White

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

JASON WHITE, ) CASE NO. 1:25-CV-1050

)

Plaintiff, ) MAGISTRATE JUDGE

) JENNIFER DOWDELL ARMSTRONG

v. )

)

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND

SECURITY, ) ORDER

)

Defendant. )

I. INTRODUCTION

The Commissioner of Social Security denied Plaintiff Jason White’s application for

Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Mr. White seeks judicial review of that decision pursuant to

42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c). (Compl., ECF No. 1.) The parties have consented to a magistrate

judge exercising jurisdiction over the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Rule 73 of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, and Local Rule 73.1. (Consent and Order, ECF No. 7.)

For the reasons set forth below, the Court AFFIRMS the Commissioner’s decision denying

Mr. White’s application for benefits.

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In February 2023, Mr. White applied to the Social Security Administration (SSA) seeking

SSI.1 (Tr. 173.) He initially claimed that he became disabled on October 15, 2018, but at the hearing

his counsel amended that date to September 1, 2022. (Id.; Tr. 44.) He identified three allegedly

disabling conditions: (1) herniated disc; (2) chronic pain; and (3) osteoarthritis. (Tr. 202.)

1 The administrative transcript appears at ECF No. 8. I will refer to pages within that transcript by

identifying the Bates number printed on the bottom right-hand corner of the page (e.g., “Tr. 32”). I will

refer to other documents in the record by their CM/ECF document numbers (e.g., “ECF No. 9”) and page-

identification numbers (e.g., “PageID# 984”).

The SSA denied Mr. White’s application initially and upon reconsideration. (Tr. 90, 97, 98,

105.) Mr. White requested a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ). (Tr. 120.) His

counsel submitted a brief in advance of the hearing. (Tr. 296–325.) The ALJ held a hearing on

January 11, 2024, at which Mr. White was represented by counsel. (Tr. 37–66.) Mr. White testified,

as did an independent vocational expert. (Id.)

On April 18, 2024, the ALJ issued a written decision finding that Mr. White is not disabled.

(Tr. 15–32.)

Mr. White requested review of the ALJ’s decision. (Tr. 171–72.)

On March 26, 2025, the Appeals Council denied review, rendering the ALJ’s decision final.

(Tr. 1.)

On May 22, 2025, Mr. White filed his Complaint, challenging the Commissioner’s final

decision that he is not disabled. (ECF No. 1.) Mr. White asserts the following assignments of error

for review:

First Assignment of Error: The ALJ committed reversible error in the

evaluation of Mr. White’s pain and its impact on his residual function

capacity.

Second Assignment of Error: The ALJ’s finding as to a light residual

functional capacity was premised on reversible legal error with incorrect

reliance on insufficient reviewing physicians’ opinions, without properly

weighing current objective and opinion evidence.

(Pl.’s Merit Br. at 9, 13, ECF No. 9, PageID# 984, 988.)

III. BACKGROUND

A. Previous Application for Social Security Benefits

Mr. White previously applied for SSI benefits on September 29, 2020, alleging disability

beginning in February 2019. (Tr. 70.) An ALJ issued a written decision denying the application on

August 31, 2022. (Tr. 67.) In that decision, the ALJ found that Mr. White had the following severe

impairments: (1) status post right sided L5–S1 microdiscectomy with radiculopathy; (2) moderate

glenohumeral arthritis of the right shoulder; (3) obstructive sleep apnea; (4) gastroesophageal

reflux disease; (5) asthma; (6) obesity; (7) antisocial personality disorder; and (8) drug addiction

disorders. (Tr. 72.)

Nevertheless, the ALJ concluded that Mr. White had the residual functional capacity to

perform light work with certain exertional, environmental, and non-exertional limitations. (Tr. 76.)

Specifically, Mr. White could occasionally reach overhead with the right arm but frequently reach

in all other directions on that side. (Id.) He could occasionally climb ramps and stairs, balance,

stoop, kneel, crouch, and crawl. (Id.) He could never climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds. (Id.) He

can never be exposed to unprotected heights or moving mechanical parts, and he could never

operate a motor vehicle. (Id.) He could frequently be exposed to humidity and wetness, dust, odors,

fumes, pulmonary irritants, extreme cold, and extreme heat. (Id.) He retained the ability to

understand, remember, and apply information, and he could concentrate, persist, and maintain pace

enough to perform simple, routine, and repetitive tasks outside of a production rate pace. (Id.) He

was limited to simple work-related decisions in using judgment and dealing with changes in the

work setting. (Id.) He was only able to interact occasionally with supervisors, coworkers, and the

public. (Id.)

Based on those and other findings, the ALJ determined that Mr. White was not disabled.

(Tr. 83–84.)

B. Personal, Educational, and Vocational Experience

Mr. White was born in November 1979 and was 43 years old on the date of his current

application. (E.g., Tr. 39, 173.) He graduated high school and took some college courses. (Tr. 203.)

He has worked as a cook, but he found that the work was causing him to have back spasms. (Tr. 45.)

Before that, he worked for years as a roofer, most recently in 2017. (Tr. 53, 203, 328.) Mr. White

lives with his teenage daughter. (Tr. 53.)

C. Function Reports

Mr. White completed a function report on March 13, 2023. (Tr. 218–24.) He described that,

on an average day, he will wake up and “pace the floor” until his back stops hurting. (Tr. 218.) He

will then shower, which he described as “trying to ease the pain,” and then attempt to exercise as

directed by his physical therapist. (Id.) He wrote that he is often in so much pain, though, that he

wants to lie down. (Id.) Because lying down is also painful, he finds himself “tossing and turning”

all day. (Id.)

Mr. White said that his mother and daughter cook for him, and his daughter cares for the

family dog. (Id.) He is able to dress himself, but he takes his time because doing so is difficult.

(Id.) He is able to shower, but he does not take long showers because “it hurt[s] after a while.”

(Id.) He is able to shave, feed himself, and use the restroom. (Id.) If he finds himself cooking, he

said he needs to take breaks because he cannot stand at the stove monitoring the food. (Tr. 219.)

He does not do any chores, because standing, walking, and lifting cause him to be in pain. (Id.)

Mr. White said that he is able to drive and ride in a car. (Tr. 220.) He does drive, and he is

able to go out alone. (Id.) He shops in person once a month for food and hygiene products, but

doing so can “take all day.” (Id.) Otherwise, he does not go out because he experiences pain when

he tries to go anywhere. (Tr. 221.)

Mr. White used to enjoy reading and working on houses, but now he cannot lift anything

or bend to perform his lifelong work. (Id.)

