Sillanpaa v. Commissioner of Social Security

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SARA S., 	Case No. 2:25-cv-52
Plaintiff, 	Hon. Hala J. Jarbou
Chief U.S. District Judge
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
________________________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This 	Report 	and 	Recommendation 	addresses 	Plaintiff’s 	appeal 	of
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Arman Rouf’s decision denying Plaintiff’s request
for Supplement Security Income (SSI). This appeal is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g).
The record before the Court demonstrates that Plaintiff suffers from several
severe medically determinable impairments, including osteoarthritis of the bilateral
knees, 	degenerative 	disc 	disease 	of 	the 	lumbar 	spine, 	asthma, 	and 	obesity.
Additionally, Plaintiff also has documented Type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypertension,
hyperlipidemia, foot abrasions, anxiety disorder, and depressive disorder. 	Plaintiff
was 46 years old on her alleged onset date and is currently 49 years old. Plaintiff has
a bachelor’s degree in social work. Her last job was between 2013 and 2014 as a child
welfare case advocate.
Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ’s formulation of Plaintiff’s Residual Functional
Capacity (RFC) and decision at Step Three erroneously applies the law. 	Plaintiff’s
Case 2:25-cv-00052-HYJ-MV ECF No. 16, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/11/26 Page 1
of 14

2
primary arguments are: (1) that the ALJ failed to consider Plaintiff’s right tibial
tendinitis and right third toe tendinitis 1 or capsulitis, (2) that the ALJ’s conclusions
in steps three and five did not reflect all of Plaintiff’s relevant limitations, and (3)
that the ALJ failed to consider a closed period of benefits.
In response, the Commissioner asserts that: (1) Plaintiff has failed to show that
her right tibial tendinitis and right third toe tendinitis or capsulitis are additional
severe medical determinable impairments, (2) Plaintiff has failed to show additional
limitations for absenteeism were required, and (3) the record does not support a
closed period of disability.
For the reasons stated below, the undersigned respectfully recommends that
the Court affirm the ALJ’s decision.
I. 	Procedural History
A. 	Key Dates
The ALJ’s decision notes that Plaintiff applied for SSI on August 30, 2022,
alleging an onset date of August 1, 2022. ECF No. 3-2, PageID.28. Plaintiff’s claim
was initially denied by the Social Security Administration (SSA) on November 27,
2023. 	Id. 	The claim was denied on reconsideration on February 21, 2023. 	Id.
1 The parties’ briefing and the medical records refer to both “tendinitis” and
“tendonitis.” It appears the condition may be spelled either way. See Cleveland Clinic,
Tendonitis 	(July 	18, 	2023), 	https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/10919-
tendonitis. 	Additionally, 	Plaintiff 	refers 	to 	an 	evaluation 	of 	her 	conditions 	by
podiatrist Dr. David Wood on February 22, 2022. Dr. Wood’s assessment notes state
“posterior tibial tendinitis, right” and “tendinitis or capsulitis of the right 3rd toe.”
ECF No. 3-7, PageID.408. Accordingly, the undersigned will refer to the condition as
“tendinitis” for consistency.
Case 2:25-cv-00052-HYJ-MV ECF No. 16, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/11/26 Page 2
of 14

