The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
ROBERT SCHEALL, ) Case No. 1:19-cv-02435
)
Plaintiff, ) Judge J. Philip Calabrese
)
v. ) Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Parker
)
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL )
SECURITY, )
)
Defendant. )
)
OPINION AND ORDER
In this appeal from the administrative determination of the Social Security
Administration, which denied Plaintiff’s application for disability insurance benefits
and supplemental security income, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and
recommendation that the Court affirm the Commissioner’s final decision. (ECF
No. 14.) Plaintiff objects. (ECF No. 15.) For the reasons that follow, the Court
OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objections (ECF No. 15), ADOPTS the report and
recommendation (ECF No. 14), and AFFIRMS the Commissioner’s decision denying
Plaintiff’s application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security
income.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Robert Scheall applied for disability insurance benefits and
supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act on
November 30, 2016. (See ECF No. 10, PageID #70.) According to Plaintiff, he became
disabled on September 29, 2016. (Id., PageID #426.) Plaintiff claimed that he was
disabled due to a number of physical and mental health conditions, including
depression, anxiety, chronic diarrhea, lumbar degenerative disc disease,
degenerative joint disease, diabetes, sleep apnea, hypogonadism, hypothyroidism,
and obesity. (Id., PageID #453.)
Mr. Scheall’s claims were denied initially on April 11, 2017, and upon
reconsideration on June 12, 2017. (Id., PageID #70.) Mr. Scheall requested an
administrative hearing, which an administrative law judge conducted on July 11,
2018. (Id.) The ALJ denied the claim in a decision dated September 12, 2018. (Id.,
PageID #85.) When the appeals counsel denied review on August 26, 2019, the ALJ’s
determination became the final decision of the Commissioner. (Id.) Plaintiff then
filed a complaint in federal court to obtain judicial review of the final decision on
October 18, 2019. (ECF No. 1.)
A. The Initial Application
Before this case, Mr. Scheall filed an application in 2014 for disability benefits
for a period beginning October 1, 2013. (ECF No. 10, PageID #267.) The claim was
initially denied on April 10, 2015 and again on reconsideration on June 4, 2015. (Id.)
Mr. Scheall requested a hearing, which occurred on June 3, 2016 and at which he
testified. (Id.) In that application, the administrative law judge found that
Mr. Scheall suffered from “obesity, diabetes, severe obstructive sleep apnea
syndrome, lumbar displaced disc without myelopathy, mild to moderate degenerative
joint disease of the bilateral hips and major depression.” (Id., PageID #269.) Despite
this finding, the ALJ denied Mr. Scheall’s application on September 28, 2016. (Id.,
PageID #279.)
B. The Subsequent ALJ Determination
After the denial of Mr. Scheall’s initial application, he submitted a subsequent
application on November 30, 2016. (Id., PageID #70.) When the claims were denied
initially and on reconsideration, Mr. Scheall requested a hearing. (Id.) After the
administrative hearing on July 11, 2018, the ALJ also made the determination that
Mr. Scheall was not entitled to supplemental security income or disability benefits.
In his decision, dated September 12, 2018, the ALJ made the following findings
of fact with respect to Mr. Scheall’s medical history:
B.1. Physical Health
On September 16, 2015, Mr. Scheall underwent a colonoscopy. (Id., PageID
#73.) The colonoscopy revealed two polyps and mild diverticulosis in his colon. (Id.,
PageID #521.) On October 17, 2016, Mr. Scheall canceled an appointment with Dr.
Sandra Berglund, his primary care physician, because of diarrhea. (Id., PageID
#541.) On October 24, 2016, Mr. Scheall attended a rescheduled appointment with
Dr. Berglund, where the doctor documented a report of elbow pain and increased
anxiety after Mr. Scheall fell down a flight of stairs. (Id.) In a follow-up appointment
on December 20, 2016, Mr. Scheall reported knee pain and muscle spasms. (Id.,
PageID #540.) At the same appointment, he requested physical therapy. (Id.)
On January 16, 2017, Mr. Scheall attended an appointment for physical
therapy. (Id., PageID #517.) His physical therapist, Nicole Scherry, noted that
Mr. Scheall reported lower back and knee pain that began four or five years earlier.