Mr. White talks with others socially over the phone every other day. (Tr. 221.) He has no

problems getting along with others. (Id.)

Mr. White estimated that he can walk for only “ten steps” before needing to rest for five to

ten minutes. (Tr. 222.) He uses a cane in the morning, which he said was prescribed by a doctor “a

while ago.” (Tr. 223.)

He has no problems paying attention or following oral and written instructions. (Tr. 222.)

He handles stress well. (Tr. 223.)

D. Relevant Hearing Testimony

1. Mr. White’s Testimony

Mr. White testified that his last work—in 2019 as a cook—caused him to have back spasms

“down to [his] legs and lower back.” (Tr. 45, 53.) He described that the pain spreads from his lower

buttocks down the back of his legs all the way to his feet. (Tr. 45–46.) Walking also causes him

pain, but sitting is worse because it puts more pressure on his lower back. (Tr. 46.) He can only sit

for 10 or 15 minutes before needing to get up and stretch. (Id.)

Mr. White has tried physical therapy, but he found that it made the pain worse such that he

was “out of commission for a day or two” after sessions. (Tr. 47.) He has had two surgeries on his

back, but the surgeries did not improve his pain either. (Id.)

Mr. White testified that he has carpal tunnel syndrome in both wrists, which causes

“excruciating” pain when he tries to grab or hold onto objects. (Tr. 47–48.)

Mr. White also has arthritis in his right shoulder, which flares up from “time to time”;

during flare ups he can barely lift his arm past his stomach. (Tr. 48–49.)

Mr. White’s sleep apnea causes him to feel tired throughout the day. (Tr. 49.)

Mr. White estimated that he could stand or walk for only 10 minutes at a time. (Tr. 50.)

After 10 minutes, he then spends 10 to 15 minutes on his knees with his upper body resting on

something, a position that allows him to stretch and take some of the pressure off his back. (Tr. 50–

51.) Mr. White said that he can lift and carry no more than 10 pounds, “if that.” (Tr. 51.) He rated

his daily pain as a nine on a scale of one to ten; he is “always ready to go to the hospital.” (Tr. 51–

52.)

As Mr. White is not able to cook or clean, his teenage daughter takes care of those chores

for him. (Tr. 52.) Mr. White does go to the grocery store with his daughter, but he moves slowly

and then uses a motorized cart while inside the store. (Tr. 52–53.)

Mr. White has a driver’s license and drives every day to take his daughter to and from

school. (Tr. 55.)

Mr. White takes an antacid and has an inhaler, the latter of which he uses once a day. (Id.)

2. Vocational Expert’s Testimony

Mia Heikkila testified as a vocational expert (VE) at the hearing. (Tr. 37.) The ALJ asked

the VE to assume that a hypothetical individual is capable of light work with certain exertional and

non-exertional limitations. (Tr. 59–60.) Specifically, the individual can occasionally reach

overhead with the right upper extremity; occasionally climb ramps and stairs; and occasionally

kneel, stoop, crouch, and crawl. (Tr. 59.) They would never be able to climb ladders, ropes, or

scaffolds. (Id.) They can frequently balance. (Id.) They would need to avoid concentrated exposure

to fumes, odors, gases, poorly ventilated areas, and extreme cold. (Id.) They must avoid hazards

like heights and machinery, but they could navigate ordinary workplace hazards like boxes on the

floor, open doors, or approaching vehicles and people. (Id.)

The VE testified that such a person would not be able to perform Mr. White’s past relevant

work but could perform other work that exists in the national economy, such as the work of a price

marker (DOT 209.587-034), cashier II (DOT 211.462-010), or counter attendant (DOT 311.477-

014). (Tr. 60.)

The ALJ next asked the VE to imagine that the hypothetical person is further limited.

(Tr. 60–61.) They could only frequently be exposed to humidity and wetness, dust, odors, fumes,

pulmonary irritants, extreme heat, and extreme cold. (Tr. 61.) They would have the ability to

understand, remember, and apply information—and to concentrate, persist, and maintain pace—

but only to the extent necessary to complete simple, routine, and repetitive tasks outside of a

production rate pace. (Tr. 61.) They would be limited to simple, work-related decisions and

changes in the work setting. (Id.) They could only occasionally interact with supervisors,

coworkers, and the public. (Id.)

The VE testified that such a person could still perform the work of a price marker, and

could also perform the work of a routing clerk (DOT 222.687-022) and delivery marker (DOT

222.587-038). (Tr. 61)

The ALJ then asked the VE to assume that the hypothetical person would be further limited

in that they could only stand and walk for four hours out of an eight-hour workday. (Tr. 62.)

The VE testified that such a person could still perform the work of a price marker, but the

number of jobs available would be reduced by 75 percent. (Id.) The VE testified that approximately

32,800 jobs would remain. (Id.) The VE further testified that such a person could also perform the

work of a small parts assembler (DOT 706.684-022)—although the number of jobs would be

reduced to 4,400 jobs—or an inspector and hand packager (DOT 559.687-074) (again applying

the reduction, to 2,200 jobs). (Tr. 62–63.)

The ALJ next asked whether there would be any jobs available if the hypothetical person

was limited to the sedentary exertional level. (Tr. 63.)

The VE testified that such a person could perform the work of an electronics inspector

(DOT 726.684-110), ticket checker (DOT 219.587-010), or polisher (DOT 713.684-038). (Tr. 63–

64.)

The ALJ asked the VE whether competitive employment would be available to a person

who needed frequent breaks, such that they would be off task for 20 percent of the workday.

(Tr. 64.) The VE confirmed that no jobs would be available to such a person. (Id.)

Mr. White’s counsel then asked the VE to imagine that a person could only stay seated for

10 to 15 minutes before needing to stand and walk for 10 minutes, and then would need to repeat

that cycle throughout the day. (Tr. 65.) The VE confirmed that this would be work preclusive. (Id.)

E. State Agency Consultants

A disability examiner (Adella Pierson), a physician (Mehr Siddiqui, M.D.) and a

psychologist (Irma Johnston, Psy.D.) reviewed Mr. White’s claim at the initial review level.

(Tr. 90–97.)

Dr. Johnston noted that, while the previous ALJ determined that Mr. White had certain

mental health conditions and limitations, Mr. White’s counsel had confirmed that Mr. White has

no mental health conditions. (Tr. 94.) Dr. Johnston therefore opined that Mr. White had no severe

mental health conditions and no more than mild mental health limitations. (Id.)

Dr. Siddiqui opined that Mr. White’s allegations of back pain with standing and walking

could be explained by his medically determinable impairments, but that his description of the

limiting effect of those impairments was only partially consistent with the record. (Tr. 95.) Dr.

