# Bonwick v. Commissioner of Social Security

> District Court, N.D. Ohio · August 23, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10664533

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, N.D. Ohio
- **Decided:** August 23, 2024
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10664533

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

DONALD C. BONWICK, CASE NO. 4:24-cv-294

Plaintiff, DISTRICT JUDGE
DAVID A. RUIZ
vs.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SECURITY, JAMES E. GRIMES JR.

Defendant.
REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff Donald C. Bonwick filed a complaint against the Commissioner
of Social Security seeking judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision
denying disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. Doc.
1. This Court has jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c). The Court
referred this matter to a Magistrate Judge under Local Rule 72.2(b)(1) for the
preparation of a Report and Recommendation. Following review, and for the
reasons stated below, I recommend that the District Court affirm the
Commissioner’s decision.
Procedural Background
In October 2021, Bonwick filed applications for both disability insurance
benefits and social security income, alleging a disability onset date in October

2019.1 Tr. 262, 269. Bonwick alleged disability relating to depression, ADHD,
learning disability, snapping hip syndrome,2 bursitis,3 lumbar4 disc

1 “Once a finding of disability is made, the [agency] must determine the
onset date of the disability.” McClanahan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 193 F. App’x
422, 425 (6th Cir. 2006).

2 Snapping hip syndrome, the common name for the medical condition
“coxa saltans,” is a hip disorder that causes a snapping feeling or sound when
individuals move their hip joint. It may cause inflammation and, in serious
conditions, can cause pain and affect movement. Snapping Hip Syndrome,
What is snapping hip syndrome?. Healthline, Health Conditions,
https://www.healthline.com/health/snapping-hip-syndrome
[https://perma.cc/7DMS-J4NX].

3 Bursitis is a condition that affects the cushioning around bones,
tendons, and muscles near joints. It occurs when the bursae, the small fluid-
filled sacs that provide cushioning, become inflamed. With proper treatment,
bursitis pain can resolve within a few weeks, but it may recur or flare-up.
Bursitis, Diseases & Conditions, Mayo Clinic,
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/bursitis/symptoms-causes/syc-
20353242 [https://perma.cc/E9ZN-XGPB].

4 Vertebrae in a person’s spine are given letter and number designations
according to their location. The neck—the cervical spine—has seven vertebrae
designated as C1 through C7. See Thomas Scioscia, MD, Vertebrae in the
Vertebral Column, Spine-health Resources, https://www.spine-
health.com/conditions/spine-anatomy/vertebrae-vertebral-column
[https://perma.cc/R9MM-TBZT]. The twelve vertebrae compromising the
upper spine—the thoracic spine—are labeled at T1 through T12. Id. The five
vertebrae in the lower spine—the lumbar spine—are L1 through L5. Id. The
five vertebrae at the bottom of the spine—in the sacrum—are labeled as S1
through S5. Thomas Scioscia, MD, Sacrum (Sacral Region), Spine-health
Resources, https://www.spine-health.com/conditions/spine-anatomy/sacrum-
sacral-region [https://perma.cc/S2BR-RBTB]. Conditions referring to
lumbar or sacral, refer to conditions affecting these areas of the spine.
degeneration, lumbar sacral neuritis,5 lumbosacral spondylosis,6 and
lumbago.7 Tr. 89, 100. The Commissioner denied Bonwick’s application
initially and on reconsideration. Tr. 112, 122.

In April 2022, Bonwick requested a hearing. Tr. 170. Administrative
Law Judge (“ALJ”) Mary Lohr held a telephonic hearing in February 2023. Tr.
38. Bonwick appeared, testified, and was represented by counsel at the
hearing. Id. Qualified vocational expert Gail Klier also testified. Tr. 58. In April
2023, the ALJ issued a written decision, which found that Bonwick was not
entitled to benefits. Tr. 14.

In May 2023, Bonwick appealed the ALJ’s decision to the Appeals
Counsel. Tr. 233. In December 2023, the Appeals Counsel denied Bonwick’s
appeal, Tr. 1, making the ALJ’s April 2023 decision the final decision of the
Commissioner, Tr. 14–37; see 20 C.F.R. § 404.981.