(Id.) He also reported that a fall in 2016 worsened the pain. (Id.) Mr. Scheall told
Scherry that he tried injections and physical therapy to manage the pain, but that
those methods did not work. (Id.) Mr. Scheall was discharged from physical therapy
on May 15, 2017, at which point physical therapist Steven Gay gave Mr. Scheall a
poor prognosis, noting that his treatment goals had been abandoned because of
noncompliance. (Id., PageID #654.)
On January 31, 2017, Mr. Scheall saw Dr. Edmond Blades to treat his
diarrhea. (Id., PageID #545.) Dr. Blades had treated Mr. Scheall nine years earlier
for the same problem. (Id.) In his earlier treatment, Dr. Blades did not find a cause
for the condition other than Mr. Scheall’s “significant psychosocial and psychiatric
problems.” (Id.) On the January 31, 2017 visit, Dr. Blades opined that Mr. Scheall
could have a possible obstipation and scheduled further testing and diagnostic
procedures. (Id., PageID #547.) Dr. Blades conducted a colonoscopy on May 12, 2017,
finding nothing abnormal other than mild diverticulosis. (Id., PageID #660.)
Mr. Scheall attended a follow-up appointment with Dr. Blades on August 22, 2017.
(Id., PageID #745.) Dr. Blades concluded that the cause of the diarrhea was still
undetermined and noted that 15 years earlier Mr. Scheall had been diagnosed with
stress-induced diarrhea. (Id.) After that appointment, Dr. Blades was still unsure
whether Mr. Scheall’s diarrhea was “organic or psychologic” and ordered further
testing. (Id., PageID #746.)
On April 20, 2017, Mr. Scheall saw Dr. Kenneth Grimm, who diagnosed him
with lumbosacral pain, agoraphobia, depression, anxiety, morbid obesity, diabetes,
and hypothyroidism. (Id., PageID #844.) Dr. Grimm ordered an MRI for Mr. Scheall,
which took place on May 31, 2017. (Id., PageID #849–50.) Dr. Doksu Moon reported
that the MRI showed that Mr. Scheall’s spinal spaces “appeared patent,” but that
there were mild hypertrophic changes to certain joints. (Id.) At a follow-up
appointment on June 14, 2017, Dr. Grimm ordered injections into the affected joints.
(Id., PageID #852.) After the injection on July 18, 2017, Mr. Scheall reported a 70%
improvement in pain for four days, followed by a return to the previous level of pain.
(Id., PageID #856.) Dr. Grimm then diagnosed Mr. Scheall with low back pain due
to mechanical-lumbar facet syndrome-myofascial on August 10, 2017. (Id.) On
September 29 and December 12, 2017, Dr. Grimm performed an ablation on
Mr. Scheall. (Id., PageID #876 & 878.) On January 17, 2018, Dr. Grimm reported
that Mr. Scheall had not seen any improvement from the procedure. (Id., PageID
#863.) Dr. Grimm then referred Mr. Scheall to a rehabilitation program for chronic
pain. (Id., PageID #866.)
B.2. Mental Health
Between February 16, 2017 and March 27, 2018, Mr. Scheall attended 16
counseling sessions with Cynthia Toncler. (Id., PageID #688–718, 794–834, 895–904
(notes from counseling sessions).) He reported a number of mental health issues
during this time. (Id.) Mr. Scheall also reported experiencing anxiety in response to
family-related and financial stressors and due to fear of having an accident from his
diarrhea outside of his home. (Id., PageID #694 & 804.) He also reported PTSD,
nightmares, and anger due to abuse he suffered as a child. (Id., PageID #696.) Mr.
Scheall told Toncler that he had depression that caused suicidal thoughts every day
and that he had attempted to commit suicide twice in the year before he started
seeing Toncler and once in June 2017. (Id., PageID #694, 700 & 794.)
Over the course of his treatment with Toncler, Mr. Scheall missed multiple
appointments because he feared having an accident because of his diarrhea. (Id.,
PageID #809 & 829.)