Siddiqui explained that the reported debilitating effect of his impairments was greater than that

substantiated by the medical record “given his mild [degenerative disc disease], intact strength,

and full [range of motion].” (Id.)

Dr. Siddiqui adopted the residual functional capacity from Mr. White’s previous application

for SSI based on SSA’s Acquiescence Ruling 98-4(6); the doctor reasoned that Mr. White’s May

2023 spinal ablation procedure did not change his functional capacity. Tr. 95; see also

Acquiescence Ruling 98-4(6), 63 Fed. Reg. 29,771, 1998 WL 274052 (June 1, 1998).2

Based on these opinions, the state agency consultants found that Mr. White was capable of

performing the work of a merchandise marker (DOT 209.587-034), routing clerk (DOT 222.687-

022), or router (DOT 222.587-038) and was not disabled. (Tr. 96–97.)

In a letter explaining this decision to Mr. White, the SSA wrote that medical records showed

that he was able to stand, walk, and move about in a satisfactory manner, even if he cannot lift

heavy objects and may experience discomfort at times. (Tr. 112.) The SSA further explained that

although he may need to avoid working in very dusty environments, dangerous surroundings, or

other similar places, he “would be able to do work in other settings.” (Id.)

A disability examiner (Sarah Filanowski) and a physician (Shanker Gupta, M.D.) reviewed

Mr. White’s claim at the reconsideration level. (Tr. 98–105.)

Dr. Gupta affirmed that the agency’s prior RFC was supported by the medical evidence.

(Tr. 101.) He explained that there was no medical necessity for Mr. White to use a cane because

the evidence showed that his gait was normal and there were no focal neurological deficits. (Id.)

Dr. Gupta wrote that the alleged severity of Mr. White’s functional limitations was only partially

consistent with the medical records, also noting that Mr. White continued to be able to drive and

shop in stores. (Id.)

Dr. Gupta opined that Mr. White could frequently lift and carry up to 10 pounds and

occasionally lift and carry up to 20 pounds. (Tr. 103.) He could stand or walk for about six hours

in an eight-hour workday and could sit for about six hours of that workday. (Id.) He could never

2 The Agency would go on to rescind Acquiescence Ruling 98-4(6) on December 2, 2024, replacing it with

Acquiescence Ruling 24-1(6). See Acquiescence Ruling 24-1(6), 89 Fed. Reg. 92922-02, 2024 WL

4870750 (Nov. 25, 2024).

climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds but could occasionally climb ramps and stairs, balance, stoop,

kneel, crouch, and crawl. (Id.) He could only occasionally reach overhead with the right upper

extremity. (Id.) He must avoid unprotected heights and avoid working on moving machinery.

(Tr. 104.) He must also avoid concentrated exposure to extreme cold, fumes, odors, dusts, gases,

and poor ventilation. (Id.)

Based on these opinions, the consultants affirmed that Mr. White could perform the work

of a merchandise marker, routing clerk, or router and was not disabled. (Tr. 105.)

In a letter explaining this decision to Mr. White, the agency wrote that although he cannot

do any heavy lifting and would be limited in the amount of time he can spend climbing, balancing,

stooping, kneeling, crouching, crawling, and reaching with right upper extremity, he remained able

to lift lighter objects and can sit, stand, and walk for extended periods of time. (Tr. 119.)

F. Relevant Medical Evidence

Mr. White underwent a radiologic examination of his right shoulder on November 30, 2021.

(Tr. 332.) The examination revealed moderate glenohumeral arthritis, characterized by mild to

moderate glenohumeral joint space loss, mild medial humeral head osteophyte formation, and

glenohumeral stenosis. (Id.) There was no acromioclavicular joint separation. (Id.)

Mr. White underwent a surgical laminectomy procedure of the spine on December 10,

2020. As of December 30, 2020, Mr. White’s severe right leg pain was “gone.” (Tr. 702.) He said

he was ambulating regularly, although there was some residual discomfort in the right buttock and

behind the right knee. (Id.)

Mr. White presented to the emergency room complaining of lower back pain on October

30, 2021. (Tr. 626.) Mr. White described that he had minimal improvement from his surgery and

said his pain had been gradually worsening since the procedure. (Id.) On examination, Mr. White

exhibited normal range of motion, normal strength, and intact sensation. (Tr. 628.) Mr. White had

a positive straight leg raise test on the right side at 30 degrees of flexion, although he remained

able to ambulate. (Id.) There was generalized tenderness across the lumbar region, but no point

tenderness, step-off, or visible injuries or redness. (Id.) The emergency room physician assistant

opined that Mr. White’s symptoms were consistent with sciatica; he was prescribed a pain

medication and a muscle relaxant and instructed to follow up with his surgeon or with a pain

management doctor. (Id.)

Mr. White had a follow up appointment regarding his spine surgery on November 17, 2021.

(Tr. 617.) He reported that the surgery had improved his leg pain but said that in the last two months

his lower back pain had gotten much worse. (Id.) On examination, Mr. White’s spine visually

appeared normal, and he had full strength in both upper and lower extremities. (Tr. 619.) He

exhibited a normal gait. (Id.) The plan after the appointment was for Mr. White to engage in

physical therapy and undergo x-ray imaging. (Id.)

Mr. White began physical therapy on November 30, 2021. (Tr. 608.) The therapist noted

that Mr. White had not engaged in formal rehabilitation after his December 2020 spinal surgery.

(Id.) Mr. White presented with decreased range of motion and decreased tolerance for movement,

with pain present. (Id.) His pain had gotten worse through the year since the surgery. (Tr. 609.)

The therapist noted that Mr. White ambulated at a slow speed and with a wider base of support.

(Tr. 611.) He had limited step length and limited to no trunk rotation. (Id.)

Mr. White participated in a second physical therapy session on December 13, 2021.

(Tr. 601). Mr. White told the therapist that a kneeling and forward flexed position was the most

comfortable for him. (Id.)

Mr. White consulted with Sunny Lee, D.O.—an internal medicine doctor—on April 12,

2022, complaining of pain in his right foot. (Tr. 366.) Dr. Lee noted that Mr. White had previously

undergone a right-sided L5–S1 microdiscectomy and had sought treatment from orthopedic

specialists in November 2021 for continued “sciatica pains.” (Id.) She noted that Mr. White had

been instructed to complete weeks of physical therapy and to follow up for an MRI if there was no

improvement. (Id.) On examination, Mr. White had full strength in all extremities. (Tr. 368.) Dr.

