Case law

Jones v. Commissioner of Social Security

933 F. Supp. 2d 934 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 19, 2013

Plaintiff said she could accomplish personal care needs, but qualified this as depending on her pain level. (Tr. 155). … Osorio told Plaintiff she "clearly [could] not do that". (Tr. 441). . Later, Plaintiff said she had told her doctor about her medication side effects. (Tr. 40). .

Khasawneh

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 29, 2026

Second, the ALJ must establish whether a claimant has a severe medically determinable impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 416.924(d). … Konieczny opined G.A.L. had “no more than mild difficulty in attending and completing tasks” is inaccurate – his opinion clearly implies that on those occasions when she was having PTSD flashbacks, her limitations in this

Vaughn v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Apr 11, 2022

Karnani is not qualified to make that sort of vocational judgment. (ECF Doc. 16 p. 2.) … Karnani’s treatment records clearly reflect that he considered the supportability of Dr.

Bryant v. Wilkie

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Nov 17, 2021

The Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits discrimination against a “qualified individual on the basis of disability.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). … In her Amended Complaint, Bryant clearly alleges that Arthur was “angry” because Bryant “filed a complaint [against] Mrs. Deal” and because Arthur’s name “came up in [Bryant’s] complaint multiple time[s].” (Doc.

Best Process Solutions, Inc. v. Blue Phoenix Inashco USA, Inc.

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 28, 2021

Here, BPS’s allegations are sufficient to allow the Court to reasonably infer that technical information regarding its RecoverMax system could qualify as a trade secret. … the parties here specifically providing that WPI would not be liable for severance payments, FLF's claim that WPI has been ‘unjustly’ enriched because it has not made those same payments is clearly

Payne

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 10, 2026

But the ALJ “need not discuss listings that the [claimant] clearly does not meet, especially when the claimant does not raise the listing before the ALJ.” See Sheeks, 544 F.App’x at 641. … But there was no other evidence establishing any of the other factors that allow an ALJ to determine whether Mr. Payne’s headaches were equal in severity and duration to dyscognitive seizures under Listing 11.02.

Jones v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 12, 2022

The ALJ “need not discuss listings that the applicant clearly does not meet.” Sheeks v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 544 F. App’x 639, 641 (6th Cir. 2013). … “If, however, the record ‘raises a substantial question as to whether [the claimant] could qualify as disabled’ under a listing, the ALJ should discuss that listing. Id.

Borawski v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 3, 2021

On February 7, 2017, Borawski saw Michael Kelly, M.D., for a spine consult and to establish care. (Id. at 274.) … that it qualifies as a “necessary device” under SSR 96-9p.

Paddock Enterprises, LLC v. United States

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 21, 2023

fifty-one paragraphs to discussing TCBC’s contribution to the contamination of Jaite Mill and subsequent interactions with various cite to a single case which supports the idea that the later chronological activity, pursuit, qualifies … Paddock clearly referred to the Permit in its pleading. The Permit is also central to Paddock’s claims.

Schmitt v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 15, 2021

“However, the ALJ’s failure to follow the Agency’s procedural rule does not qualify as harmless error where we cannot engage in ‘meaningful review’ of the ALJ’s decision.” Id. … Kranz’s opinions, which clearly relate to the relevant period. Additionally, one imaging study referred to by the ALJ indicating mild degenerative changes relates to Claimant’s low back, not his knees or hands.

Barkhauer v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Apr 15, 2025

An “ALJ should discuss the relevant listing, however, where the record raises ‘a substantial question as to whether [the claimant] could qualify as disabled’ under a listing.” Smith-Johnson, 579 F. … While there is no listing for headaches, SSR 19-4p provides guidance on how “primary headache disorders” such as migraines are established and evaluated, SSR 19-4p, 84 Fed.

Deal v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Apr 11, 2023

Deal argues that the ALJ erred because his materiality finding was made without the benefit of opinion evidence on the issue and, therefore, based on the ALJ’s lay interpretation of medical records he was not qualified … SSR 13-2p, 2013 SSR LEXIS 2, at *26 (“To support a finding that DAA is material, we must have evidence in the case record that establishes that a claimant with a co-occurring mental disorder(s) would not be disabled in

Rojas Figueroa v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Nov 22, 2024

Generally, these regulations are duplicates and establish the same analytical framework. … But the ALJ “need not discuss listings that the [claimant] clearly does not meet, especially when the claimant does not raise the listing before the ALJ.” Sheeks v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 544 F.

Plagens v. Deckard

District Court, N.D. Ohio · May 9, 2024

“To meet the predominance requirement, a plaintiff must establish that issues subject to generalized proof and applicable to the class as a whole predominate over those issues that are subject to only individualized … The notice “must clearly and concisely state in plain, easily understood language” all the information specified in Rule 23(c)(2)(B)(i)–(vii). Id. Further, the notice must comply with due process. See Barnes v.

In re TransDigm Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 1:17 CV 1677

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 19, 2020

certain kind of rosy affirmation commonly heard from corporate managers and numbingly familiar to the marketplace—loosely optimistic statements that are so vague, so lacking in specificity, or so clearly … The court stated that “our cases firmly establish the rule that soft information must be disclosed only if ... virtually as certain as hard facts.”

Donald v. Social Security Administration

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Dec 13, 2021

The ALJ’s decision “must contain specific reasons for the weight given to the individual’s symptoms, be consistent with and supported by the evidence, and be clearly articulated so the individual and any subsequent reviewer … Nor does it resolve the fact that the observation of possible malingering was qualified by a warning that such a determination was not made “with any degree of accuracy.”

Adams v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 3, 2023

The Court also rejects Adams’ argument that the ALJ erred in discounting the Whole Body Assessment because it constitutes objective evidence which the ALJ was not qualified to reject. … In the instant case, the ALJ clearly articulated her reasons for finding Adams capable of performing work as set forth in the RFC and these reasons are supported by substantial evidence.

Padilla v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Dec 13, 2024

Padilla is not eligible for DIB benefits because he never worked and therefore never met the insured-status requirements of the Social Security Act; further, he did not qualify for child disability benefits. … Bowen, 35 F.3d 1027, 1036 (6th Cir. 1994) (“If an ALJ rejects a claimant’s testimony as incredible, he must clearly state his reason for doing so.”).

Arsham v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 22, 2023

“If, however, the record raises a substantial question as to whether the claimant could qualify as disabled under a listing, the ALJ should discuss that listing.” See Sheeks, 544 F. … Bowen, 35 F.3d 1027, 1036 (6th Cir. 1994) (The ALJ must clearly explain her reasons for discounting subjective complaints).

McClough v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 31, 2023

The burden then shifts to the Commissioner at Step Five to establish whether the claimant has the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform available work in the national economy. Id. … In the normal course, as a result, the ALJ need not discuss listings that the applicant clearly does not meet, especially when the claimant does not raise the listing before the ALJ.