3
Plaintiff then requested a hearing before an ALJ. 	ALJ Arman Rouf conducted a
hearing on Plaintiff’s claim on November 27, 2023, and issued his decision on
February 9, 2024. 	Id., PageID.36. 	Plaintiff timely filed this lawsuit on March 28,
2025. ECF No. 1.
B. 	Summary of ALJ’s Decision
The ALJ’s decision correctly outlines the five-step sequential process for
determining whether an individual is disabled. ECF No. 3-2, PageID.29-30.
At Step One, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial
gainful activity (SGA) from August 30, 2022. Id., PageID.30.
At Step Two, the ALJ found that the Plaintiff had the following severe
impairments: osteoarthritis of the bilateral knees, degenerative disc disease of the
lumbar spine, asthma, and obesity. Id. In a portion of his decision, the ALJ discussed
several non-severe impairments, including Type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypertension,
hyperlipidemia, foot abrasions, anxiety disorder, and depressive disorder. 	Id.,
PageID.30. 	The ALJ also discussed the Paragraph B criteria. 	The ALJ found that
Plaintiff had no limitations understanding, remembering or applying information; no
limitations interacting with others; no more than mild limitation concentrating,
persisting, or maintaining pace; and no limitations in adapting or managing oneself.
Id., PageID.31.
At Step Three, the ALJ found that the Plaintiff did not have an impairment or
combination of impairments that met or medically equaled the severity of one or more
of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. 	Id.,
Case 2:25-cv-00052-HYJ-MV ECF No. 16, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/11/26 Page 3
of 14

4
PageID.31-32. 	The ALJ specifically commented on the impairments set forth in
listings 1.15, 1.16 and 1.18. 	Id., PageID.32. 	The ALJ determined that Plaintiff’s
lumbar spine disorder and osteoarthritis of the bilateral knees did not satisfy the
functional criteria in the listings. Id. Additionally, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff’s
COPD did not meet the criteria in listing 3.03. Id.
Before going on to Step Four, the ALJ found that the Plaintiff had the following
RFC:
to perform sedentary work as defined in 20 CFR 416.967(a) except they
can occasionally climb ramps and stairs, balance, stoop, kneel, crouch,
and crawl. They can never climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds. They can
occasionally push, pull, or operate foot controls with the bilateral lower
extremities. They must avoid exposure to unprotected heights and
dangerous moving machinery. They must avoid exposure to extreme
heat 	or 	cold. 	They 	can 	tolerate 	occasional 	exposure 	to 	vibration,
humidity, dust, odors, fumes, and other pulmonary irritants
Id.
The ALJ devoted two and a half pages to discussing Plaintiff’s RFC. 	This
discussion included the following:
x 	a summary of the regulations regarding how the ALJ will address
Plaintiff’s symptoms, id.,
x 	a summary of Plaintiff’s statements, id., PageID.33,
x 	a summary of the medical records relating to treatment for Plaintiff’s
low back and right lower extremity pain, including a laminectomy with
bilateral foraminotomies surgery on December 23, 2022, id.,
x 	a summary of the opinion by Michelle Manley, D.O., who found Plaintiff
could stand and walk for up to two hours in an eight-hour day and could
Case 2:25-cv-00052-HYJ-MV ECF No. 16, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/11/26 Page 4
of 14

5
perform postural activities occasions with restrictions. 	Id., PageID.34.
Ashok Sachdev, M.D. affirmed Dr. Manley’s assessment. Id.
x 	a prior ALJ decision dated January 21, 2021, which ALJ Rouf did not
find persuasive because there was new and material medical evidence,
relevant work, and work experience since the prior decision, id., and
x 	an explanation of how the ALJ arrived at his decision on the Plaintiff’s
RFC, id., PageID.34-35.
At Step Four, the ALJ concluded that the Plaintiff was unable to perform Past
Relevant Work (PRW). Id., PageID.35.
At Step Five, the ALJ considered Plaintiff’s age, education, work experience
and RFC and concluded that other jobs existed in the national economy that Plaintiff
could perform. Id.
II. 	Standard of Review
Review of an ALJ’s decision is limited to two issues: (1) “whether the ALJ
applied the correct legal standards,” and (2) “whether the findings of the ALJ are
supported by substantial evidence.” 	Winslow v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 566 F. App’x
418, 420 (6th Cir. 2014) (quoting Blakley v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 581 F.3d 399, 405
(6th Cir. 2009)); 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The Court may not conduct a de novo review of
the case, resolve evidentiary conflicts, or decide questions of credibility. 	Garner v.
Heckler, 745 F.2d 383, 387 (6th Cir. 1984). 	It is the Commissioner who is charged
with finding the facts relevant to an application for disability benefits, and the
Case 2:25-cv-00052-HYJ-MV ECF No. 16, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/11/26 Page 5
of 14