Toncler reported that Mr. Scheall’s affect was at times “agitated or
incongruent” (id., PageID #702), and at other times “congruent or appropriate” (id.,
PageID #706). Toncler also reported that Mr. Scheall was preoccupied with his
physical ailments, irritable, and refusing help, but not suicidal at the time of the
appointments. (Id., PageID #719–21.) Though Mr. Scheall exhibited focused
concentration at a few appointments, Toncler reported that his concentration was
usually preoccupied. (Id.)
Mr. Scheall spoke frequently with Toncler about his physical health and told
her that he was being treated for chronic diarrhea that was exacerbated by stress.
(Id., PageID #954.) Mr. Scheall reported frustration that his doctors had not found
the cause of his diarrhea and told Toncler that he could not do certain activities
because of his fear of an accident, such as pool physical therapy for his knee and back
pain. (Id., PageID #694, 714, & 814.) Mr. Scheall also told Toncler that he would not
wear adult diapers out of pride. (Id., PageID #714.) Dr. Thomas Thysseril, who
prescribed medication for his depression, also noted that Mr. Scheall was at times
“somatically preoccupied” with his diarrhea and other physical health problems. (Id.,
PageID #719.)
Mr. Scheall and Toncler also frequently discussed Mr. Scheall’s reported
suicidal thoughts and past suicide attempts. (Id., PageID #700, 794, & 799.) On two
different occasions, Mr. Scheall told Toncler that he thought about suicide every day.
(Id., PageID #694 & 700.) On June 29, 2017, Mr. Scheall also reported having
attempted suicide days earlier by placing a garbage bag over his head. (Id., PageID
#794.)
B.3. Relevant Opinion Evidence
Multiple medical professionals provided opinion evidence relevant to Plaintiff’s
case.
First, Dr. Deborah Koricke evaluated Mr. Scheall’s mental capacity on March
3, 2015, on referral from the Opportunities for Ohioans with Disabilities Division of
Disability Services. (Id., PageID #499.) In Dr. Koricke’s opinion, although
Mr. Scheall had adequate memory and average intelligence, he had “some difficulty”
understanding complex instructions because of his depression and attention lapses.
(Id., PageID #505–06.) Dr. Koricke also opined that Mr. Scheall’s depression would
cause him to work at a slow pace, it would be difficult for him to respond appropriately
to supervision and coworkers, and work pressures could worsen his depression. (Id.)
Second, Dr. Charles Misja evaluated Mr. Scheall’s mental capacity on March
10, 2017, also on referral from the Ohioans with Disabilities Division of Disability
Services. (Id., PageID #608.) Dr. Misja opined that Mr. Scheall is capable of
understanding and executing ordinary instructions. (Id., PageID #614.) Also,
differing from Dr. Koricke, Dr. Misja opined that Mr. Scheall would have only
minimal limitations with respect to attention, concentration, pace, appropriate
response to supervision and coworkers, and appropriate response to work pressures.
(Id.)
Third, Dr. Freeland Ackley evaluated Mr. Scheall’s physical capacity on
referral from the Ohioans with Disabilities Division of Disability Services on March
18, 2017. (Id., PageID #624.) Dr. Ackley reported that Mr. Scheall had normal
memory, concentration, range of motion, coordination, gait, and strength. (Id.,
PageID #628.) Dr. Ackley opined that Mr. Scheall was able to perform everyday
activities without any difficulty. (Id.)
Fourth, Toncler, Mr. Scheall’s counselor, provided a “mental impairment
questionnaire” on February 8, 2018. (Id., PageID #836–39.) Toncler noted that, by
that point, she had not seen Mr. Scheall in two years. (Id., PageID #837.) In Toncler’s
opinion, Mr. Scheall did not have reduced intellectual functioning. (Id.) Toncler
opined that Mr. Scheall had “moderate” limitations in interpersonal interaction, but
that he had “none-mild” limitations otherwise. (Id.)
Finally, four state agency consultants evaluated Mr. Scheall. Dr. Kristen
Haskins evaluated Scheall’s mental capacity on March 17, 2017. (Id., PageID #299.)