Lee suspected that the foot pain had been caused by tendinopathy triggered by Mr. White shifting

his weight as a result of the pain in his back and right leg. (Tr. 370.) She prescribed an anti-

inflammatory medication and instructed Mr. White to call his orthopedic surgeon “since they may

wish to pursue [a] repeat MRI or further intervention. (Id.) X-ray imaging of the foot was normal.

(Tr. 381–82.)

Mr. White presented to the emergency room on May 29, 2022, primarily for a headache

but also complaining of back spasms. (Tr. 361.) On examination, Mr. White was tender to palpation

over the lumbar paraspinal muscles on the right side, “with palpable spasm.” (Tr. 363.) There was

normal range of motion, and no deformity or swelling was noted. (Id.) No focal deficit was noted,

and his gait and coordination were intact. (Tr. 364.) Mr. White was given medication that reduced

his headache pain, and he was discharged. (Tr. 365.)

Mr. White consulted with Shrif Constandi, M.D., an interventional pain management

doctor, on November 20, 2022. (Tr. 355.) Dr. Constandi noted that Mr. White had complained of

back pain for years, although previous surgery had resolved the radicular component of the

complaint. (Tr. 356.) Mr. White rated the pain as an eight on a ten scale and said that, on his best

days, the pain is a six. (Id.) He said the pain interferes with physical activity and is exacerbated by

sleeping, yard work, and housework. (Id.) On examination, there was no pain on palpation of the

lumbar spine and full range of motion without reproducible pain. (Tr. 357.) He had full motor

strength and tone, intact sensation, and a normal gait. (Id.)

Dr. Constandi referred Mr. White for continued physical therapy and ordered magnetic

resonance imaging. (Tr. 358.) He counseled Mr. White on the importance of activity modification

and exercise, among other things. (Id.)

Mr. White consulted with Tamara Howell—an advance practice registered nurse and

certified nurse practitioner—on December 7, 2022. (Tr. 360.) Mr. White reported that he had been

in continuous back pain since undergoing surgery in December 2020. (Id.) Ms. Howell ordered x-

ray imaging and referred him “back to spine for further evaluation and management.” (Id.)

The ordered lumbar x-ray revealed only “mild degenerative changes.” (Tr. 359, 376.)

Specifically, the imaging showed mild degenerative disc disease at the L5–S1 levels with disc

height loss, degenerative endplate changes, and osteophytes. (Tr. 377.) There was minimal

degenerative endplate changes observed at the L3–L5 levels. (Id.) And there was mild lower

lumbar facet arthropathy. (Id.) The imaging confirmed that there was normal spine curvature, no

significant spondylolisthesis, and preserved vertebral body heights. (Tr. 378.)

Mr. White began physical therapy on December 22, 2022. (Tr. 351.) The therapist noted

that he presented with impairments to his activities of daily living, gait, overall function, range of

motion, and strength—among other things—and that functional performance testing indicated that

he was at risk of falling. (Id.) The plan was for Mr. White to attend 20 therapy sessions over 10

weeks. (Tr. 352.) Mr. White’s pain had improved to some extent after the therapy session. (Tr. 353.)

Mr. White attended an aquatic physical therapy session on December 28, 2022, and the

therapist noted “decreased symptoms.” (Tr. 349.) However, Mr. White experienced difficulty and

increased pain during one exercise, causing the therapist to end the exercise early. (Id.) Overall,

his pain level was “better” after the session. (Tr. 350.)

Mr. White next participated in aquatic physical therapy on January 13, 2023. (Tr. 346.) He

reported feeling “slightly ‘looser’” after the session, and the therapist noted that he would continue

to benefit from ongoing physical therapy. (Id.)

Mr. White consulted with Dr. Constandi again on January 17, 2023. (Tr. 343.) Mr. White

complained of persistent aching low back pain, rating the pain as an eight on a ten scale. (Id.)

On examination, Mr. White displayed no pain on palpation of the lumbar spine, and there

was again full range of motion “without reproducible pain.” (Tr. 344.) Mr. White had normal motor

strength and tone and intact sensation, and he walked with a normal gait. (Id.)

Dr. Constandi noted that computed tomography imaging showed degenerative spine

changes or disc derangements, most notably at the L4–L5 and L5–S1 levels. (Id.) Comparing this

imaging to CT imaging from May 2020, Dr. Constandi opined that “there is suggestion of

progression of a central/RIGHT paracentral disc herniation superimposed on a disc-osteophyte

complex, and with up to estimated moderate-severe right-sided spinal canal and lateral recess

stenoses, . . . stable moderate neural foraminal stenoses[, and] [e]xiting/traversing nerve root

compressions.” (Id.) The overall impression from the imaging was that there was a right central

disc extrusion at the L5–S1 level with suspected sequestered fragment, which was likely impinging

on the descending right S1 nerve root and causing moderate narrowing of the spinal canal. (Id.)

There was also severe right and moderate left foraminal stenosis at that level. (Id.)3

Dr. Constandi recommended that Mr. White continue with physical therapy until magnetic

resonance imaging could be ordered and counseled Mr. White on “the importance of activity

modification . . . [and] exercise . . . .” (Tr. 345.)

3 These findings are similar to those reached after MRI imaging in October 2020. (Tr. 483–84.)

Mr. White participated in aquatic physical therapy on January 18, 2023. (Tr. 339.) The

therapist noted that Mr. White had been seen for three sessions but was showing no improvement

in sitting, rising from a chair, standing, walking, bending, negotiating stairs, or sleeping. (Id.) The

therapist recommended continued aquatic therapy, noting that Mr. White showed improved activity

tolerance in the pool. (Id.) She rated his prognosis as “fair.” (Id.)

Mr. White consulted with Mariana Iskander, a physician assistant, on February 7, 2023.

(Tr. 397.) He complained that his pain had gotten worse since his last appointment and was

currently a nine out of ten. (Id.) He said that physical therapy was making the pain worse and that

he was not taking medication because “they do not help.” (Id.) On examination, his bilateral upper

and lower extremity strength was normal, and there were no atrophy or tone abnormalities noted.

(Tr. 399.) His gait was normal. (Id.) There was no pain on palpation over the spine, and Mr. White’s

range of motion was normal without reproducible pain. (Tr. 398.) Ms. Iskander prescribed an

anticonvulsant medication and ordered an MRI to be completed after his final session of physical

therapy. (Tr. 399.) The plan was to consider injection treatment pending the results of the MRI.

(Id.)

Mr. White completed his last physical therapy session on February 15, 2023. (Tr. 394.) The

therapist noted that he demonstrated improvements in his ability to tolerate more exercise with

fewer breaks. (Id.) She recommended that he continue going to physical therapy. (Id.) But Mr.

