The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
GREGORY SHANE JONES, ) CASE NO. 1:25-cv-00873
)
Plaintiff, ) JUDGE BRIDGET MEEHAN BRENNAN
)
v. )
)
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL ) MEMORANDUM OPINION
SECURITY, ) AND ORDER
)
Defendant. )
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Reuben Sheperd’s Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) recommending the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision be affirmed. (Doc. 10.)
Plaintiff Gregory Shane Jones (“Jones”) timely filed an objection (Doc. 11), and Defendant
Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) responded (Doc. 12).
For the following reasons, Jones’ objections are OVERRULED. The R&R is
ACCEPTED and ADOPTED, and the Commissioner’s final decision is AFFIRMED.
I. BACKGROUND
Jones did not object to the factual record and procedural history in the R&R. (Doc. 10.)1
Notwithstanding, the Court summarizes the facts pertinent to his objections.
A. Medical History
1. Physical Impairments
On October 16, 2018, Jones underwent multiple hip procedures, including a right hip
arthroscopy, to address right-side hip pain. (Doc. 5 at 303.) During follow-up visits in
November and December 2018, his right hip was noted as showing improvement. (Id. at 317,
1 For ease and consistency, briefing citations reflect the electronically stamped CM/ECF
document and PageID# rather than any internal pagination.
319, 321.) He also discussed increasing pain in his left hip. (Id. at 317.) An MRI was
conducted which revealed tearing of the acetabular labrum. (Id. at 319.) During a January 2019
visit, Jones indicated his right hip was continuing to improve, although it became sore when he
was “working 10 hour jobs.” (Id. at 321.)
On April 15, 2019, Jones claimed he returned to 10-hour workdays which resulted in
increasing hip pain and soreness. (Id. at 324.) In July, he complained of a high level of pain in
his left hip despite physical therapy and using anti-inflammatories. (Id. at 325.) An MRI
revealed a labral tear. (Id.)
On August 28, 2019, Jones underwent a similar procedure on his left hip. (Id. at 305.)
Six weeks later, he was noted as doing “really well” and his left hip pain had significantly
improved. (Id. at 330.) In December, he was noted as having full range of motion in his left hip
and was happy with the outcome of his surgery. (Id. at 332.) By March 2020, he had no pain on
his left side although he reported pain in his right hip that was different than what he experienced
prior to his 2018 surgery. (Id. at 334.) An x-ray revealed a “large CAM type deformity” and a
“partial sacralization of L5 on the right consistent with a transitional vertebra.” (Id. at 339.) He
was given injections of lidocaine and Depo-Medrol. (Id. at 334.)
On July 21, 2020, Jones underwent a functional assessment at the Cleveland VA Medical
Center where he reported “almost constant pain” in his right hip along with groin and inner thigh
pain. (Id. at 644.) The assessment revealed he could perform all activities of daily living
without assistance. (Id. at 648.) He was recommended to return to physical therapy for his right
hip and lumbar spine. (Id.) Throughout 2020, Jones attended physical therapy. (See id. at 515-
22, 535-52.)
On December 9, 2020, Jones underwent an MRI which showed multiple bulging discs
and degenerative changes in the L4/L5 region which “matched his pain concerns.” (Id. at 495.)
On November 4, 2021, Jones underwent a new functional assessment. (Id. at 463-68.) He
reported constant pain with his lumbar spine and hips. (Id. at 464.) His pain was exacerbated
during weight bearing activities and when he sits for greater than 25 minutes. (Id.) He was
noted as having a normal range of motion and 5/5 strength throughout, with a worsening gait.
(Id. at 465-66.) He was also assessed as having right sided S1 radiculopathy and bilateral labral
pathology of his hips. (Id. at 468.)
On August 11, 2022, an x-ray was taken of Jones’ lumbar spine, pelvis, and right hip,
which revealed moderate disc space loss at L5-S1 and normal alignment, along with lumbosacral
arthritis. (Id. at 685.)
2. Mental Impairments
On April 8, 2019, Jones met with an internist at the Cleveland VA Medical Center who
referred him for headaches potentially related to a traumatic brain injury (“TBI”). (Id. at 603.)
He believed these headaches may have been the result of an assault in 2003 or an incident in
2016 where he hit his head on a table. (Id.) Later that month, he attended a TBI consultation
where he reported daily headaches and memory problems. (Id. at 595-99.) He claimed to also
experience photophobia, nausea, dizziness, hearing difficulty, tinnitus, and difficulty sleeping.
(Id. at 597.) These two incidents were assessed as “mild TBI/concussion[s]” and he was noted as
having a very good prognosis. (Id. at 598.)
On June 6, 2019, Jones attended a mental health consultation at the Cleveland VA
Medical Center where he reported decreased energy and motivation, disturbed sleep, fluctuating
appetite, and that he had experienced a recent panic attack at his daughter’s birthday. (Id. at
586.) At a later consultation, he reported his stress had decreased because he had resolved a
divorce and had graduated from college. (Id. at 570-72.) He also discussed how his post-
traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”) had affected a recent vacation. (Id.)
On June 16, 2021, Jones was referred to the SHARE Military Initiative program for
evaluation of his symptoms related to his TBIs and PTSD. (Id. at 432.) There, he discussed an
incident in 2000 where he was near percussion from gunfire for a sustained period, along with
the head injuries he sustained in 2003 and 2016. (Id. at 432-33.) He reported headaches,
decreased short and long-term memory, irritation from overstimulation, decreased motivation,
and dizziness, among other symptoms. (Id.) He was assessed with a mild TBI, PTSD,
posttraumatic headaches, and insomnia, among other diagnoses. (Id. at 437, 440.)