5 Neuritis, or neuropathic pain, is a nerve pain that occurs from a
malfunction in or damage to the nervous system. It can be caused by a number
of other conditions, including diabetes and spinal nerve compression or
inflammation. See Neuropathic Pain, Cleveland Clinic Health Library,
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/15833-neuropathic-pain
[https://perma.cc/K2NX-ETPB].

6 Spondylolysis is the medical term for a small crack or break between
two vertebrae in the spine. It most commonly affects the lower, or lumbar,
spinal region. Spondylolysis, Cleveland Clinic Health Library,
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/10303-spondylolysis
[https://perma.cc/DW7M-JUUY].

7 Lumbago is a nonmedical term for any pain in the lower back. See
Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary 1062 (33rd ed. 2020).
Evidence8
1. Age, Education, and Vocational History
Bonwick was 37 years old on the alleged onset date. Tr. 89. He has at

least a high school education. Tr. 30, 45. Bonwick has reported past work as a
general laborer, store laborer, maintenance carpenter. Tr. 29–30.
2. Medical Evidence
Since at least September 2019, Bonwick has received mental health
treatment primarily at the Serenity Center of Youngstown. See Tr. 360–465;
808–878; 883-–902; 907–998. In September 2019, at an initial appointment

with Francine McDaniel, FNP-C,9 Bonwick reported that he sought services
because he needed a new provider and had been taken off of his medications
“cold turkey.” Tr. 432. Bonwick reported anxiety and difficulty focusing at work
but he stated that his most recent medication regimen was effective. Id. He
described some depression and generalized anxiety that occurred a few times

8 The recitation of evidence and testimony is not intended to be exhaustive
and is generally limited to that cited in the parties’ briefs. Because Bonwick
has not included any summary of the medical evidence, or otherwise provided
record citations beyond the ALJ’s decision and hearing testimony, the Court
has generally limited its recitation of medical evidence to the evidence cited in
the Commissioner’s briefing.

9 The initials FNP-C refers to a Family Nurse Practitioner certified by the
American Academy of Nurse Practitioners. FNP-C vs FNP-BC: Which Family
Nurse Practitioner Certification Do I Need?, Nurse. Org.,
https://nurse.org/education/fnpc-vs-fnpbc/#:~:text=FNP-
C%20is%20a%20medical%20abbreviation%20for%20the%20Family,all%20eli
gibility%20requirements%20and%20pass%20a%20competency-
based%20exam. [https://perma.cc/5BJQ-93P6].
per month. Tr. 433–34. Bonwick also reported attention difficulties, including
periods of “zoning out” and trouble listening when spoken to directly. Tr. 434.
Nurse Practitioner McDaniel reported that Bonwick presented as calm,

friendly, attentive, communicative, and relaxed. Tr. 437. She noted that his
speech was normal, his language skills were intact, and his mood and affect
were normal. Tr. 437. She also wrote that Bonwick’s short-term memory was
also intact and there were no signs of hyperactive or attention difficulties. Tr.
437. Nurse Practitioner McDaniel diagnosed Bonwick with generalized anxiety
disorder, dysthymic disorder, and ADHD. Tr. 437. She prescribed Effexor for

anxiety, Adderall for ADHD, and Trazadone for insomnia. Tr. 438.
One week later, Bonwick denied anxiety or ADHD symptoms, reported
that he was happy with his medication and that he was doing well. Tr. 439. He
also appeared calm, friendly, attentive, communicative, and relaxed. Tr. 439.
His mood was normal with no signs of depression and his memory was intact.
Tr. 439. There were no reported signs of anxiety at this appointment. Tr. 439.
During later visits to Serenity Center from late 2019 through January

2021, Bonwick sometimes reported or exhibited difficulties with attention or
remaining focused. See Tr. 404, 442. At other times, he denied inattentiveness
or ADHD symptoms. See Tr. 384, 394, 427. On several occasions, Bonwick
exhibited a normal attention span, no signs of attention difficulties or
hyperactivity, and denied inattentive symptoms. Tr. 362, 380, 384, 390, 394,
414, 427, 452, 457. He also frequently exhibited a euthymic mood,10 intact
memory, logical thinking, or normal articulation and speech. See, e.g., Tr. 367,
374, 380, 384, 390, 395, 399, 409, 413, 427, 452, 456, 457.