6
Commissioner’s findings are conclusive provided they are supported by substantial
evidence. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
Substantial evidence is defined as more than a mere scintilla of evidence but
“such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support
a conclusion.” Jones v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 945 F.2d 1365, 1369 (6th Cir.
1991). In determining the substantiality of the evidence, the Court must consider the
evidence on the record as a whole and whatever evidence in the record fairly detracts
from its weight. 	Richardson v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 735 F.2d 962, 963
(6th Cir. 1984) (citations omitted). 	The substantial evidence standard presupposes
the existence of a zone within which the decision maker can properly rule either way,
without judicial interference. 	Mullen v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 535, 545 (6th Cir. 1986)
(citation 	omitted). 	This 	standard 	affords 	the 	administrative 	decision 	maker
considerable latitude and acknowledges that a decision supported by substantial
evidence will not be reversed simply because the evidence would have supported a
contrary decision. Bogle v. Sullivan, 998 F.2d 342, 347 (6th Cir. 1993).
III. 	Analysis
A. Additional Medically Determinable Impairments
Plaintiff argues that the ALJ failed to consider her right tibial tendinitis and
right 	third 	toe 	tendinitis/capsulitis 	among 	Plaintiff’s 	medically 	determinable
impairments. 	ECF No. 12, PageID.1088. 	The Commissioner responds that it is
unclear whether Plaintiff’s leg and toe tendinitis were separate impairments, that
the ALJ fully accounted for Plaintiff’s leg impairments, and that neither Plaintiff’s
Case 2:25-cv-00052-HYJ-MV ECF No. 16, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/11/26 Page 6
of 14

7
leg nor toe tendinitis satisfied the 12-month durational requirement. 	ECF No. 14,
PageID.1106.
Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a), an ALJ compares a claimant’s self-
reported symptoms to the objective medical evidence. ALJ Rouf considered claimant’s
report of low back and right lower extremity pain. 	ECF No. 3-2, PageID.33. 	Next,
ALJ 	Rouf 	noted 	the 	results 	of 	claimant’s 	January 	2022 	MRI 	that 	revealed
degenerative disc disease at L4-5 and L5-S1, with moderate canal stenosis and mild
foraminal narrowing at L4-5 and facet arthropathy at both levels. 	Id. 	ALJ Rouf
determined that after the claimant underwent L4-5 laminectomy with bilateral
foraminotomies on December 23, 2022, her condition improved. Id. In fact, the ALJ
noted that by August 2023, the claimant reported walking 10-15 minutes twice per
day. Id.
Plaintiff faults the ALJ for not explicitly acknowledging her right tibial
tendinitis and right third toe tendinitis/capsulitis. However, ALJ Rouf explained that
he “considered all symptoms and the extent to which these symptoms can reasonably
be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence” in
his determination of Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity. ECF No. 3-3, PageID.79.
The Sixth Circuit has explained that “we don’t require an ALJ to discuss every
piece of evidence in the record.” 	Showalter v. Kijakazi, 2023 U.S. App. Lexis 6245,
2023 WL 2523304 at *10 (6th Cir. March 15, 2023) (citation omitted). 	Instead, the
Court must “determine whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support
th[e] conclusion.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
Case 2:25-cv-00052-HYJ-MV ECF No. 16, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/11/26 Page 7
of 14