On July 16, 2021, Jones underwent a VA intake assessment and was noted as being
anxious, on guard, and experiencing broken sleep and memory impairments. (Id. at 702.) He
reported a history of depression, triggered by panic and anxiety. (Id. at 708, 711.) He was also
noted as experiencing depression, anxiety, anger, difficulty managing stress, severe discord at
home, and difficulty connecting with any civilian. (Id. at 711.)
On January 31, 2022, Jones reported compliance with medications and improved sleep.
(Id. at 381.) In May, he reported he was active in his church and in a stable mood. (Id. at 380.)
He stated “I’m doing amazing in managing my pain.” (Id.)
On May 15, 2023, Jones claimed he had been fired from his job because he used physical
means to discipline an unruly child, although he was amnestic of the incident and its aftermath.
(Id. at 1113.) His mood declined after the incident, although it improved after his he and his
wife decided to start a new business together as travel agents. (Id.)
On May 10, 2024, Jones reported he was working part-time at a local YMCA and denied
new PTSD concerns. (Id. at 1071.) He also denied feeling hopeless, helpless, or suicidal. (Id.)
B. Treating Source and Consultative Examiner Opinions
On July 7, 2020, Jones underwent a psychological consultative examination with Dr.
Bryan Krabbe (“Krabbe”) where he was diagnosed with major depressive disorder, unspecified
anxiety disorder, and an unspecified alcohol-related disorder which was in remission. (Id. at
352-58.) He described a decrease in attention and concentration that could result from his
depression and anxiety. (Id. at 357.) Krabbe also determined his mental health problems would
impact his work performance, especially when presented with critical supervisory feedback and
maintaining appropriate co-worker relationships. (Id. at 358.) His anxiety may also compromise
his ability to respond to work pressures and lead to an increased likelihood of agitation. (Id.)
On August 11, 2022, Jones saw Dr. Dorothy Bradford (“Bradford”) for a physical
consultative examination which found normal strength in all muscle groups and normal range of
motion in all joints. (Id. at 689.) She determined Jones has mild degenerative joint disease of
the right hip, a normal gait, and that he can perform sedentary activity. (Id.)
Jones underwent multiple evaluations from Supervisory Physical Therapist Christopher
Wood (“Wood”). (Id. at 466-68, 648, 802-03, 807-10.) On July 21, 2020, Wood determined he
was capable of performing all activities of daily living without assistance. (Id. at 648.) At a later
appointment in November, Wood performed a functional assessment of Jones which found he
tested into the sedentary work category. (Id. at 466-68.) He was assessed as having a worsening
gait and multiple physical and environmental limitations. (Id.) Separately, on November 10,
2021, Wood completed a Physical Residual Functional Capacity (“RFC”) Questionnaire which
found Jones was capable of low stress jobs, could sit for up to 20 minutes, stand for 5 to 10
minutes, and that he would be absent from work on average 2 to 3 days per month. (Id. at 809-
10.) On April 11, 2023, Wood completed a Medical Impairment Questionnaire Regarding
Illnesses, Physical Abilities, and Limitations where he determined Jones suffered from moderate
to severe pain, would be “off task” from work due to his impairments 25% or more of the time,
and that his impairments would lead him to be absent from work 3 to 4 days a month. (Id. at
802-03.)
Jones also received several psychological evaluations from Dr. Dietrich Schelzig
(“Schelzig”). (Id. at 804-06, 811-12, 1032-33.) On October 5, 2021, Schelzig completed a
Medical Source Statement of Ability to do Work-Related Activities, finding Jones was slightly
impaired with respect to his ability to understand and remember detailed instructions, carry them
out, and make judgments on simple work-related decisions. (Id. at 811.) In addition, his
punctuality and attendance would be impaired, along with his abilities to interact with
supervisors, the public, and co-workers. (Id. at 812.) On March 21, 2023, Schelzig completed a
Mental Impairment Questionnaire specific to Jones’ PTSD, finding he would be off task at work
15% of the time and would miss work due to his PTSD symptoms more than 3 times per month.
(Id. at 804.) He would be moderately impaired in completing tasks in a timely manner, avoiding
distractions while working, and working a full day without needing the allotted number of rest
periods afforded. (Id. at 805.) On November 13, 2024, Schelzig completed a Mental
Impairment Questionnaire that found Jones would be off task 15% of the time due to his
impairments, be absent from work 1 or less days per month, and have mild limitations in
completing work at a consistent pace, in a timely manner, and in regularly attending work,
among other categories. (Id. at 1033.)
C. State Agency Reports
On June 29, 2022, state agency reviewing psychologist Dr. Karla Delcour (“Delcour”)
found Jones was moderately impaired with respect to interacting with others, to concentrate,
persist, or maintain pace, and to adapt or manage himself. (Id. at 91.) He was moderately
limited in carrying out detailed instructions, maintaining attention and concentration, sustaining
an ordinary routine without special supervision, and in completing a normal workday and
workweek. (Id. at 95.) He was also noted as being able to work in a non-crowded environment
and able to complete short cycle work tasks that are routine and do not require him to work at a
fast pace. (Id.) On reconsideration, Delcour’s findings were affirmed by Dr. Kristen Haskins
(“Haskins”), with additional moderate limitations noted in Jones’ ability to accept instructions
and respond appropriately to criticism from supervisors, and his ability to get along with co-
workers or peers without distracting them or exhibiting behavioral extremes. (Id. at 112-122.)
On August 16, 2022, state agency reviewing physician Mehr Siddiqui (“Siddiqui”) found Jones
was limited to light exertion and could sit or stand for 6 hours during an 8-hour workday. (Id. at
93-94.) He was occasionally limited in climbing ramps and stairs, stooping, kneeling, crouching,
and crawling, and frequently limited when balancing. (Id. at 93.) On reconsideration, Siddiqui’s
opinion was affirmed with no changes. (Id. at 121-22.)