In July 2020, Bonwick sought emergency treatment for a left ankle
injury after twisting it at a water park. Tr. 505.
From February 2021 through November 2021, Bonwick continued to
report in appointments at the Serenity Center that his medications were
working well and that he wished to continue them. Tr. 808, 815, 854, 868, 872.
Sometimes, Bonwick reported or displayed anxiety or attention difficulties and

did not seem to listen when spoken to. Tr. 839, 843, 844, 855. But at other
times, he denied or did not display anxiety, depression, or inattentiveness. Tr.
809, 815, 816, 823. Bonwick also often exhibited appropriate behavior, normal
attention span, intact memory, logical thinking, normal insight and social
judgment, appropriate affect, or a euthymic mood. See, e.g., Tr. 809, 816, 823,
829, 833, 834, 839, 850, 860, 866, 873.
Bonwick continued to be treated at Serenity Center between December

2021 and February 2022. Tr. 883–902. During this time, Bonwick continued to
report anxiety or depression but he also expressed that his medications worked
well. Tr. 883, 890, 891, 897. Bonwick also displayed intact memory, normal
attention, normal social judgment, and a euthymic mood. Tr. 884, 891, 898.

10 A euthymic [mood/affect] is tranquil, neither depressed nor manic. See
Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary 647 (33rd ed. 2020).
In a March 2022 examination at the Serenity Center, Bonwick stated
that he was “doing good,” although he continued to experience anxiety and
depression symptoms. Tr. 907. And in an April 2022 examination, he asserted

that his medications were working well, denied any side effects, and expressed
that he wished to continue on his current medications. Tr. 913. In June and
July 2022, Bonwick stated, respectively, that his depression and anxiety were
manageable, Tr. 935, and that his ADHD symptoms were well controlled with
Adderall, Tr. 975. At an October 2022 appointment at the Serenety Center,
Bonwick remarked that his symptoms were management and that he worked

at the “Scare Grounds” for Halloween and was enjoyed it. Tr. 953.
3. State Agency Consultants
In December 2021, state agency psychological consultant, Courtney
Zeune, Psy.D, found that Bonwick could perform short cycle work tasks in a
setting with flexible pace and production requirements. Tr. 108. Dr. Zeune also
found that Bonwick was not significantly limited or had no evidence of
limitation in various areas of social interaction. Tr. 108. In March 2022, state

agency psychological consultant on reconsideration, Kristen Haskins, Psy.D,
generally agreed with Dr. Zeune’s determinations but slightly modified her
findings to include that Bonwick could perform short cycle work tasks in a
setting with no fast-paced demand. Tr. 118–19.
4. Hearing Testimony
Bonwick testified that he lived with his twin sister, her family, and his
parents. Tr. 44. He stated that he had a driver’s license but did not drive often

as it caused him pain. Tr. 45. Bonwick testified that he graduated high school.
Tr. 45. He described that he stopped working in October 2019 when pain in his
hip and groin worsened and prevented him from being able to “do [his job] at
100 percent.” Tr. 52. Bonwick stated that he was recommended for hip
replacement surgery but has to lose weight first, because doctors could not
perform the surgery on a person with a BMI above 40. Tr. 53. Bonwick testified

that he would not be able to perform seated work because it also hurt his hip
and that his alternatives to sitting or standing include lying down in bed or in
a recliner with his legs up. Tr. 54. He said that he cannot put weight on his
right leg and has fallen over when he has done so. Tr. 54. Bonwick also testified
that he took the medication Effexor as prescribed for his anxiety and that he
participated in telehealth counseling. Tr. 55.
The ALJ’s Decision

The ALJ made the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
1. The claimant meets the insured status
requirements of the Social Security Act (the
“Act”) through December 31, 2024. This
finding departs from that of the previous
decision, a reflection of the claimant’s
acquiring additional “quarters of coverage”
from work activity.

2. The claimant has not engaged in substantial
gainful activity since October 1, 2019, the
alleged onset date (20 CFR 404.1571 et seq.,
416.971 et seq.). Except that this finding
reflects the alleged onset date for the present
claim, it adheres to that of the previous
decision.