White complained that the pressure and pain in his back returns after each session once he gets out

of the pool. (Tr. 395.)

Mr. White underwent an MRI on March 4, 2023. (Tr. 393.) The technician noted that Mr.

White was not currently using an ambulatory assistance device like a cane. (Id.)

This MRI was compared against Mr. White’s October 2020 MRI. (Tr. 401.) The imaging

revealed “improved but residual soft tissue in the right lateral recess.” (Tr. 400.) The radiologist

wrote that this could be “residual/recurrent disc herniation” or postoperative scar formation, but

he could not distinguish between the two without intravenous contrast. (Tr. 400–01.)

The MRI also showed “low-grade” degenerative changes in the lumbar spine. (Tr. 401.)

Specifically, there was mild disc height loss at the L5–S1 levels, with disc desiccation noted at the

L4–L5 and L5–S1 levels. (Tr. 402.) There were no changes from Mr. White’s 2020 MRI observed

at the L1–L2, L2–L3, and L3–L4 levels, with only minimal to moderate findings at those levels.

(Id.) At the L5–S1 levels, the radiologist wrote that the spinal canal and lateral recess patency had

improved since the 2020 scan. (Tr. 403.) But there was moderate to severe right and moderate left

neural foraminal narrowing at that level. (Id.) There was also low signal and architectural distortion

noted in the right lateral recess about the right S1 nerve root sleeve. (Id.)

Mr. White consulted with Ms. Iskander on March 7, 2023. (Tr. 428.) Mr. White reported

that his pain had been worsening since the last appointment. (Id.) He said that physical therapy

had been making his pain worse. (Id.) Ms. Iskander reviewed the recent MRI report, documenting

that the overall impression from the scan was that there were no acute osseous abnormalities and

only “mild degenerative changes” otherwise. (Tr. 429.) On examination, Mr. White’s bilateral

upper and lower extremity strength was normal and symmetric, with no atrophy or tone

abnormalities noted. (Tr. 430.) His gait was normal. (Id.) There was no pain on palpation of the

spine and normal range of motion of the spine without reproducible pain. (Id.) The plan was for

Mr. White to undergo a basivertebral nerve ablation procedure, also known as an Intracept

procedure. (Id.)

Mr. White presented for a preoperative physical examination on April 21, 2023. (Tr. 423.)

He rated his pain as an eight on a ten scale. (Tr. 425.) On examination, his gait was normal, and no

neurological or sensory deficits were noted. (Id.)

Mr. White underwent the Intracept surgery on May 4, 2023. (Tr. 421). The surgery was

successful, with Mr. White endorsing “some overall relief” in the days following the procedure.

(Tr. 422.)

Mr. White consulted with Ms. Iskander on May 9, 2023, following up on the Intracept

procedure and for the removal of sutures. (Tr. 415.) Mr. White reported that his symptoms were

“much improved” since the procedure; he rated his pain as only a five out of ten, and the pain was

identified as soreness around the surgery site. (Id.) Ms. Iskander recommended exercise in the

form of swimming, use of a stationary bike, and home exercise. (Id.) Mr. White was instructed to

call or return if the pain increased, but otherwise he was scheduled for a follow up in three months.

(Id.)

There is no evidence that Mr. White followed up with the pain management clinic for

additional spine care after this appointment.

Mr. White consulted with Brandon Francis, an internal medicine resident, on May 26, 2023.

(Tr. 589.) Mr. White complained of peripheral neuropathy, specifically bilateral hand burning and

tingling, that he said arose after the Intracept procedure. (Id.) He also reported numbness extending

from his buttocks down the back of his legs. (Id.) He denied any other concerns. (Id.) On

examination, there was a positive Phalen’s sign, leading Dr. Francis to opine that Mr. White

probably had bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome unrelated to the Intracept procedure. (Tr. 591–92.)

Mr. White was prescribed wrist braces and instructed to follow up in five weeks. (Tr. 589, 592.)

Dr. Francis also instructed Mr. White to follow up with his pain management providers. (Tr. 589.)

Mr. White presented to the emergency room on August 22, 2023, for a matter unrelated to

the issues in this appeal. (Tr. 577.) In relevant part, though, hospital records reflect that Mr. White

did not complain of back pain during the review of symptoms. (See Tr. 578.)

Dr. Francis completed a medical source statement on January 16, 2024. (Tr. 950–53.) Dr.

Francis identified that Mr. White had been diagnosed with vertebrogenic low back pain, intractable

back spasms, and chronic back pain. (Tr. 950.) He opined that these conditions were “unlikely to

improve,” referring to clinical findings that the strength in Mr. White’s lower extremities was

“extremely limited,” paraspinal tenderness on examination, and the MRI of Mr. White’s lumbar

spine. (Id.)

Dr. Francis opined that Mr. White could sit or stand for only 10 minutes at a time. (Tr. 951.)

The doctor identified that Mr. White could sit for less than two hours in a normal workday and

stand or walk for less than two hours. (Id.) He further opined that Mr. White would need to get up

and walk for two minutes at ten-minute intervals and would further need an unscheduled 20 minute

break every 15 minutes. (Id.) Dr. Francis wrote that Mr. White needed to use a cane or other hand-

held assistive device. (Tr. 952.) He opined that Mr. White was limited in his ability to lift and carry

objects and in his ability to twist, stoop, crouch, climb stairs, and climb ladders. (Id.)

Dr. Francis estimated that Mr. White would be off task for 20 percent of the workday and

was incapable of even low stress work. (Tr. 953.)

IV. THE ALJ’S DECISION

The ALJ found that Mr. White had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since

December 19, 2022, the alleged onset date. (Tr. 21.)

The ALJ next determined that Mr. White had the following severe impairments:

(1) degenerative disk disease of the lumbar spine, with vertebrogenic back pain and chronic pain;

(2) degenerative joint disease of the right shoulder; (3) moderate glenohumeral arthritis;

(4) obesity; (5) obstructive sleep apnea; and (6) asthma. (Id.)

The ALJ then concluded that none of Mr. White’s impairments, whether considered singly

or in combination, met or medically equaled the severity of one of the listed impairments in 20

C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. (Id.)

The ALJ determined that Mr. White had the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to

perform a full range of work at the light exertional level with a number of additional limitations.

(Tr. 23.)