D. Application for Supplemental Security Income and Disability Insurance
Benefits
On June 10, 2022, Jones applied for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) and
Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”). (Id. at 197-203.) He alleged a disability onset date of
October 9, 2019. (Id. at 197.) On August 16, 2022, his claims were denied. (Id. at 37.)
Reconsideration was denied on November 3, 2022. (Id.) On November 15, 2022, Jones filed a
written request for a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). (Id.)
1. First Hearing
On April 26, 2023, Jones, who was represented by counsel, testified before an ALJ. (Id.
at 56-82.) He testified he had served in the military for 21 years and previously worked at TT
Electronics as a senior test technician before his hip surgeries. (Id. at 64-65.) After his children
are at school, Jones would do chores around the house and volunteer at his church. (Id. at 68-
69.) He testified he is no longer attending physical therapy because the VA ended his referrals.
(Id. at 70.) Each month, he sees a VA mental health counselor. (Id. at 71-72.) He claims he has
days at least twice a week where it is difficult for him to get out of bed due to the physical pain
he is experiencing or because of his mental health. (Id. at 77-78.)
On July 18, 2023, the ALJ determined Jones was not disabled and entitled to SSI or DIB.
(Id. at 37-50.) On September 14, 2023, the Appeals Council declined review. (Id. at 23-28.)
On November 13, 2023, Jones filed suit in the Northern District of Ohio. (See Case. No. 23-cv-
2203, Doc. 1.) On April 12, 2024, the parties submitted a Joint Stipulation to Remand to the
Commissioner requesting that “[o]n remand, the Appeals Council will instruct the [ALJ] to
further consider the Plaintiff’s claim, to include offering Plaintiff a new hearing, taking any
further action necessary to complete the administrative record, and issuing a new decision.”
(Doc. 14.) The Motion was granted, and the case was remanded to the ALJ for a new hearing.
(Doc. 15.)
On July 9, 2024, the Appeals Council vacated the previous decision of the ALJ and
ordered the resolution of the following issues: (1) the hearing decision does not contain an
adequate evaluation of the claimant’s TBIs; and (2) the hearing decision does not contain an
adequate evaluation of the medical source opinions and prior administrative medical findings.
(Id. at 934-35.) The Appeals Council also ordered the ALJ to: (1) further evaluate whether
Jones’ TBI is severe; (2) give further consideration to the medical source opinions and prior
administrative medical finings; and (3) give further consideration to Jones’ maximum RFC. (Id.
at 935.)
2. Second Hearing
On December 9, 2024, a second hearing was held before the same ALJ. (Id. at 848-94.)
A vocational expert was also present. (Id. at 870.) Jones testified he had tried several forms of
employment since his last hearing. Until August 2024, he worked as a wellness coach at a local
YMCA and had opened a travel agency with his wife. (Id. at 877-78, 880.) He also volunteered
at his church and is a member of the local school board. (Id. at 880.) He reported stress-related
headaches several times a month and that since leaving the military he has had trouble
maintaining structure in his life. (Id. at 882, 888-89.)
On January 3, 2025, the ALJ found that Jones was not disabled and entitled to SSI and
DIB. (Id. at 841-61.) The ALJ made the following findings of fact:
1. The claimant meets the insured status requirements of the Social Security Act
through September 30, 2025.
2. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since October 9,
2019, the alleged onset date (20 CFR 404.1571 et seq., and 416.971 et seq.).
3. The claimant has the following severe impairments: lumbosacral arthritis,
minimal right hip arthritis, status post bilateral hip surgeries for labral tears,
posttraumatic stress disorder, anxiety, and major depressive disorder (20 CFR
404.1520(c) and 416.920(c)).
4. The claimant does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that
meets or medically equals the severity of one of the listed impairments in 20
CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (20 CFR 404.1520(d), 404.1525,
404.1526, 416.920(d), 416.925 and 416.926).
5. After careful consideration of the entire record, the undersigned finds that the
claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform light work as defined
in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) and 416.967(b) except he could never climb ladders,
ropes, or scaffolds. He could occasionally climb ramps or stairs. He could
occasionally stoop, kneel, or crouch. He could never crawl. He could
occasionally balance. He should avoid unprotected heights, commercial
driving, and hazardous machinery. He should avoid work in a very loud
environment. He should avoid extreme cold and extreme heat. He should avoid
concentrated exposure to vibrations. He can understand, carry out, and
remember simple instructions. He cannot perform work requiring a specific
production rate pace, such as assembly-line work or an hourly production quota.
He can meet production requirements that allow a flexible and goal-oriented
pace. He can maintain the focus, persistence, concentration, pace, and attention
to engage in such tasks for two-hour increments, for eight-hour workdays,
within the confines of normal work breaks and lunch periods. He can work in a
routine work environment with no greater than occasional changes. He could
tolerate occasional interactions with supervisors, coworkers, and the general
public.
6. The claimant is unable to perform any past relevant work (20 CFR 404.1565
and 416.965).
7. The claimant was born on July 27, 1979 and was 40 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).
8. The claimant has at least a high school education (20 CFR 404.1564 and
416.964).
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 disabled,” whether or not the claimant has transferable
job skills (See SSR 82-41 and 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2).
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,
416.969, and 416.969a).
11. The claimant has not been under a disability, as defined in the Social Security
Act, from October 9, 2019, through the date of this decision (20 CFR
404.1520(g) and 416.920(g)).
E. Appeal of ALJ Decision
On May 1, 2025, Jones filed the instant case. (Doc. 1.) He raised four assignments of
error:
1. The ALJ’s residual functional capacity appraisal reflects legal error and
lacks support from substantial evidence secondary to a failure to
meaningfully consider and account for the residuals of Plaintiff’s traumatic
brain injury.