She adopted the residual functional capacity that Mr. Scheall was assigned in
September 2016. (Id.) On June 7, 2017, Dr. Robyn Murry-Hoffman concurred with
Dr. Haskins’s opinion. (Id., PageID #335.) On April 3, 2017, Dr. Teresita Cruz
evaluated Mr. Scheall’s physical capacity. (Id., PageID #297–98.) Dr. Cruz also
adopted the September 2016 determination of residual functional capacity. (Id.,
PageID #297.) On June 11, 2017, Dr. Leslie Green evaluated Mr. Scheall and
concurred with Dr. Cruz’s opinion. (Id., PageID #334.)
C. Testimonial Evidence
Mr. Scheall testified at the hearing before the administrative law judge. (Id.,
PageID #223–53.) He stated that he was capable of doing simple household chores,
such as folding laundry, doing dishes, vacuuming, and mowing the lawn and that he
spent his days doing these chores. (Id., PageID #229.) However, Mr. Scheall also
testified that moving to do these chores was painful and that he needed to take
frequent breaks while doing them. (Id.) Mr. Scheall testified that his chronic
diarrhea was his main obstacle to employment. (Id., PageID #228.)
Daniel Samoni, a vocational expert, also testified at the hearing. (Id., PageID
#253–59.) Samoni answered several hypothetical questions from the ALJ and
ultimately opined that the hypothetical individual the ALJ described could work as
an inspector and hand packager, a cafeteria attendant, or a housekeeping cleaner.
(Id., PageID #256.) According to Samoni, there are 91,000 such jobs in the national
economy, meaning that, in Samoni’s opinion, there are jobs that Mr. Scheall could
perform. (Id.) However, Samoni conceded that the hypothetical individual could not
perform the work that Mr. Scheall did before the alleged onset of his disability. (Id.,
PageID #257.)
D. The ALJ’s Decision
In a decision dated September 12, 2018, the ALJ determined that Mr. Scheall
was not disabled on the date of the alleged onset (September 29, 2016) and still was
not disabled. (ECF No. 10, PageID #70–85.) The ALJ found that Mr. Scheall had
multiple severe impairments, including diabetes, lumbar displaced disc without
myelopathy, mild to moderate degenerative joint disease, sleep apnea, obesity,
hypothyroidism, hyperlipidemia, depression, anxiety, and PTSD. (Id., PageID #73.)
Also, the ALJ determined that Mr. Scheall’s diverticulosis was a non-severe
impairment. (Id.) Accordingly, the ALJ determined that Mr. Scheall did not have an
impairment or combination of impairments sufficient to meet the requirements of
20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. (Id.)
Based on these determinations, the ALJ decided that Mr. Scheall had the
residual functional capacity to perform light work as defined in 20 C.F.R.
§§ 404.1567(b) and 416.967(b), with some minor exceptions. (Id., PageID #76.)
Conceding that Mr. Scheall could no longer perform his past relevant work, the ALJ
found that he could perform jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national
economy. (Id., PageID #83–84.)
In making this decision, the ALJ “considered all symptoms and the extent to
which these symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective
medical evidence and other evidence.” (Id., PageID #76.) The ALJ also gave great
weight to the opinions of Drs. Haskins, Murry-Hoffman, Misja, Cruz, Green, and
Ackley. (Id., PageID #81–82.) The ALJ gave partial weight to Toncler’s opinion. (Id.,
PageID #82.) However, res judicata precluded the ALJ from giving weight to
Dr. Koricke’s opinion because her examination formed part of the basis for the first
decision denying Mr. Scheall’s claims in 2016. (Id., PageID #83.) The ALJ also relied
on the testimony of Simone to determine what work Mr. Scheall was capable of
performing. (Id., PageID #84.)
E. The Report and Recommendation
In challenging the Commissioner’s final decision, Plaintiff maintains that
substantial evidence does not support the ALJ’s conclusion that Mr. Scheall can
perform light work. (ECF No. 11, PageID #919.) According to Plaintiff, because the
ALJ found that Plaintiff was suffering from severe impairments that he was not
suffering from at his first administrative hearing, there was sufficient evidence for
the ALJ to assign Plaintiff a different residual functional capacity. (Id., PageID
#920–21.) Plaintiff also argues that the ALJ did not adequately explain why this new
evidence did not change Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity. (Id., PageID #921.)