With respect to exertional and environmental limitations, Mr. White is only capable of

standing and walking for four hours out of an eight hour workday. (Id.) He can only occasionally

push or pull with the right upper extremity, reach overhead, and climb ramps and stairs. (Id.) He

can frequently balance but only occasionally kneel, stoop, crouch, and crawl. (Id.) He can never

climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds, and he must avoid exposure to extreme cold and concentrated

exposure to dust, fumes, odors, gases, and poorly ventilated areas. (Id.) He is able to avoid ordinary

hazards in the workplace (boxes on the floor, open doors, approaching vehicles and people, and

the like) but must not be exposed to hazards like “heights or machinery.” (Id.) He can frequently

be exposed to humidity and wetness, dust, odors, fumes and pulmonary irritants, extreme cold, and

extreme heat. (Id.)

With respect to non-exertional limitations, Mr. White has the ability to understand,

remember, and apply information; he can concentrate, persist, and maintain pace to perform

simple, routine, and repetitive tasks. (Id.) He cannot perform at a production rate pace (e.g.,

assembly line work). (Id.) He is limited to simple work-related decisions in using his judgment

and dealing with changes in the work setting. (Id.) He is able to occasionally interact with

supervisors, coworkers, and the public. (Id.)

The ALJ concluded that Mr. White was unable to perform his past relevant work a roofer.

(Tr. 30.) The ALJ found that Mr. White had a high school education and was 43 years old on the

date of his disability application. (Id.)

The ALJ then determined that—considering Mr. White’s age, education, work experience,

and RFC—there were jobs that existed in significant numbers in the national economy that he

could perform, including work as a “price marker” (DOT 209.587-034), “small parts assembler”

(DOT 706.684-022), or “inspector – hand packer” (DOT 559.687-074).4 (Tr. 31.)

The ALJ found that the available jobs as a “price marker” would be reduced by 75 percent

as a result of Mr. White’s walking and standing limitation, but that there would still be 32,800 jobs

nationally. (Id.)

Accordingly, the ALJ concluded that Mr. White was not disabled. (Tr. 32.)

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 Fed. Appx. 315, 320 (6th Cir. 2015) (quoting Cole v. Astrue, 661 F.3d

931, 937 (6th Cir. 2011)); see also 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

“Under the substantial evidence standard, a court looks to an existing administrative record

and asks whether it contains ‘sufficient evidence’ to support the agency’s factual determinations.”

Biestek v. Berryhill, 587 U.S. 97, 102 (2019) (cleaned up) (quoting Consolidated Edison Co. v.

4 These jobs refer to entries in the U.S. Department of Labor’s Dictionary of Occupational Titles. The DOL

no longer publishes the tool—see Browning v. Colvin, 766 F.3d 702, 709 (7th Cir. 2014)—but the most

recent version, from 1991, is available online through the DOL’s Office of Administrative Law Judges Law

Library. Dictionary of Occupational Titles—Fourth Edition, Revised 1991, U.S. DEPT. OF LABOR OFF.

OF ADMIN. L. JUDGES, https://www.dol.gov/agencies/oalj/topics/libraries/LIBDOT.

NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)). The standard for “substantial evidence” is “not high.” Id. While

it requires “more than a mere scintilla,” “[i]t means—and means only—‘such relevant evidence as

a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’” Id. (quoting Consolidated

Edison, 305 U.S. at 229).

In addition to considering whether substantial evidence supports the Commissioner’s

decision, the Court must determine whether the Commissioner applied proper legal standards.

Failure of the Commissioner to apply the correct legal standards as promulgated by the regulations

is grounds for reversal. See, e.g., White v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 572 F.3d 272, 281 (6th Cir.

2009); Bowen v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 478 F.3d 742, 746 (6th Cir. 2006) (“Even if supported by

substantial evidence, . . . a decision of the Commissioner will not be upheld where the SSA fails

to follow its own regulations and where that error prejudices a claimant on the merits or deprives

the claimant of a substantial right.”).

Finally, a district 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.” Fleischer v. Astrue, 774 F. Supp.

2d 875, 877 (N.D. Ohio 2011) (quoting Sarchet v. Chater, 78 F.3d 305, 307 (7th Cir. 1996))

(alteration in original).

B. Standard for Disability

Consideration of disability claims follows a five-step review process. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920.

First, the claimant must demonstrate that she is not currently engaged in “substantial gainful

activity” at the time of the disability application. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(b). Second, the claimant

must show that she suffers from a “severe impairment” in order to warrant a finding of disability.

20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c). A “severe impairment” is one that “significantly limits . . . physical or

mental ability to do basic work activities.” Abbott v. Sullivan, 905 F.2d 918, 923 (6th Cir. 1990)

(quoting 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c) and 416.920(c)).

Third, if the claimant is not performing substantial gainful activity, has a severe impairment

that is expected to last for at least twelve months, and the impairment, or combination of

impairments, meets or medically equals a required listing under 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P,

Appendix 1, the claimant is presumed to be disabled regardless of age, education or work

experience. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d).

Before considering Step Four, the ALJ must determine the claimant’s residual functional

capacity, i.e., the claimant’s ability to do physical and mental work activities on a sustained basis

despite limitations from her impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(e). An RFC “is the most [a claimant]

can still do despite [the claimant’s] limitations.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.945(a)(1). Agency regulations

direct the ALJ to consider the functional limitations and restrictions resulting from a claimant’s

medically determinable impairment or combination of impairments, including the impact of any

related symptoms on the claimant’s ability to do sustained work-related activities. See Social

Security Ruling (“SSR”) 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184 at *5 (July 2, 1996).

“A claimant’s RFC is not a medical opinion, but an administrative determination reserved

to the Commissioner.” Golden v. Berryhill, No. 1:18CV00636, 2018 WL 7079506, at *17 (N.D.

Ohio Dec. 12, 2018), report and recommendation adopted sub nom, 2019 WL 415250 (N.D. Ohio

Feb. 1, 2019). The ALJ is “charged with the responsibility of determining the RFC based on [the

ALJ’s] evaluation of the medical and non-medical evidence.” Rudd v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 531 F.

App’x 719, 728 (6th Cir. 2013). “[T]he ALJ must give some indication of the evidence upon which

he is relying, and he may not ignore evidence that does not support [the ALJ’s] decision, especially

when that evidence, if accepted, would change [the ALJ’s] analysis.” Golden, 2018 WL 7079506

at *17.

At the fourth step, if the claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments does not

prevent her from doing her past relevant work, the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§

416.920(e)–(f). For the fifth and final step, even if the claimant’s impairment does prevent her

from doing her past relevant work, the claimant is not disabled if other work exists in the national

economy that the claimant can perform. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(g). See Abbott, 905 F.2d at 923.

C. Analysis

Mr. White’s two assignments of error raise interrelated and sometimes overlapping issues.