2. The ALJ’s determination reflects legal error and lacks support from
substantial evidence secondary to her failure to abide by the regulations
governing the consideration of opinion evidence as well as unsupported
findings made by the adjudicator in the course of appraising the
persuasiveness of the opinion evidence of record.
3. The ALJ failed to abide by the Appeals Council’s remand order.
4. The ALJ’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence and the
Commissioner’s position is not substantially justified.
(Doc. 6 at 1170.) Jones argued that, despite the Appeals Council’s order, the ALJ’s decision did
not explain how his TBI and its related symptoms were factored into the RFC. (Id. at 1172.) In
addition, Jones argued the ALJ committed reversible error when considering the medical
opinions of Wood, Schelzig, Krabbe, Delcour, and Haskins, specifically as it relates to not
adopting their findings and addressing their consistency and supportability. (Id. at 1174-84.)
On November 20, 2025, Magistrate Judge Sheperd recommend this Court affirm the
Commissioner’s decision. (Doc. 10.) The R&R assessed the ALJ’s determination that Jones’
TBI was not severe was supported by substantial evidence, and then noted that the ALJ complied
with the Appeals Council’s order by considering his TBI and other injuries when determining his
RFC. (Id. at 1236.) The R&R also addressed the ALJ’s reliance on the medical opinions of
Wood, Schelzig, and Krabbe. It noted that the ALJ addressed both the consistency and
supportability factors of each and evaluated their persuasiveness. This finding was supported by
substantial evidence. (Id. at 1238, 1240, 1243.) Lastly, the R&R agreed with the Commissioner
that the ALJ properly evaluated the findings of state agency reviewing psychologists Delcour
and Haskins, and that she adopted their restrictions in her RFC determination, even though she
used different terminology. (Id. at 1246.)
Jones timely raised six objections:
1. The ALJ’s failure to meaningfully consider and account for Plaintiff’s TBI
when appraising his residual functional capacity represents error regardless of
whether or not the impairment was properly classified as non-severe at step two.
2. The ALJ fails to properly explain her application of the supportability factor to
the explanations provided by SPT Wood in support of his opinions.
3. The ALJ did not explain how the daily activities she tallies conflict with the
opinion evidence of record or otherwise create a logical bridge between the
evidence cited and her conclusions regarding functional restrictions.
4. The ALJ did not appraise the persuasiveness of Dr. Schelzig’s 2024 opinion or
otherwise meaningfully account for the same in her analysis.
5. The “moderate” paragraph B ratings from Dr. Schelzig are not indicative of the
presence or absence of specific functional restrictions.
6. The ALJ did not reasonably account for the purportedly persuasive limitations
identified by Drs. Delcour and Haskins.
(Doc. 11 at 1250-54.)
II. ANALYSIS
A. Legal Standard
1. Reviewing Objections to an R&R
A district court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)
(flush language); see Powell v. United States, 37 F.3d 1499 (Table), 1994 WL 532926, 1994 U.S.
App. LEXIS 35044, at *1 (6th Cir. Sept. 30, 1994) (“Any report and recommendation by a
magistrate judge that is dispositive of a claim or defense of a party shall be subject to de novo
review by the district court in light of specific objections filed by any party.”) (citations omitted).
“A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (flush language).
Objections that simply restate arguments asserted in the briefs and addressed in the
Report and Recommendation constitute general objections. Middleton v. Octapharma Plasma,
Inc., No. 19-1943, 2020 WL 5000070, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 9585, *3 (6th Cir. Mar. 26, 2020).
That is, objections that “simply repeat[], in general fashion, the argument presented to—and
rejected by—the Magistrate Judge” do not trigger de novo review. Lanning v. Comm’r of Soc.
Sec., No. 20-cv-1676, 2022 WL 122643, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7196, at *10 (N.D. Ohio Jan.
13, 2022) (collecting cases). General objections are “tantamount to no objection at all” and do
not receive de novo review. Id.; see also Howard v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 932 F.2d
505, 508-09 (6th Cir. 1991) (recognizing that general objections duplicating the time and effort
of the district court and magistrate judge waste judicial resources).
To receive de novo review of portions of a Report and Recommendation, the stated
objection must “address specific concerns” with the Report and Recommendation in order to
“focus attention on those issues . . . that are at the heart of the parties’ dispute.” Howard, 932
F.2d at 509 (quoting Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 147, 106 S. Ct. 466, 88 L. Ed. 2d 435
(1985)). “An objection preserves an issue when it explains and cites specific portions of the
report which counsel deems problematic.” Robert v. Tesson, 507 F.3d 981, 994 (6th Cir. 2007)
(internal quotations and alterations omitted). “[V]ague, general, or conclusory objections do not
meet the requirement of specific objections. . . .” Frias v. Frias, No. 18-cv-00076, 2019 WL
549506, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22682, *6 (M.D. Tenn. Feb. 12, 2019) (quoting Cole v. Yukins, 7
F. App’x. 354, 356 (6th Cir. 2001)).
New objections or arguments not presented to the Magistrate Judge are not reviewable.
Murr v. United States, 200 F.3d 895, 902 n.1 (6th Cir. 2000). That is, “[t]he party objecting to
an R&R cannot raise in the district court a new argument or issue that was not presented to the
Magistrate Judge.” Oberacker v. Noble, No. 17-cv-2547, 2018 WL 2772501, 2018 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 97636, at *3 (N.D. Ohio June 11, 2018). The failure to raise objections or arguments to
the Magistrate Judge constitutes waiver. Murr, 200 F.3d at 902 n.1.
2. Reviewing Disability Determinations
The Social Security Act defines “disability” 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).