E.1. The R&R and Substantial Evidence
In the report and recommendation, the Magistrate Judge determined that the
ALJ (1) applied the proper legal standards in determining Plaintiff’s residual
functional capacity, (2) provided a sufficient rationale to draw an accurate and logical
bridge between the evidence and his conclusion, and (3) reached a conclusion
supported by substantial evidence. (ECF No. 14, PageID #970–74.)
First, the Magistrate Judge explains that the ALJ applied the proper legal
standards throughout his analysis, complying with the applicable regulations,
exhaustively reviewing the new and previously existing evidence, and appropriately
applying the five-step test. (Id., PageID #970–72.)
Second, the Magistrate Judge opines that, despite Plaintiff’s unforeseeable yet
understandable confusion, the ALJ drew an accurate and logical bridge between the
evidence and his conclusion. (Id., PageID #971–72.) The Magistrate Judge reasons
that the ALJ probably could not have explained his conclusion more clearly unless he
had somehow foreseen Plaintiff’s unforeseeable confusion about parts of the analysis,
meaning that the ALJ sufficiently explained his reasoning. (Id., PageID #972.)
Third, the Magistrate Judge explains that substantial evidence supports the
ALJ’s conclusion, even though the evidence could have supported an alternative
conclusion as well. (Id., PageID #972–74.) In this regard,, the Magistrate Judge
explains that substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s finding of residual functional
capacity and identifies the pieces of substantial evidence. (Id., PageID #973.)
E.2. Objection
Plaintiff makes a single objection to the report and recommendation, arguing
that the Magistrate Judge did not evaluate the reasoning behind the ALJ’s decision,
which would show that substantial evidence does not support the Commissioner’s
determination. (ECF No. 15, PageID #976–77.) According to Plaintiff, “the prior
ALJ’s rationale for arriving at his RFC ought to have been addressed, not just the
finding per se.” (Id., PageID #977.) Because new and additional evidence was
introduced, Plaintiff argues, the ALJ could have reached a different conclusion
regarding residual functional capacity. (Id.) Therefore, Plaintiff argues that the
ALJ’s failure to reach a different conclusion defeats the goal of consistent decision
making. (Id.)
ANALYSIS
The Court reviews de novo the portions of a Magistrate Judge’s report and
recommendation to which specific objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C);
United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949–50 (6th Cir. 1981). “De novo review
requires the Court to re-examine the relevant evidence a magistrate judge reviewed
to determine whether to accept, reject, or modify the report and recommendation.”
Scott v. Saul, No. 1:19-cv-2393, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92052, at *12–13 (N.D. Ohio
May 14, 2021); see 28 U.S.C. 636(b).
When a party objects, review is limited to determining whether substantial
evidence in the record supports the Commissioner’s decision and to reviewing any
legal errors. Wright v. Massanari, 321 F.3d 611, 614–15 (6th Cir. 2003). “Substantial
evidence” is more than a scintilla, but less than a preponderance. Rogers v.
Commissioner of Soc. Sec., 486 F.3d 234, 241 (6th Cir. 2007). Substantial evidence is
relevant evidence that “a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.” Id. If substantial evidence supports the Commissioner’s findings, then
the Court accepts them as conclusive, even if it would have reached a different
outcome on the same facts. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
Plaintiff’s argument in support of his objections suffers from three fatal flaws,
which the Court addresses in turn.
I.
The Magistrate Judge may only evaluate whether the ALJ’s decision was
supported by substantial evidence and whether the ALJ applied the proper legal
standards. Rogers, 486 F.3d at 241. The Magistrate Judge properly evaluated the
ALJ’s decision and provided detailed analysis of each. (ECF No. 14, PageID #970–74.)
With respect to the issue of substantial evidence, the Magistrate Judge
identifies five different pieces of record evidence that support the ALJ’s conclusion.
(Id., PageID #973.) Also, the Magistrate Judge notes that Plaintiff is correct in
arguing that the additional evidence could have supported an alternative finding of
a more limited residual functional capacity. But the Magistrate Judge goes on to
explain that the Court is required to uphold the Commissioner’s decision because it
is supported by substantial evidence. (Id., PageID #973–74.)