Through them, he argues both that the ALJ failed to adequately evaluate the subjective descriptions

of his pain and its limiting effect, and that the ALJ erred in his consideration of the medical opinion

evidence. As presented in the briefing, both assignments of error touch on both arguments.

For clarity and efficiency, the Court will separate the arguments and take them out of order.

It will first consider all the arguments related to medical opinion evidence (the thrust of the second

assignment of error). Then it will consider all the arguments regarding Mr. White’s subjective

symptoms (the focus of the first assignment of error).

1. Second Assignment of Error – Residual Functional Capacity

In his second assignment of error, Mr. White argues that the ALJ erred when he concluded

that Mr. White had the residual functional capacity for work at the light exertional level. He argues

that this conclusion is not supported by substantial evidence and that the ALJ failed to adequately

explain how the objective medical evidence and the medical opinion evidence supports that

finding. Further, he argues that the ALJ erred in crediting the state agency consultants’ opinions

over that of Dr. Francis, one of Mr. White’s treating physicians. Mr. White points out that the

consultants “were unaware the ablation had failed” and did not review Dr. Francis’s opinion before

concluding that Mr. White could perform work at the light exertional level.

The Commissioner defends the ALJ’s decision, pointing out that the ALJ found the agency

consultants’ opinions only partially persuasive and adopted an RFC that was more limited than

that found in those opinions. The agency further argues that the ALJ’s conclusion with respect to

Dr. Francis’s opinion was supported by substantial evidence.

After careful consideration, the Court agrees with the Commissioner.

Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 98-6p provides that “[i]f the RFC assessment conflicts with

an opinion from a medical source, the [ALJ] must explain why the opinion was not adopted.” 1996

WL 374184, at *7 (July 2, 1996).

Agency regulations state that the Social Security Administration “will not defer or give any

specific evidentiary weight, including controlling weight, to any medical opinion(s) or prior

administrative medical finding(s), including those from [the claimant’s] medical sources.” 20

C.F.R. § 404.1520c(a).

Instead, the SSA considers opinions from medical sources under five factors: (1)

supportability; (2) consistency; (3) relationship with the claimant; (4) specialization; and (5) other

factors, such as familiarity with other evidence in the claim or with the disability program’s policies

and evidentiary requirements. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(c). Section 404.1520c(b)(1) specifically

provides that “it is not administratively feasible for [the ALJ] to articulate in each determination

or decision how [the ALJ] considered all of the factors for all of the medical opinions and prior

administrative medical findings in your case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(b)(1). Of the five

factors, supportability and consistency are the most important, and an ALJ must explain how the

ALJ considered them. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(b)(2). The ALJ “may” but “is not required to” explain

how the ALJ considered the remaining factors. Id.

The “supportability” factor looks to how well the medical source supports the opinion with

objective medical evidence from the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(c)(1). “In other words, the

supportability analysis focuses on the physicians’ explanations of the opinions.” Lavenia v.

Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 3:21cv674, 2022 WL 2114661, at *2 (N.D. Ohio June 13, 2022) (quoting

Coston v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 20-12060, 2022 WL 989471, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 31, 2022)).

The “consistency” factor looks to how consistent the medical opinion is with evidence from other

medical and nonmedical sources. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(c)(2).

“As long as the ALJ discussed the supportability and consistency of the opinion and

supported [the ALJ’s] conclusions with substantial evidence within his decision, the Court will not

disturb [the ALJ’s] decision.” Njegovan v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 5:21-CV-00002-CEH, 2022

WL 1521910, at *4 (N.D. Ohio May 13, 2022).

Mr. White does not cite significant caselaw in support of his position. He focuses his

argument on Dr. Francis’s medical source statement opining that Mr. White had functional

limitations that would preclude competitive employment. In doing so, Mr. White tacitly concedes

that the ALJ considered both supportability and consistency with respect to Dr. Francis’s medical

source statement and the opinions of the state agency consultants.

While Mr. White is correct that Dr. Francis filled out his medical source statement in

December 2024, the agency is correct that the ALJ’s finding with respect to its persuasiveness is

supported by substantial evidence. In other words, the conclusion was supported by “‘such relevant

evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support’” the ALJ’s conclusions.

Biestek v. Berryhill, 587 U.S. 97, 102 (2019) (quoting Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S.

197, 229 (1938)).

“The substantial-evidence standard . . . presupposes that there is a zone of choice within

which the decisionmakers can go either way, without interference by the courts.” Blakely v.

Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 581 F.3d 399, 406 (6th Cir. 2009) (quoting Mullen v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 535,

545 (6th Cir. 1986)). “[T]he Commissioner’s decision cannot be overturned if substantial evidence,

or even a preponderance of the evidence, supports the claimant'’ position, so long as substantial

evidence also supports the conclusion reached by the ALJ.” Jones v. Com’'r of Soc. Sec., 336 F.3d

469, 477 (6th Cir. 2003). A reviewing court may not “try the case de novo, nor resolve conflicts in

evidence, nor decide questions of credibility.” O’Brien v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 819 F. App’x 409,

416 (6th Cir. 2020) (quoting Garner v. Heckler, 745 F.2d 383, 387 (6th Cir. 1984)).

Here, the ALJ found Dr. Francis to be not persuasive. The ALJ reasoned as follows, in part:

The extent of limitations imposed by Dr. Francis’s opinions and necessity

of an assistive device are not consistent with the record. At times, the

claimant had some degree of remarkable examination findings, as noted

above, and attended routine physical therapy sessions . . ., but the more

complete medical record contains relatively unremarkable examination

findings . . . . .

(Tr. 29–30.)

That conclusion was reasonable. Dr. Francis had examined Mr. White once, at an

appointment primarily focused on Mr. White’s carpal tunnel symptoms. On examination, Mr.

White’s findings were largely unremarkable, and he was again instructed to follow up with his

pain management providers, but there is no evidence that Mr. White did so. (Tr. 589.) The objective

medical evidence does not support Dr. Francis’s opined limitations, especially considering the

context in which Mr. White consulted with Dr. Francis.

Specifically, as the ALJ noted, in numerous appointments specifically focused on Mr.

White’s spine pain, physical examinations revealed intact strength and sensation, no pain on

palpation of the lower spine, and full range of motion without reproducible pain. (See Tr. 344, 357,

398, 430.) Radiological imaging revealed degenerative changes, but these were repeatedly

described as “mild” or “low grade.” And Mr. White endorsed improved symptoms after the

Intracept procedure, which limited to no medical records documenting ongoing significant back

pain after that procedure.

Turning to the ALJ’s consideration of the consultants’ medical opinion evidence, the

Commissioner is correct that the ALJ found the agency consultants’ opinions only partially

persuasive. (Tr. 28.) The ALJ limited Mr. White’s RFC beyond that recommended by the

consultants, finding that the record supported limiting Mr. White to standing and walking four

hours in an eight-hour workday. (Tr. 29.)