The impairment must prevent the claimant from doing the claimant’s previous work, as
well as any other work which exists in significant numbers in the region where the individual
lives or in several regions of the country. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A). In making a disability
determination, an ALJ engages in a five-step sequential evaluation:
1. If the claimant is doing substantial gainful activity, he is not disabled.
2. If the claimant is not doing substantial gainful activity, his impairment must be
severe before he can be found to be disabled. To be severe, the claimant must
have a severe medically determinable physical or mental impairment, or a
combination of impairments, that must have lasted or be expected to last for at
least 12 months, unless it is expected to result in death.
3. If the claimant is not doing substantial gainful activity and is suffering from a
severe impairment that has lasted or is expected to last for a continuous period
of at least twelve months, and his impairment meets or equals a listed
impairment in Appendix 1 to Subpart P of Part 404, the claimant is presumed
disabled without further inquiry.
4. If the impairment does not meet or equal a listed impairment, the ALJ must
assess the claimant’s residual functional capacity and use it to determine if the
claimant’s impairment prevents him from doing past relevant work. If the
claimant’s impairment does not prevent him from doing his past relevant work,
he is not disabled.
5. If the claimant is unable to perform past relevant work, he is not disabled if,
based on his vocational factors and residual functional capacity, he is capable
of performing other work that exists in significant numbers in the national
economy.
20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920; see also Quisenberry v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 757 F. App’x
422, 426 (6th Cir. 2018) (citing Walters v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 127 F.3d 525, 529 (6th Cir.
1997)).
During the first four steps, the claimant bears the burden of proof. Walters, 127 F.3d at
529. The “burden shifts to the Commissioner only at step five.” Id.
The Court’s review of the Commissioner’s decision to deny benefits is limited to
determining whether the ALJ applied the correct legal standards and whether the findings are
supported by substantial evidence. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Kyle v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 609 F.3d
847, 854 (6th Cir. 2010). “Substantial evidence is ‘more than a scintilla of evidence but less than
a preponderance; it is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion.’” McGlothin v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 299 F. App’x 516, 521 (6th Cir.
2008) (quoting Rogers v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 486 F.3d 234, 241 (6th Cir. 2007) (internal
citation omitted)). “The standard ‘presupposes that there is a zone of choice within which the
decisionmakers can go either way, without interference by the courts.’” Edwards v. Comm’r of
Soc. Sec., No. 23-5490, 2024 WL 2705000, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 3315, at *3-4 (6th Cir. Feb.
12, 2024) (quoting Mullen v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 535, 545 (6th Cir. 1986) (en banc)). If substantial
evidence supports the Commissioner’s finding that the claimant is not disabled, that finding must
be affirmed even if the reviewing court would decide the matter differently. Cutlip v. Sec’y of
Health & Hum. Servs., 25 F.3d 284, 286 (6th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted).
A reviewing court is not permitted to resolve conflicts in evidence or to decide questions
of credibility. Bass v. McMahon, 499 F.3d 506, 509 (6th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). The
Commissioner’s decision must be affirmed even if the claimant’s position is also supported by
substantial evidence. Wallace v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 221 F.3d 1337 (Table), 2000 WL 799749,
2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 24244, at *1 (6th Cir. 2000) (citing Casey v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.
Servs., 987 F.2d 1230, 1233 (6th Cir. 1993)). “Yet, 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.’” Rabbers v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 582 F.3d 647, 651 (6th Cir. 2009)
(quoting Bowen v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 478 F.3d 742, 746 (6th Cir. 2007)).
B. First Objection: The ALJ did not Account for Jones’ TBIs when
Determining his RFC
To the extent Jones seeks de novo review of the substantive conclusions in the R&R
regarding his first objection, it fails because it merely repeats the same arguments made to the
Magistrate Judge. See Lanning, 2022 WL 122643, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7196, at *10. The
R&R considered and rejected his arguments. Notwithstanding, the record does not support his
objection.
Jones does not challenge the ALJ’s finding that his TBIs were not severe, nor does he
contest the ALJ’s RFC determination was not supported by substantial evidence. (Doc. 11 at
1251.) Rather, he requests remand “so that the ALJ might specifically consider and account for
the TBI in appraising his [RFC].” (Id.) While the R&R determined that the ALJ complied with
the Appeals Council’s remand order to further consider Jones’ TBI in her RFC, Jones claims the
R&R makes no citations to the record to support this contention. (Doc. 10 at 1236; Doc. 11 at
1250-51.) Jones also argues the cases relied on in the R&R do not support the conclusion that
the ALJ sufficiently addressed his TBIs. (Id.)
On review, the Court finds that the R&R sufficiently cited to the record to support the
contention that the ALJ complied with the Appeals Council’s remand order to further consider
Jones’ TBI in her RFC. The R&R first cited the ALJ’s discussion of Jones’ TBIs, including a
recitation of the underlying incidents, treatment Jones sought, and his progress. (Doc. 10 at
1235.) The R&R then cited the ALJ’s determination that from the record, Jones’ TBI was non-
severe. (Id.) Taken together, the R&R concluded the ALJ “articulated substantial evidence that
supported her determination that the TBI was not a severe impairment[.]” (Id.) Finally, the
R&R discussed that regardless of how the ALJ characterized Jones’ TBI, as severe or non-
severe, the ALJ stated “she took into account all impairments, severe or not, when assessing
Jones’ RFC.” (Id.) From this, the R&R concluded: “As the ALJ properly considered all of
Jones’ impairments when determining his RFC, with specific attention paid to his TBI, she
complied with the mandate of the Appeals Council order.” (Id. at 1236.) Jones’ objection that
the R&R does not sufficiently cite to the ALJ’s decision is without merit.
