The opinion
UNITSETDA TDEISS TRCIOCUTR T
NORTHEDRNI STROIFCo Tm o
EASTEDRINV ISION
) CASNEO . 52:0C V2 632
WILLIJAD.MO DSON, )
)
Plaintiff, ) JUDGDEO NALCD.N UGENT
)
v. )
)
KILOKLIOJ AKAZI, )
ActCionmg'm or Sf o Sce.c ., ) ORDEARD OPTIRNEGP ORT
) AND RECOMMENDATION
Defendant. )
)
Thmiastt ceorm beesfo trheCe o uurptot nhR ee panodrR te commenodfM aatgiiosntr ate
JudDgaev Ai.Rd u i(zE.C# F1 9O)nN. o vem2b32e,0r 2 P0l,a i(n"tMDiroff.d sfiolnhe"id)s
Compl(aEiC#nF1tc ) h alltehnfiegn idanelgc iosfDi eofenn dKanitlK oiljoak Aacztii,n g
CommisosfSi oocnSieearcl ur (i"tCyo mmisdseinoyhniieansrpg "p )l,ifo crDa itsiaobni lity
InsuBreannceeufi ntdTsei rtI olIfte h Seo cSieaclu Arcitt,Uy . 4S§2.§ C4 1.6 4(2iP3)u.,r suant
tLo ocRaull7 e2 .)2t,(h cbea wsaes rtefMoea rrgeidsD tarvAai.tRd eu iz.
MrD.o dsfiorfinsl tfoe rdd isabbeinleiofitnJty as n u2a62ry,0 1a8l,l etghhiaintsg
disasbtiartlieiOndtc yt ober( EoCf#F 1 20T0)h1.ai5 ps.p liwcaadste inoanindeM dr . Dodson
requaeh setaerbdie nfoangr A ed miniLsatJwru adt(gi"evA eL TJh"hi)es.ar icnogm meonnc ed
Octo4b2,e0 r1T 9h.Ae L rJe vimeewdeidrc eaclod ridssa,cb oinlsiutelyvt aaltuitaohtnei ons,
opinoifSo tnaAstg ee npchyy siancdih aenartsde, s tifrmoomaqn uya lvioficeadte ixopnearlt
("VET"hA)eL. dJ e termtihnMaertDd. o dshoatndh foel losweivniegmr pea irments:
osteoarthorfti hlteeis ftsh oupledreirpart,he errdiaialsl e aarstee,r icoarsdciloevraostciucl ar
diseaathseer,o socfthl een raotasirtiveseir thnye b ilaltoewerexartl r ewmiiittnhit eesrm ittent
claudication, status post-surgical correction, high cardiac calcium score, and chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease. Based on the record and testimony, the ALJ also found that Mr. Dodson had
residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform sedentary work, subject to some physical
limitations, and that he had acquired sufficient work skills from past employment that are
transferable to other occupations with which he has the capacity to perform. As such, the ALJ
determined on February 7, 2020 that Mr. Dodson was not disabled. (ECF #10).
Mr. Dodson argues that: (1) the ALJ discounted all the medical opinions in the record and
instead relied on their own lay interpretation of the evidence to create a finding of RFC; (2) the
ALJ had the responsibility to recontact medical sources after evidence of worsening conditions
that post-dated State Agency opinions came to light; and, (3) that the skills considered by the
ALJ are more appropriately classified as “aptitudes” and not transferable as learned skills to
perform sedentary work. Magistrate Judge David Ruiz issued a Report and Recommendation on
January 20, 2022, addressing these arguments in turn. (ECF # 19). He recommended that the
Commissioner’s final decision denying Mr. Dodson’s application for disability benefits be
AFFIRMED.
The applicable district court standard of review for a magistrate’s report and
recommendation depends upon whether objections were made to that report. When objections
are made to a report and recommendation, the district court reviews the case de novo. This
standard of review is provided by Fed R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). It states, in pertinent part, that “[t]he
district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that is
properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended
disposition. . . .” Mr. Dodson timely filed objections in this matter. (ECF #20). Accordingly, this
Court will review the Report and Recommendation de novo.
Mr. Dodson raises two objections to Magistrate Judge Ruiz’s Report and
Recommendation’s on the grounds that neither the ALJ’s determination of RFC, nor the
inference that transferable skills were obtained from previous employment, are supported by
substantial evidence. In response, Magistrate Judge Ruiz correctly asserts that a finding of RFC
to perform sedentary work is consistent with the opinion of State Agency physician Dr. Trello
and the opinion of consultative examiner Dr. Sioson, who opined that Mr. Dodson could lift or
carry 20 pounds occasionally, 10 pounds frequently, and stand and sit for six hours each, as well
as basic handling and manipulation. State Agency medical consultative opinions may constitute
substantial evidence supporting an ALJ decision. See, e.g., Lemke v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 380
Fed. App’x. 599, 601 (9th Cir. 2010); Filus v. Astrue, 694 F.3d 863 (7th Cir. 2012). As to Mr.
Dodson’s claim that the ALJ should have recontacted medical sources when new evidence
showed a worsening condition, Magistrate Judge Ruiz correctly pointed out in his Report and
Recommendation that the burden is on the Claimant, not the ALJ, to produce any evidence to
support his claim of disability. See King v. Berryhill, No. 3:16 CV 1184, 2017 WL 1907265, at
*18 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 23, 2017); Brown v. Comm’r Soc. Sec., 602 Fed. App’x. 328, 331 (6th Cir.
2015); Peterson v. Comm of Soc. Sec., No 1:16 CV 363, 2017 WL 343625, at *3 (W.D. Mich.
Jan. 24, 2017). Therefore, the ALJ was not obligated to seek out additional information, and
reliance on the entire medical record present at the hearing is proper.
Finally, regarding Mr. Dodson’s last objection, Magistrate Judge Ruiz refers to the
testimony of the VE which explicitly opined that Mr. Dodson would have acquired qualifying
skills while owning and operating his business that would transfer to gainful sedentary jobs, such
as communication, organization, multi-tasking, planning, and scheduling. Magistrate Judge Ruiz
correctly asserts that such testimony from a VE establishes substantial evidence and that Mr.
Dodson’s lay opinion that these qualities are “aptitudes” do not have bearing on the weight of the
evidence.
The Court has carefully reviewed the Report and Recommendation, Mr. Dodson’s
objections, and the Defendant’s response. Magistrate Judge Ruiz has correctly addressed
objections raised by Mr. Dodson. As such, Mr. Dodson’s objections are OVERRULED.
Magistrate Judge Ruiz correctly determined that the ALJ’s finding of residual functional capacity
and the presence of transferable skills was supported by substantial evidence and that the ALJ
considered all the medical evidence presented. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of
Magistrate Judge David A. Ruiz (ECF #19) is ADOPTED. The final decision of the
Commissioner is AFFIRMED, and judgment is entered in favor of Defendant.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DONALD C. i |
Senior United States District Judge
DATED: □ ancl 30, Lo»