No. 	7, PageID #: 56). Courts in this Circuit find that State agency physical
consultants’ opinions may constitute substantial evidence supporting an ALJ’s decision. See
Cantrell v. Astrue, 2012 WL 6725877, at *7 (E.D. Tenn. Nov. 5, 2012) (finding that the state
agency physicians’ reports provided substantial evidence to support the ALJ's RFC finding); Brock
v. Astrue, 2009 WL 1067313, at *6 (E.D. Ky. Apr. 17, 2009) (“[T]he argument that the findings
of the two non-examining state agency physicians cannot constitute substantial evidence is
inconsistent with the regulatory framework.”); see also Clark v. Astrue, 2011 WL 4000872 (N.D.
Tex. Sept. 8, 2011) (state agency expert medical opinions “constitute substantial evidence to
support the finding that plaintiff can perform a limited range of light work.”). In the instant case,
the consultants concluded that Claimant could lift and/or carry 20 pounds occasionally and 10
pounds frequently, stand and/or walk about six hours in an eight-hour workday, sit about six hours
in an eight-hour workday, and occasionally stoop and the ALJ considered their opinions. (ECF
No. 7, at PageID #: 56).
However, the ALJ found the state agency physicians opinions less persuasive because the
record “supports additional climbing and postural activities, overhead reach, and hazard limitations
due to combined impairments and associated concerns, including due to balance, falling,
lightheadedness, dizziness, and left shoulder limited range of motion and positive clinical findings.”
(ECF No. 7, at PageID #: 56, 588, 1005, 1016, 1028, 1032, 1115). Thus, the ALJ formulated an
RFC more limited than the state agency physicians’ opinions. In sum, the ALJ did not err in his
evaluation of Gardner’s symptom severity and built a logical bridge between the evidence and the
ALJ’s RFC.
Case: 1:25-cv-01410-CEH Doc #: 13 Filed: 02/09/26 11 of 12. PageID #: <pageID>

12
VI. Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the Court AFFIRMS the Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration’s 	final 	decision 	denying 	Plaintiff 	benefits. Plaintiff’s 	Complaint 	is
DISMISSED.
Dated: February 9, 2026
Case: 1:25-cv-01410-CEH Doc #: 13 Filed: 02/09/26 12 of 12. PageID #: <pageID>