8
Here, ALJ Rouf sufficiently considered Plaintiff’s lower extremity impairments
in his determination. 	ECF No. 3-2, PageID.33 (commenting on claimant’s low back
pain, lower extremity pain, and chronic right knee pain). Accordingly, in the opinion
of the undersigned, ALJ Rouf’s decision was supported by substantial evidence on the
record and any failure to mention Plaintiff’s right tibial tendinitis and right third toe
tendinitis/capsulitis does not rise to reversible error.
B. 	Twelve-Month Durational Requirement
Even if the ALJ errored in not considering Plaintiff’s right tibial tendinitis and
right third toe tendinitis/capsulitis, the impairments did not satisfy the 12-month
durational requirement. 	At Step II, the ALJ determines whether a claimant’s
impairments 	are 	severe 	and 	whether 	each 	impairment 	meets 	the 	durational
requirement. 	The durational requirement states, “[u]nless your impairment is
expected to result in death, it must have lasted or must be expected to last for a
continuous period of at least twelve months.” 	20 C.F.R. §ௗ404.1509. 	If a claimant
does not have a severe medically determinable impairment or combination of
impairments that meet the durational requirement, the ALJ will find the claimant is
not disabled. 20 C.F.R. §ௗ404.1520(a).
Here, Plaintiff cites to her medical records that first identify complaints of pain
in the third toe on February 3, 2022. ECF No. 3-7, PageID.408. On October 11, 2022,
Plaintiff’s medical records note “bilateral lower extremity edema.” 	Id., PageID.581.
This is the last treatment record pertaining to Plaintiff’s right tibial tendinitis and
right third toe tendinitis/capsulitis. 	Plaintiff does not refute this nine-month
Case 2:25-cv-00052-HYJ-MV ECF No. 16, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/11/26 Page 8
of 14

9
durational calculation in her response. ECF No. 15, PageID. 1120. Instead, Plaintiff
argues that, regardless of the duration, the ALJ is required to consider the combined
effects of all medically determinable impairments. Id.
As set forth above, in the opinion of the undersigned, the ALJ’s decision was
supported by substantial evidence on the record, and he adequately considered
Plaintiff’s lower extremity impairments. 	Nevertheless, even if the ALJ failed to
account for Plaintiff’s right tibial tendinitis and right third toe tendinitis/capsulitis,
the record supports that these conditions lasted only nine months. Accordingly, the
impairments do not meet the twelve-month durational requirements and would not
be considered among Plaintiff’s severe medically determinable impairments to
change the ALJ’s RFC conclusions. Thus, in the opinion of the undersigned, the ALJ’s
failure 	to 	consider 	Plaintiff’s 	right 	tibial 	tendinitis 	and 	right 	third 	toe
tendinitis/capsulitis constitutes at most harmless error.
C. Absenteeism
Additionally, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ errored at Steps Three and Five by
not reflecting Plaintiff’s absenteeism limitations in the RFC. 	ECF No. 12, PageID.
1093. In response, the Commissioner asserts that Plaintiff’s absenteeism allegations
are speculative. ECF No. 14, PageID.1109.
The Social Security regulations state that an RFC must be based on relevant
evidence in the record, including “treatment, other than medication, an individual
receives 	or 	has 	received 	for 	relief 	of 	pain 	or 	other 	symptoms.” 	20 	C.F.R. 	§
416.929(c)(3)(v).
Case 2:25-cv-00052-HYJ-MV ECF No. 16, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/11/26 Page 9
of 14

10
Plaintiff 	argues 	that 	her 	relevant 	medical 	history 	shows 	numerous
appointments each month for her severe medically determinable impairments. ECF
No. 12, PageID.1094-95. 	Plaintiff asserts that these frequent appointments each
month 	indicate 	that 	she will be 	absent 	from 	work 	frequently. 	ECF 	No. 	12,
PageID.1094. 	However, 	Plaintiff 	does 	not 	provide 	any 	evidence 	that 	these
appointments could not be scheduled for times outside of the workday. See Pryor v.
Commissioner of Social Security, 2015 WL 12683977 at *7 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 21, 2015),
report and recommendation adopted, 2015 WL 6735336 (“Pryor has not established
any reason to think that he is unable to attend physical therapy sessions after work,
on the weekends, during lunch, or on some other schedule. The claimant is tasked
with providing evidence in support of his alleged disability.”)
In the opinion of the undersigned, Plaintiff has not established that ALJ Rouf
errored by failing to include a limitation regarding absenteeism.
D. Closed Period of Benefits
Next, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred in failing to consider a closed period
of benefits. 	ECF No. 12, PageID.1095-96. 	Plaintiff underwent back surgery on
December 23, 2022. ECF No. 3-8, PageID.823. ALJ Rouf noted that “[s]ubsequent to
surgery, 	the 	claimant 	reported 	significant 	improvement 	in 	her 	pain 	with
improvement in mobility. As of June 2023, the claimant reported being able to get out
and exercise more, walking half a mile two to three times per week.” 	ECF No. 3-2,
PageID.33. 	Plaintiff argues that ALJ Rouf erred by not considering Plaintiff’s
condition prior to surgery as a closed period of benefits. ECF No. 1095-96.
Case 2:25-cv-00052-HYJ-MV ECF No. 16, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/11/26 Page 10
of 14

11
In response, the Commissioner asserts that Plaintiff’s back surgery required a
two-day hospital stay and did not result in greater limitations. 	ECF No. 14,
PageID.1111. 	Furthermore, the Commissioner argues that the ALJ specifically
considered Plaintiff’s back surgery and the ALJ’s finding fully accounts for Plaintiff’s
back limitations throughout the entire relevant period. Id.
In Myers v. Richardson, the Sixth Circuit held that while “[t]he Act itself does
not provide for a closed period of benefits . . . we think it clear that such a closed
period of benefits may be awarded.” Myers v. Richardson, 471 F.2d 1265, 1267 (6th
Cir. 1972). 	Accordingly, “an individual who satisfies the durational requirement of
the Act may be entitled to benefits from the time his disability commences until such
time as the disability ceases.” Lang v. Sec’y of Health and Human Services, 875 F.2d
865 (6th Cir. 1989).
Here, ALJ Rouf’s analysis spans the entire relevant period before and after
Plaintiff’s 	back 	surgery. 	ECF 	No. 	3-2, 	PageID.33. 	Considering 	Plaintiff’s
impairments, ALJ Rouf concluded that Plaintiff’s RFC was limited to sedentary work.
Id., PageID.32. 	In the opinion of the undersigned, the record supports that ALJ
Rouf’s decision was supported by substantial evidence. 	ALJ Rouf did not conclude
that Plaintiff’s impairments were disabling at any point in the relevant period.
Accordingly, the record does not support that ALJ Rouf errored in not considering a
closed period of disability.
Case 2:25-cv-00052-HYJ-MV ECF No. 16, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/11/26 Page 11
of 14

12
E. Opinions of State Agency Medical Consultants
Finally, Plaintiff argues that ALJ Rouf erred by not providing the necessary
articulation of the supportability and consistency factors in evaluating the state
agency medical consultants’ opinions. ECF No. 12, PageID.1097.
The ALJ evaluated the medical opinions pursuant to 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c
and 416.920c. Under that regulation, the ALJ “will not defer or give any specific
evidentiary weight, including controlling weight, to any medical opinion(s) or prior
administrative medical finding(s),” even an opinion from a treating source. 20 C.F.R.
§§ 	404.1520c(a) 	and 	416.920c(a). 	Instead, 	an 	ALJ 	will 	articulate 	his 	or 	her
determination of the persuasiveness of a medical opinion “in a single analysis using
the factors listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(5) of this section, as appropriate.”
20 	C.F.R. 	§§ 	404.1520c(b)(1) 	and 	416.920c(b)(1). 	Those 	factors 	include: 	(1)
supportability; (2) consistency; (3) relationship with the claimant; (4) specialization;
and (5) other factors which tend to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§
404.1520c(c)(1)-(5) and 416.920c(c)(1)-(5). 	In general, the ALJ must explain his or
her consideration of the supportability and consistency factors but the ALJ is not
required to explain how the remaining factors were considered. 20 C.F.R. §§
404.1520c(b)(2) 	and 	(3) 	and 	416.920c(b)(2) 	and 	(3). 	The 	regulations 	explain
“supportability” and “consistency” as follows:
(1) Supportability. The more relevant the objective medical evidence and
supporting explanations presented by a medical source are to support
his or her medical opinion(s) or prior administrative medical finding(s),
Case 2:25-cv-00052-HYJ-MV ECF No. 16, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/11/26 Page 12
of 14

13
the 	more 	persuasive 	the 	medical 	opinions 	or 	prior 	administrative
medical finding(s) will be.
(2) Consistency. The more consistent a medical opinion(s) or prior
administrative 	medical 	finding(s) 	is 	with 	the 	evidence 	from 	other
medical 	sources 	and 	nonmedical 	sources 	in 	the 	claim, 	the 	more
persuasive 	the 	medical 	opinion(s) 	or 	prior 	administrative 	medical
finding(s) will be.
20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c(c)(1)-(2) and 416.920c(c)(1)-(2).
Here, 	ALJ 	Rouf 	stated 	the 	following 	regarding 	state 	agency 	medical
consultants’ opinions:
State 	medical 	consultant 	Michelle 	Manley, 	D.O., 	found 	that 	the
claimant had retained the ability to perform work at the light exertional
level, except that she could stand and walk for up to two hours in an
eight-hour day; she could perform postural activities occasionally except
she could not climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; she had to avoid
concentrated exposure to extreme cold or heat and vibrations; and she
had to avoid all exposure to hazards (Exhibit B2A). Ashok Sachdev,
M.D., 	subsequently 	affirmed 	this 	assessment 	(Exhibit 	B4A). 	The
undersigned finds this partially persuasive with regard to the postural
and 	environmental 	restrictions; 	however, 	the 	combination 	of
degenerative 	disc 	disease, 	degenerative 	joint 	disease 	of 	the 	knee,
asthma, and obesity warrant additional limitation to sedentary work.
In 	sum, 	the 	claimant’s 	overall 	course 	of 	treatment, 	medications,
objective medical findings, daily activities and the evidence as a whole
supports 	the 	residual 	functional 	capacity 	and 	does 	not 	support
allegations of disability.
Case 2:25-cv-00052-HYJ-MV ECF No. 16, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/11/26 Page 13
of 14

14
ECF No. 3-2, PageID.34. 	ALJ Rouf found the opinions “partially persuasive” and
subsequently added further restrictions to Plaintiff’s RFC. 2 Id.
While ALJ Rouf did not directly articulate “supportability” and “consistency,”
in 	the 	opinion 	of 	the 	undersigned, 	substantial 	evidence 	supports 	ALJ 	Rouf’s
evaluation of the medical opinions. 	See Hardy v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., No.
2:20-cv-4097, 2021 WL 4059310 at *4 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 7, 2021) (“The ALJ’s decision
substantially complied with the requirements of § 404.1520c, and her failure to
specifically use the terms “supportability” and “consistency” in her analysis, even if
error, was harmless.”) 	Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to establish that ALJ Rouf
errored in his evaluation of the state medical consultants’ opinions.
IV. 	Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, in the opinion of the undersigned, the ALJ
applied the correct legal standard, and substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s
decision in this case. Accordingly, the undersigned respectfully recommends that the
Court affirm the ALJ’s decision.
Dated: 	May 11, 2026 	/s/ M	Maarten Vermaat
MAARTEN VERMAAT
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
NOTICE TO PARTIES
Objections to this Report and Recommendation must be served on opposing parties
and filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen (14) days of receipt of this
Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); W.D.
Mich. LCivR 72.3(b). Failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of any
further right to appeal. United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). See
also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
2 	ALJ Rouf also noted that Plaintiff was previously denied benefits on January
21, 2021. ALJ Rouf did not adopt the prior ALJ’s decision because Plaintiff
presented “new and material” medical evidence.
Case 2:25-cv-00052-HYJ-MV ECF No. 16, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/11/26 Page 14
of 14