In coming to these conclusions, the ALJ fully and accurately summarized Mr. White’s

allegations regarding the extent of his pain. (Tr. 24.) The ALJ then went on to identify the evidence

supporting a conclusion that Mr. White was not disabled, including by accurately summarizing the

material relevant objective medical evidence and other evidence in the record, including evidence

that Mr. White was able to drive and go out alone (Id.)

The Court has thoroughly reviewed Dr. Francis’s medical source statement—drafted with

the benefit of apparently only one consultation—and finds that the ALJ did not commit reversible

error in finding that opinion not persuasive in the face of physical examination findings over the

course of treatment revealing only mild to moderate degenerative spine changes.

In other words, the ALJ complied with the Commissioner’s regulations in evaluating Dr.

Francis’s and the state consultants’ opinions and made findings supported by substantial evidence.

Accordingly, Mr. White’s second assignment of error is overruled.

2. First Assignment of Error – Evaluation of Mr. White’s Pain

In his first assignment of error, Mr. White contends that the ALJ failed to properly evaluate

his subjective statements about the pain and functional limitations he experiences, in violation of

Social Security Ruling 16-3p. See SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304 (Oct. 25, 2017). He argues that

his description of his pain and its limiting effect are supported by his own testimony, Dr. Francis’s

medical opinion, and the failure of significant treatment to provide any relief. He points out that

the ALJ did not mention the January 2023 CT imaging, which showed both that a disc extrusion

was likely impinging on a nerve root and severe right and moderate left foraminal stenosis, among

other things. He argues that the ALJ further failed to adequately evaluate the significance of the

March 2023 MRI imaging. He says that these two scans, combined with the fact that he has

undergone two surgical procedures, provide objective evidence overwhelmingly supporting his

subjective testimony.

The Commissioner defends the ALJ’s decision, arguing that the ALJ adequately

summarized Mr. White’s subjective complaints before reasonably finding that they were not fully

consistent with the objective medical evidence. The agency insists that the ALJ did not singularly

focus on objective evidence but also analyzed the subjective statements in the context of opinion

evidence, treatment, and activities of daily living. And it says that the ALJ’s conclusions in this

regard were supported by substantial evidence.

The Commissioner is again correct.

SSR 16-3p provides that the SSA will conduct a two-step process in considering a

claimant’s symptoms. SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *3 (Oct. 25, 2017). At step one, the SSA

determines whether the individual has one or more medically determinable impairments that could

reasonably be expected to produce the individual’s alleged symptoms. Id. If so, at step two, the

SSA evaluates the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms—including pain—to

determine the extent to which those symptoms limit the claimant’s ability to work. Id. at *4.

With respect to a claimant’s subjective statements, SSR 16-3p provides that the SSA will

“consider an individual’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of

symptoms” and “will evaluate whether the statements are consistent with objective medical

evidence and the other evidence.” Id. at *6.

SSR 16-3p identifies seven factors that the SSA will consider in evaluating an individual’s

symptoms: (1) daily activities; (2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain or other

symptoms; (3) factors that precipitate and aggravate symptoms; (4) the type, dosage, effectiveness,

and side effects of any medication; (5) treatment an individual receives or has received other than

medication; (6) any measures other than treatment an individual uses or has used; and (7) any other

factors concerning the claimant’s functional limitations and restrictions. Id. at *7–8. “The ALJ

need not analyze all seven factors but should show that she considered the relevant evidence.”

Phillips v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 3:22-CV-01144-JGC, 2023 WL 4078204, at *8 (N.D. Ohio

Apr. 4, 2023), report and recommendation adopted, 2023 WL 5602726 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 30, 2023).

Notably, “[a] plaintiff does not demonstrate a violation of SSR 16-3p simply by reiterating

the same subjective symptoms she believes should have been credited by the ALJ, as an ALJ is not

required to accept a claimant’s subjective complaints.” Zingale v. Kijakazi, No. 1:20-cv-02197,

2022 WL 824148, at *8 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 18, 2022); see also Jones v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 336

F.3d 469, 477 (6th Cir. 2003) (“[A]n ALJ is not required to accept a claimant’s subjective

complaints”). Moreover, “[i]t is for the administrative law judge, not the reviewing court, to judge

the consistency of a claimant’s statements.” Lipanye v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 802 F. App’x 165,

171 (6th Cir. 2020). However, while determinations regarding subjective complaints rest with the

ALJ, “those determinations must be reasonable and supported by substantial evidence.” Rogers v.

Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 486 F.3d 234, 249 (6th Cir. 2007).

Here, the ALJ thoroughly and accurately summarized Mr. White’s allegations and

testimony regarding his symptoms and their limiting effect. (See Tr. 24–25.) The ALJ then,

reasonably, found that his medically determinable impairments could cause his symptoms. (Id.)

But the ALJ ultimately concluded that Mr. White’s allegations about the debilitating effect of his

pain was not fully supported by the record.

This conclusion was reasonable. An ALJ is not required to discuss every piece of evidence

in the record. E.g., Thacker v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 99 Fed. App’x 661, 665 (6th Cir. 2004). Here,

the ALJ discussed the relevant imaging (MRI imaging was discussed in the medical records as

preferrable to CT imaging) and accurately found that—during physical examinations, Mr. White’s

gait was normal. The ALJ acknowledged Mr. White’s testimony and the records reflecting

decreased range of motion, antalgic gait, and pain. (E.g., Tr. 26.) The ALJ weighed that evidence

against the numerous instances where examinations were materially normal. The ALJ further

correctly assessed that physical therapy resulted in improvement in Mr. White’s ability to tolerate

movement, with further beneficial effects expected from continued sessions. And the ALJ

accurately reviewed the MRI imaging as revealing low-grade degenerative changes within the

lumbar spine that are not suggestive of further limitations. (Tr. 27.)

In conclusion, the Court agrees that the ALJ did not singularly focus on objective evidence

but properly analyzed Mr. White’s subjective statements in the context of all opinion evidence, his

treatment, and his activities of daily living. The ALJ’s conclusions in this regard were supported

by substantial evidence.

Accordingly, Mr. White’s first assignment of error is overruled.

VI. CONCLUSION

Having overruled Mr. White’s assignments of error for the reasons set forth above, the

Court AFFIRMS the Commissioner’s final decision.

Dated: February 2, 2026 /s Jennifer Dowdell Armstrong

Jennifer Dowdell Armstrong

U.S. Magistrate Judge