As for the proper legal standards, the Magistrate Judge provides an in-depth
explanation of the ALJ’s application of the proper standards. (Id., PageID #969–72.)
Further, the Magistrate Judge concedes that Plaintiff’s confusion about the ALJ’s
conclusion is understandable, but proceeds to explain that the ALJ nonetheless
applied the proper legal standard. (Id., PageID #971–72.) Having addressed these
two issues, the Magistrate Judge could not have gone further analysis under the
governing law.
II.
Plaintiff’s argument that the ALJ determination defeats the goal of consistent
decision making has no merit. An ALJ must provide a fresh review of a claim, but
may still “consider what an earlier judge did if for no reason other than to strive for
consistent decision making.” Earley v. Commissioner of Soc. Sec., 893 F.3d 929, 934
(6th Cir. 2018). In other words, one ALJ may take another ALJ’s previous decision
into account with the goal of applying the law consistently—it does not mean that the
ALJ must reach a different conclusion whenever there is new and material evidence.
See, e.g., Piercy v. Commissioner of Soc. Sec., No. 5:18-cv-2214, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
198499, at *32–33 (N.D. Ohio 2019); Brown v. Commissioner of Soc. Sec., No.
1:18-cv-1272, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158403, at *17 (N.D. Ohio 2019); Lester v.
Commissioner of Soc. Sec., No. 1:17-cv-1937, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165293, at *21–24
(N.D. Ohio 2018). Because an ALJ is not required to reach a different conclusion just
because there is new and material evidence, and because the record shows the ALJ
fairly considered the new and material evidence (ECF No. 10, PageID #76–83),
Plaintiff’s concerns regarding the goal of consistent decision making are misplaced.
III.
Finally, Plaintiff’s argues that the Magistrate Judge incorrectly determined
the ALJ sufficiently explained his rationale for Plaintiff’s residual functional
capacity. This claim lacks merit. The Court may uphold the Commissioner’s decision
as long as the ALJ’s reasoning builds an accurate and logical bridge between the
evidence and the conclusion. Fleischer, 774 F. Supp. 2d at 877. As the Magistrate
Judge explains in the report and recommendation, the ALJ provided an adequate
explanation of his rationale regarding each step of the five-step test. (ECF No. 14,
PageID #972.) It is not difficult to see how the Magistrate Judge reaches that
conclusion. The ALJ addresses Step 1 briefly, but sufficiently given the
noncontroversial nature of that step. (ECF No. 10, PageID #73.)
In Step 2, the ALJ addresses Plaintiff’s severe and non-severe impairments,
including an explanation of why Plaintiff’s non-severe impairments are classified as
such. (Id.) There does not seem to be any controversy regarding these classifications.
For Step 3, the ALJ explains that Plaintiff does not have an impairment or
combination of impairments sufficient to meet the requirements of the applicable
regulations. (Id., PageID #73–76.) Although the requirements under the regulations
are clear and although the ALJ must adhere to them, the ALJ still provides a
sufficiently detailed explanation of his conclusion with respect to Step 3. (Id.)
Plaintiff primarily aims at Step 4, in which the ALJ must determine a
claimant’s residual functional capacity. While it is true that the ALJ does not
thoroughly analyze the prior ALJ’s conclusion in his explanation, he does provide an
eight-page explanation for his conclusion. (Id., PageID #76–83.) In this lengthy
explanation, the ALJ succeeds in building an accurate and logical bridge between the
evidence and his conclusion. Finally, in Step 5, the ALJ explains that Plaintiff is
considered capable of performing light work and how he reached that conclusion. (Id.,
PageID #84–85.) The ALJ explains that he reached this conclusion based largely on
the testimony of the vocational expert, providing a sufficient evidentiary basis for his
conclusion. (Id.) As the Magistrate Judge concludes, this is enough to build the
required accurate and logical bridge between the evidence and the conclusion.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's Objections
(ECF No. 15), ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation (ECF
No. 14), and AFFIRMS the Commissioner’s decision denying the Plaintiff's request
for benefits. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to enter judgment accordingly.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 20, 2021
Philip Calabrese
United States District Judge
Northern District of Ohio
17