So too is Jones’ objection that case law cited in the R&R does not support the Magistrate
Judge’s conclusion on this issue. The R&R cited the ALJ’s recitation of Jones’ TBI, including
the conclusion that it was non-severe. (Id. at 1235.) In so doing, the R&R cited the ALJ’s
reasoning which included “the remote nature of the injury, the treatment [Jones] has received to
address the injury, and the limited ongoing symptoms [Jones] endures.” (Id.) But even if the
ALJ erred in determining his TBI as non-severe, the R&R explained, there was no reversable
error nonetheless because the ALJ considered all impairments in crafting her RFC. (Id.) On this
point, the R&R cited case law supporting this legal proposition. See Fisk v. Astrue, 253 F. App’x
580, 583 (6th Cir. 2007); Nejat v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 359 F. App’x 574, 577 (6th Cir. 2009);
Kirkland v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 528 F. App’x 425, 427 (6th Cir. 2013). There is nothing
incorrect about the statement of law. Jones’ objection, therefore, is without merit.
The ALJ was under no legal obligation to specifically mention Jones’ non-severe
impairments, including his TBI, because she made clear her decision was controlled by SSR 98-
6p. Emard, 953 F.3d at 851-52; see also Napier v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 127 F.4th 1000, 1007
(6th Cir. 2025) (applying Emard and finding the ALJ’s statement that they “considered all the
symptoms” was sufficient in determining that non-severe impairments were considered in their
RFC analysis). District courts interpreting Emard and Napier have found that, even where an
ALJ does not reference a claimant’s non-severe impairments in their RFC assessment, the ALJ’s
analysis may still satisfy SSR 96-8p if it: “(1) refers to SSR 96-8p in the decision; (2) discusses
how the claimant’s non-severe impairments functionally limit the claimant (if at all) at Step Two;
and (3) provides a subsequent assurance that all symptoms and the entire record were considered
when assessing an RFC.” Forsch v. Bisignano, No. 24-cv-1365, 2025 WL 2307920, 2025 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 154189, at *22 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 11, 2025) (collecting cases). All three factors are
met here. First, the ALJ states her RFC analysis is governed by SSR 96-8p. (See Doc. 5 at 846
(citing SSR 96-8p).) Second, at step two, the ALJ discussed how Jones’ TBI had caused him
“ongoing headaches, distraction, and being easily irritated by stimulation.” (Id. at 847.) Third,
on at least three occasions, the ALJ emphasized that she considered all of Jones’ medically
determinable impairments—severe or otherwise—in her decision, along with the entire record.
(Id. at 846-47, 850.)
Jones’ first objection is overruled.
C. Second Objection: The ALJ failed to Apply the Supportability Factor to the
Explanations found in Wood’s Opinions
As an initial matter, Jones’ objection reiterates the same argument made before the
Magistrate Judge: that the ALJ insufficiently considered Wood’s supporting explanations. The
Magistrate Judge considered this issue and rejected it. Merely repeating the same argument
presented and rejected in the R&R is insufficient. See Lanning, 2022 WL 122643, 2022 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 7196, at *10. For this reason alone, Jones’ second objection is overruled. That said,
even considering the objection on de novo review, the record does not support Jones’ argument.
Jones argues the ALJ did not adequately explain the supportability of Wood’s opinions
because she only addressed the objective medical evidence and not Wood’s supporting
explanations, as required by 20 C.F.R. §404.1520c(c)(1). (Doc. 11 at 1252; see also Doc. 6 at
1174-75 (objecting to same).) The R&R concluded the ALJ properly addressed the
supportability factor, highlighting that she found the objective medical evidence did not support
the restrictions suggested by Wood. (Doc. 10 at 1239.) To Jones, the R&R only cited to
“examination findings documented by the provider (i.e., the objective evidence presented by the
source),” and no supporting explanations, warranting remand. (Doc. 11 at 1251-52.)
Even if the Court were to consider the objection further, it is without merit. Initially, it is
not altogether clear Wood provided any supporting explanations for the ALJ to consider which
underlies Jones’ objection. And Jones cites to none. (Id.) Wood’s two medical opinions are, as
the ALJ and R&R noted, questionnaires which provide little to no space for an explanation of his
findings. (Doc. 5 at 802-03, 807-10, 855.) “[T]he Sixth Circuit has held that a checkbox
physician opinion without explanation is ‘patently deficient.’” Hunt v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No.
21-cv-00075, 2022 WL 4599246, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177949, at *6 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 29,
2022); Hernandez v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 644 F. App’x 468, 475 (6th Cir. 2016).
Nonetheless, the ALJ’s opinion indicates she considered the available supporting
explanations of Wood alongside objective medical evidence. The ALJ noted that Wood
described “limited range of motion and weakness in the lumbar spine and hips.” (Doc. 5 at 856.)
This language is identical to Wood’s explanation of Jones’ symptoms in his 2023 opinion,
although the ALJ does not directly cite to it. (Id. at 802.) Similarly, the ALJ mentioned Jones’
“loss of sensation, guarding, and impaired weight-bearing,” which Wood used to explain Jones’
symptoms and clinical findings in his 2021 opinion. (Compare id. at 856 with id. at 807.)
Similar findings are present throughout Woods’ treatment notes. (Id. at 468 (noting “frequent
compensating and guarding”); id. at 1125 (describing lumbar spine and hip weakness).) The ALJ
further cited to several objective medical findings from Wood’s treatment records which Jones
does not dispute. (Id.) This shows the ALJ’s assessment of the supportability factor was both
procedurally sound and supported by substantial evidence.
Jones’ second objection is overruled.
D. Third Objection: The ALJ did not Explain how the Daily Activities she Cited
Created a Logical Bridge to her RFC Determination
Jones argues the ALJ did not create a “logical bridge” between the daily activities she
cited and her RFC determination. (Doc. 6 at 1252-53.) Specifically, Jones takes issue with the
ALJ’s rejection of any absenteeism and time-off-task restrictions. (Id. at 1252.) To Jones, the
ALJ’s decision is “devoid of explanation as to how the cited activities demonstrate a capacity for
sustained functioning,” making them “incompatible with the limitations at issue.” (Id.) He
objects that the R&R did not meaningfully address this problem. (Id.)