3. The claimant has the following severe
impairments: obesity, degenerative disc
disease of the lumbar spine, status-post
facture of the left ankle, degenerative joint
disease/arthritis of the hip, dysthymic
disorder, generalized anxiety disorder,
attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder, and
insomnia, unspecified. (20 CFR 404.1520(c)
and 416.920(c)). This finding departs from
that of the previous decision, in order to
reflect severe impairments documented in the
current evidence.

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). This finding adheres to that of the
previous decision.

5. After careful consideration of the entire
record, the undersigned finds that the
claimant has the residual function capacity to
perform light work as defined in 20 CFR
404.1567(b) and 416.967(b) except that the
claimant may stand and/or walk, with normal
breaks, for up to four hours in an eight-hour
workday; the claimant may frequently
balance, may occasionally stoop, kneel,
crouch, crawl, climb ramps and stairs, but
may never climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds;
the claimant must avoid all exposure to
unprotected heights and moving mechanical
parts; the claimant is limited to the
performance of simple, routine, repetitive
tasks, conducted in a setting free of
production-rate pace [as is found in assembly
line work]. This finding departs from that of
the previous decision, in order to
accommodate the present state of the
impairments documented in the current
evidence.

6. The claimant is unable to perform any past
relevant work (20 CFR 404.1565 and
416.965). This finding adheres to that of the
previous decision, including consideration of
the job of maintenance carpenter, identified
as past relevant work since the previous
decision.

7. The claimant was born on May 31, 1982 and
was 37 years old, which is defined as a
younger individual age 18–49, on the alleged
disability onset date (20 CFR 404.1563 and
416.963). This finding departs from that of the
previous decision, owing to the claimant’s
attainment of greater chronological age.

8. The claimant has at least a high school
education (20 CFR 404.1564 and 416.964).
This finding adheres to that of the previous
decision.

9. Transferability of job skills is not material to
the determination of disability because using
the Medical-Vocational Rules as a framework
supports a finding that the claimant is “not
disable,” whether or not the claimant has
transferable job skills (See SSR 82-41 and 20
CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2). This
finding departs from that of the previous
decision, in order to establish the appropriate
grounds for the finding for a claimant with
semi-skilled or skilled work.

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, 404.1569a, 416.696, and 416.969a).
This finding adheres to that of the previous
decision.

11. The claimant has not been under a disability,
as defined in the Social Security Act, from
October 1, 2019, through the date of this
decision (20 CFR 404.1520(g) and 416.920(g)).
Except that this finding recites the alleged
onset date for the present claim, it adheres to
that of the previous decision.

Tr. 20–31 .

Standard for Disability
Eligibility for social security benefit payments depends on the existence
of a disability. 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(a), 1382(a). “Disability” is defined as the
“inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any
medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected
to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous
period of not less than 12 months[.]” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A); see also 42 U.S.C.
§ 1382c(a)(3)(A).
An ALJ is required to follow a five-step sequential analysis to make a
disability determination:
1. Is the claimant engaged in substantial gainful
activity? If so, the claimant is not disabled.

2. Does the claimant have a medically
determinable impairment, or a combination of
impairments, that is “severe”? If not, the
claimant is not disabled.
3. Does the claimant’s impairment meet or equal
one of the listed impairments and meet the
duration requirement? If so, the claimant is
disabled. If not, the ALJ proceeds to the next
step.

4. What is the claimant’s residual functional
capacity and can the claimant perform past
relevant work? If so, the claimant is not
disabled. If not, the ALJ proceeds to the next
step.

5. Can the claimant do any other work
considering the claimant’s residual functional
capacity, age, education, and work
experience? If so, the claimant is not disabled.
If not, the claimant is disabled.

20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920; see Jordan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 548 F.3d
417, 422 (6th Cir. 2008). Under this sequential analysis, the claimant has the
burden of proof at steps one through four. Jordan, 548 F.3d at 423. The burden
shifts to the Commissioner at step five “to prove the availability of jobs in the
national economy that the claimant is capable of performing.” Id. “The
claimant, however, retains the burden of proving her lack of residual functional
capacity.” Id. If a claimant satisfies each element of the analysis and meets the
duration requirements, the claimant is determined to be disabled. Walters
Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 127 F.3d 525, 529 (6th Cir. 1997).
Standard of review
A reviewing court must affirm the Commissioner’s conclusions unless it
determines “that the ALJ has failed to apply the correct legal standards or has
made findings of fact unsupported by substantial evidence in the record.”
Jordan, 548 F.3d at 422. “‘[S]ubstantial evidence’ is a ‘term of art’” under which
“a court … asks whether” the “existing administrative record … contains
‘sufficien[t] evidence’ to support the agency’s factual determinations.” Biestek

v. Berryhill, 587 U.S. 97, 102 (2019) (citations omitted). The substantial
evidence standard “is not high.” Id. at 103. Substantial evidence “is ‘more than
a mere scintilla’” but it “means only[] ‘such relevant evidence as a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’” Id. (citations
omitted). The Commissioner’s “findings … as to any fact if supported by
substantial evidence [are] conclusive.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Biestek, 587 U.S. at

99.
A court may “not try the case de novo, resolve conflicts in evidence, or
decide questions of credibility.” Bass v. McMahon, 499 F.3d 506, 509 (6th Cir.
2007). Even if substantial evidence or a preponderance of the evidence
supports a claimant’s position, a reviewing court cannot overturn the
Commissioner’s decision “so long as substantial evidence also supports the
conclusion reached by the ALJ.” Jones v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 336 F.3d 469,

477 (6th Cir. 2003). This is so because there is a “zone of choice within which”
the Commissioner can act, without fear of judicial “interference.” Lindsley v.
Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 560 F.3d 601, 605 (6th Cir. 2009) (quoting Felisky v.
Bowen, 35 F.3d 1027, 1035 (6th Cir. 1994)).
Discussion
As an initial matter, before proceeding to the substance of Bonwick’s
argument, the Court notes that Bonwick’s brief contains no citation to the

medical record, and only a very brief summary of Bonwick’s vocational history,
level of educational, and testimony. See Doc. 8, at 1–9. The Court’s initial order
states: “All facts relevant to the legal issues and discussion must be set forth
in the Facts section.” Doc. 5, at 3. Bonwick even recognizes that “[i]n order to
determine an RFC, the adjudicator is instructed to base the assessment on ‘all
of the relevant medical and other evidence.’ 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.45(a)(3),

416.945(a)(3).” Doc. 8, at 5. Yet, Bonwick’s brief contains no citation to the
record of medical evidence, instead opting to cite only the ALJ’s written
decision and Bonwick’s hearing testimony. So, Bonwick is not off to a strong
start.
Proceeding to the substance of Bonwick’s single issue presented, it is
meritless. For starters, as stated above, Bonwick has not cited to any medical
evidence that the ALJ allegedly failed to consider in crafting Bonwick’s RFC.

See generally Doc. 8. This is problematic because the questions before the Court
are whether the ALJ complied with applicable regulations and whether the
ALJ’s decision was supported by substantial evidence. See Bass, 499 F.3d at
509. So without citation to the record to show that the ALJ’s failed to consider
certain evidence or symptoms, the Court is left only with Bonwick’s opinion.
Additionally, Bonwick has not clearly alleged that the ALJ failed to comply
with any particular regulation. See Doc. 8, at 5–7. Instead, Bonwick generally
cites regulations describing the process to reach an RFC determination,
admits that the RFC does include some limitations, and claims generally that

the limitations included were insufficient. Doc. 8, at 5–7.
Bonwick admits that the RFC did include “some mental limitations,” but
he “argues that the RFC is not sufficient to accommodate each of Plaintiff’s
impaired functional abilities.” Doc. 8, at 6. Specifically, Bonwick baldly claims
that the RFC limitations included “do not reflect a limitation which
corresponds to his reduced ability to adapt and manage.” Doc. 8, at 7. But

Bonwick omits any mention of evidence to support the idea that he has
“impaired functional abilities.” Indeed, other than citing the ALJ’s decision,
Bonwick offers no record basis to conclude that he has any impairments at all.
So without more, his argument is simply an expression of Bonwick’s opinion
that the ALJ should have provided greater limitations. And, as the
Commissioner notes, despite Bonwick’s assertion that greater limitations
should have been included, he does not make any argument as to what those