Jones did not raise this issue in his Brief on the Merits. Therefore, the Magistrate Judge
had no occasion to specifically address the issue he now raises. For that reason alone, Jones’
third objection is overruled. Murr, 200 F.3d at 902 n.1; Oberacker, 2018 WL 2772501, 2018
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97636, at *3.
E. Fourth Objection: The ALJ did not Address the Persuasiveness of Schelzig’s
2024 Opinion or Otherwise Account for it in her Analysis
This objection reiterates the same argument made before the Magistrate Judge: that the
ALJ failed to consider Schelzig’s 2024 opinion in light of Schelzig’s other opinions. The
Magistrate Judge considered this issue and rejected it. Merely repeating the same argument
presented and rejected in the R&R is insufficient. See Lanning, 2022 WL 122643, 2022 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 7196, at *10. For this reason alone, Jones’ fourth objection is overruled.
Notwithstanding, even considering the objection on de novo review, the record does not support
Jones’ argument.
Jones argues the ALJ failed to appraise the persuasiveness of Schelzig’s 2024 opinion and
did not properly account for it when drawing conclusions regarding Schelzig’s other opinions.
(Doc. 11 at 1253.) In turn, Jones argues the R&R similarly does not account for the ALJ’s
neglect of the 2024 opinion. (Id.) The R&R noted the ALJ must have considered it because she
cited to it in her analysis of Schelzig’s findings. (Doc. 10 at 1240.) To Jones, this determination
is insufficient because the “Magistrate Judge does not address that the ALJ’s subsequent
description of Schelzig’s opinions is incompatible with any implied accounting for the 2024
opinion.” (Doc. 11 at 1253.)
An ALJ is “not required to articulate how [they] considered each medical opinion or prior
administrative medical finding from one medical source individually.” Daniels v. Comm’r of
Soc. Sec., No. 19-cv-2946, 2020 WL 6913490, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 219908, at *25 (N.D.
Ohio Nov. 24, 2020). “In other words, the regulations do not require a separate, individual
persuasiveness analysis for every medical opinion from a single source, but they do expect the
ALJ to articulate how she considered the multiple ‘medical opinions . . . together in a single
analysis.” Johnson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 25-cv-00658, 2026 WL 874119, 2026
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68832, at *39-40 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 31, 2026) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c).
The ALJ—and the R&R—did so here. The ALJ cited to Schelzig’s three medical
opinions in 2021, 2023, and 2024. (Doc. 5 at 858.) The ALJ discussed findings from the 2024
opinion which concluded Jones may be absent from work at least one day per month. (Id.; see
also id. at 1032.) The ALJ must be referring to the 2024 opinion because neither the 2021 nor
2023 opinions make this determination. (See id. at 804, 811-12.) Schelzig’s finding that Jones
would be off task due to physical/psychological problems 15% of the day is also mentioned in
his 2024 opinion. (Id. at 1032.) So too are the mild limitations in Jones’ ability to learn, recall,
or use information to perform work activities that are mentioned by the ALJ. (Id. at 858; see also
id. at 1034.) While Jones argues the ALJ’s “subsequent description of Dr. Schelzig’s opinions is
incompatible with any implied accounting for the 2024 opinion,” this assertion is incorrect.
(Doc. 11 at 1253.) The ALJ makes clear reference to the 2024 opinion on multiple occasions
before discussing the persuasiveness of Schelzig’s opinions as a whole, which is unchallenged by
Jones.
Jones’ fourth objection is overruled.
F. Fifth Objection: Schelzig’s Paragraph B Ratings are not Indicative of the
Presence or Absence of Specific Functional Limitations
This objection is a specific objection to the R&R. Therefore, the Court conducts de novo
review of the objection raised. Jones argues the ALJ improperly concluded Schelzig’s opinions
regarding absenteeism and time-off task were inconsistent with Schelzig’s ratings of the
paragraph B criteria. (Doc. 11 at 1254.) Essentially, Jones argues that, pursuant to the
regulations, “[P]aragraph B criteria ratings do not correlate with the presence or absence of
specific [RFC] restrictions.” (Id. at 1253-54.) To Jones, Schelzig—who is not the ALJ—
erroneously made Paragraph B findings which the ALJ later used in Jones’ RFC assessment.
(Id.) In turn, Jones argues the R&R, in accepting the ALJ’s conclusion on this issue, failed to
sufficiently explain why the ALJ was correct. (Id.)
The Social Security regulations expressly spell out how ALJs must evaluate mental
impairment severity. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520a. First, an ALJ must evaluate the record to determine
if a claimant has medically determinable mental impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520a(b)(1).
Second, the ALJ must “rate the degree of functional limitation resulting from” those impairments
within four broad functional areas, known as the “paragraph B” criteria. 20 C.F.R. §
404.1520a(b)(2). “Those four areas are: (a) understanding, remembering, or applying
information; (b) interacting with others; (c) concentrating, persisting, or maintaining pace; and
(d) adapting or managing oneself.” Young v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 23-cv-01435, 2024 WL
3715441, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140699, at *4 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 8, 2024) (citing 20 C.F.R. §
404.1520a(c)(3)). If the claimant’s limitations are “mild” or less for each area, the claimant’s
mental impairments are usually non-severe. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520a(d)(1).
Paragraph B criteria “are not an RFC assessment but are used to rate the severity” of a
mental impairment at steps two and three of the evaluation process. SSR 96-8p, 1996 WL
374184, at *4. “Rather, a claimant’s RFC is formulated at Steps Four and Five, ‘which requires a
more detailed assessment by itemizing the various functions contained in the broad categories
found in paragraphs B and C.’” James v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 19-cv-570, 2020 WL 836493,
2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28813, at *29 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 20, 2020) (citing SSR 96-8p, 1996 WL
374184, at *4).