limitations should have been. See Doc. 10, at 13. This sort of argument does
not provide the Court with any basis for remand.
Bonwick makes two additional arguments, neither of which are clearly
related to his sole captioned argument that the ALJ failed to properly consider
each of his mental impairments in crafting his RFC. Doc. 8, at 4. First, Bonwick
cites the DOT11 sections for each job the vocational expert opined a
hypothetical individual with Bonwick’s RFC could perform. Doc. 8, at 7–8. He
then asks the Court to conclude that “those jobs would clearly cause an

individual who decompensates under stressors to struggle with job
performance.” Doc. 8, at 7–8. This argument is both confusing and unavailing.
As best as the Court can discern, Bonwick is arguing that the jobs the
vocational expert opined an individual with his RFC could perform are not jobs
that he could actually perform. Bonwick, however, does not directly challenge
the vocational expert’s testimony and he cites nothing in the record—whether

medical evidence or otherwise—for his opinions that he could not perform
those jobs. Bonwick also does not cite any legal authority to show that the
vocational expert or ALJ erred by concluding that these jobs were available to
Bonwick. And because Bonwick’s single argument heading includes no
indication that he challenges the vocational expert’s testimony, the Court need
not consider it.12
Second, and finally, Bonwick cites training material from a continuing

education program entitled “Four Keys to B Criteria,” Doc. 8, at 8–9, in support

11 DOT stands for the Dictionary of Occupational Titles. It is a standard
classification of occupations established by the Social Security Administration.
The DOT includes descriptions of the physical demands, environmental
factors, and skill levels for various occupations.

12 The Court’s Initial Order provides that “[e]ach introductory heading in
the Argument or Analysis section of a brief must correspond to the argument
presented under the heading. Failure to comply with this Requirement may
result in … waiver of the arguments[.]” Doc. 5, at 3–4.
of his apparent argument that the ALJ did not adequately explain the RFC
determination. As an initial matter, this material does not represent
controlling legal authority and Bonwick does not claim otherwise. Additionally,

this argument is confusing because Bonwick does not assert that the ALJ erred
when considering each of the four paragraph B criteria,13 and review of the
ALJ’s decision would contradict any such argument. See Tr. 21–22. In fact,
Bonwick admits that the ALJ need not specifically include limitations based
on each paragraph B criteria into a final RFC determination. See Doc. 8, at 5
(citing Shinlever v. Berryhill, No. 3:15-cv-371-CCS, 2017 WL 2937607, at *46

(E.D. Tenn. Jul. 10, 2017) and recognizing that “an ALJ is not necessarily
required to include mental limitations in Plaintiff’s RFC solely because she
found mild limitations in the paragraph B criteria for Step Two”). Despite this
recognition, Bonwick asks the Court to find that the ALJ committed reversable
error by failing to explain why certain paragraph B limitations were not
included in the final RFC determination. Doc. 8, at 8–9.
This argument is flawed. Bonwick admits both that there is no

requirement that Paragraph B limitations be included and that some mental
limitations were included in his RFC. See Doc. 8, at, 6, 8–9. Additionally,

13 To meet or equal paragraph B, an individual’s mental disorder must
result in an extreme limitation of one, or a marked limitation of two, of the four
areas of mental functioning: (1) understanding, remembering, or applying
information; (2) interacting with others; (3) concentrating, persisting, or
maintaining pace; and (4) adapting or managing oneself. 20 C.F.R. Part 404,
Subpart P, Appendix 1, § 12.00(A)(2)(b).
Bonwick citations nothing to substantiate his assertion the RFC was not
supported by substantial evidence. So he’s forfeited the argument. See
McPherson v. Kelsey, 125 F.3d 989, 995–96 (6th Cir. 1997) (“[I]ssues adverted

to in a perfunctory manner, unaccompanied by some effort at developed
argumentation, are deemed waived. It is not sufficient for a party to mention
a possible argument in the most skeletal way, leaving the court to ... put flesh
on its bones.”) (internal citations omitted). Bonwick’s final argument is, thus,
contradicted by his earlier arguments and otherwise provides no basis for
remand.

Conclusion
For the reasons explained above, I recommend that the Court affirm the
Commissioner’s decision.
Dated: August 23, 2024

/s/ James E. Grimes Jr.
James E. Grimes Jr.
U.S. Magistrate Judge

OBJECTIONS
Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed with
the Clerk of Court within 14 days after the party objecting has been served
with a copy of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 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, 530–531 (6th

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10664533. Public record. Not legal advice.