While Jones correctly asserts that “both Social Security’s own rules and applicable case
law readily affirm that paragraph B criteria ratings do not correlate with the presence or absence
of specific [RFC] restrictions,” that is not what took place here. The “moderate” limitations
assessed by Schelzig and mentioned by the ALJ come from his three medical opinions and not
any alleged Paragraph B determination he might have made. The ALJ cites these findings, and
not her own Paragraph B determinations, in her assessment of Schelzig’s opinions. (Doc. 5 at
804-06, 858, 1032-34.) In any event, Schelzig’s opinions and the ALJ’s Paragraph B findings
often differ. (Compare id. at 849 with id. at 805-06, 1033-34.) Thus, the ALJ did not
erroneously apply her own Paragraph B findings as an RFC assessment.
Jones’ fifth objection is overruled.
G. Sixth Objection: The ALJ did not Account for the Limitations Identified by
State Agency Reviewing Psychologists
This objection reiterates the same argument made before the Magistrate Judge: that the
ALJ failed to adopt certain limitations identified by the state agency reviewing psychologist.
The Magistrate Judge considered this issue and rejected it. Merely repeating the same argument
presented and rejected in the R&R is insufficient. See Lanning, 2022 WL 122643, 2022 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 7196, at *10. For this reason alone, Jones’ sixth objection is overruled.
Notwithstanding, the objection lacks merit.
Jones’ takes issue with the ALJ allegedly not adopting two limitations identified by state
agency reviewing psychologists Delcour and Haskins: (1) that Jones work in a “non-crowded”
environment and (2) that he can complete “short cycle work tasks.” (Doc. 6 at 1183-84; Doc. 11
at 1254-55.) Jones argues the ALJ did not explain why these restrictions were not adopted even
though she found Delcour and Haskins’ findings “generally persuasive.” (Doc. 5 at 857.) The
R&R determined the ALJ adopted these recommendations by converting them into “vocationally
relevant terms” when assessing Jones’ RFC. (Doc. 10 at 1245-65 (citing Doc. 5 at 857).) To
Jones, converting these restrictions into vocationally relevant terms caused the ALJ to adopt
restrictions not fully supported by Delcour and Haskins, while failing to explain her departure
from their recommendations. (Doc. 11 at 1255.)
“The Social Security Act instructs that the ALJ—not a physician—ultimately determines
a claimant’s RFC.” Coldiron v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 391 F. App’x 435, 439 (6th Cir. 2010); 20
C.F.R. § 404.1546(c) (“[T]he administrative law judge . . . is responsible for assessing your
residual functional capacity.”). “Even where an ALJ provides ‘great weight’ to an opinion, there
is no requirement that an ALJ adopt a state agency psychologist’s opinions verbatim; nor is the
ALJ required to adopt the state agency psychologist’s limitations wholesale.” Reeves v. Comm’r
of Soc. Sec., 618 F. App’x 267, 275 (6th Cir. 2015). In addition, an ALJ “is not required to
explain [her] reasons for declining to include certain limitations in a state agency reviewing
psychologist opinion.” Mullins v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 20-cv-747, 2021 WL 2524971, 2021
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114659, at *7-8 (N.D. Ohio June 21, 2021) (citing Martin v. Comm’r of Soc.
Sec., 658 F. App’x 255, 259 (6th Cir. 2016)).
As an initial matter, both Delcour and Haskins are state agency reviewing psychologists,
and the ALJ need not explain why she did not adopt their limitations. Mullins, 2021 WL
2524971, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114659 at *7-8. Notwithstanding, the ALJ adopted their
limitations, although not verbatim. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge did not commit error by
finding the ALJ converted the findings into vocationally relevant terms.
First, the ALJ adopted their limitation that Jones is capable of work in a “non-crowded
environment.” (Doc. 5 at 850; id. at 95.) Delcour and Haskins wrote “C[laimant] can interact
with others on an occasional and infrequent basis, in a non-crowded environment.” (Id. at 95,
120.) Finding their opinions persuasive, the ALJ limited Jones to “occasional interactions with
supervisors, coworkers, and the general public,” meaning less than one-third of the time or in
total “no more than about 2 hours of an 8-hour workday.” (Doc. 5 at 850.) Jones contends this
limitation says nothing about whether his work environment would be “crowded,” and the ALJ
failed to explain why this portion of the limitation was not adopted. (Doc. 11 at 1254.) The
limitation of occasional interactions with supervisors, coworkers, and the general public accounts
for this limitation and does not countenance remand. (Doc. 10 at 1246.) The ALJ was also under
no obligation to adopt this limitation verbatim or to explain her reasons for not adopting it
wholesale. White, 970 F. Supp. 2d at 753. That she converted the limitation into “more
vocationally relevant terminology” is no legal error. (Doc. 5 at 857.)
Second, and similarly, the ALJ adopted Delcour and Haskins’ limitation to “short cycle
work tasks,” although not verbatim. Delcour and Haskins wrote “[t]he [claimant] can complete
short cycle work tasks that are routine and predictable and do not require him to work at a fast
pace to meet strict time or production demands.” (Id. at 95, 120.) In her RFC determination, the
ALJ found Jones “cannot perform work requiring a specific production rate pace, such as
assembly-line work or an hourly production quota.” (Id. at 850.) He is also limited to working
in a “routine work environment with no greater than occasional changes.” (Id.) The ALJ also
restricted Jones to tasks “for two-hour increments.” (Id.) Again, converting the limitation was
no legal error.
Jones’ sixth objection is overruled.
I. CONCLUSION
For the reasons herein, Plaintiff Gregory Shane Jones’ objections are OVERRULED.
The Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED, and the final decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: July 21, 2026 uf
BRIDGET MEEH. RENNAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE