Maurer v. Commissioner of Social Security

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
I. Introduction
Plaintiff, Christine Elaine Maurer, seeks judicial review of the final decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security, denying her application for disability insurance benefits
(“DIB”) under Title II of the Social Security Act. This matter is before me pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§§ 405(g), 1383(c)(3), and Local Rule 72.2(b). Because the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”)
applied proper legal standards and reached a decision supported by substantial evidence, I
recommend that the Commissioner’s final decision denying Maurer’s application for DIB be
affirmed.
II. Procedural History
Maurer filed for DIB on October 12, 2022, alleging a disability onset date of April 27,
2022. (Tr. 171-72). The claims were denied initially and on reconsideration. (Tr. 85, 99). She
then requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge. (Tr. 162-63). Maurer (represented
by counsel) and a vocational expert (“VE”) testified before the ALJ on April 8, 2024. (Tr. 164-
CHRISTINE ELAINE MAURER,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 1:25-CV-413-PAB
JUDGE PAMELA A. BARKER
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
REUBEN J. SHEPERD
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Case: 1:25-cv-00413-PAB Doc #: 12 Filed: 11/20/25 1 of 19. PageID #: <pageID>

2
65). On April 24, 2024, the ALJ issued a written decision finding Maurer not disabled. (Tr. 14-
31). The Appeals Council denied her request for review on January 8, 2025, making the hearing
decision the final decision of the Commissioner. (Tr. 1-3; see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.955, 404.981).
Maurer timely filed this action on March 3, 2025. (ECF Doc. 1).
III. Evidence
A. Personal, Educational, and Vocational Evidence
Maurer was 50 years old on the alleged onset date, making her an individual closely
approaching advanced age according to Agency regulations. (See Tr. 62). She graduated from
high school. (See Tr. 63). In the past, she worked as a bartender. (Tr. 41).
B. Relevant Medical Evidence1
On January 18, 2022, Maurer presented to Avita Health radiology for an X-ray of her left
knee. (Tr. 340). The results revealed severe arthritic changes of the medial compartment, mild
arthritic changes of the lateral compartment and patellofemoral joint, but no fractures,
dislocations, subluxation, loose bodies, osteochondral lesions, or acute osseous abnormalities.
(Tr. 341).
On February 28, 2022, Maurer returned to Avita Health for right shoulder pain. (Tr. 339).
The results of the X-ray showed moderate arthritic changes to the acromioclavicular joint and
evidence of impingement with tuberosity changes. (Id.). The results showed no fractures,
subluxations, dislocations, arthritic changes of the glenohumeral joint, and no other osseous
abnormalities. (Id.)
1 Although Maurer is diagnosed with a mental health impairment (see ECF Doc. 8, p. 2), she does not
raise any error with the ALJ’s evaluation of this impairment. Instead, she raises error solely with respect
to the ALJ’s evaluation of physical limitations. (Id. at pp. 9-20). I therefore limit my review of the
medical evidence only to these issues and deem any argument as to her mental health impairment waived.
See McPherson v. Kelsey, 125 F.3d 989 (6th Cir. 1997).
Case: 1:25-cv-00413-PAB Doc #: 12 Filed: 11/20/25 2 of 19. PageID #: <pageID>

3
Maurer presented for an MRI of her right shoulder on March 23, 2022. (Tr. 336).
Findings showed: full-thickness retracted supraspinatus and infraspinatus tendon tears;
subscapularis and teres minor reactive tendinopathy; interstitial edema and mild fatty infiltration
of the infraspinatus muscle; interstitial edema of the supraspinatus and teres minor muscles;
severe intra-articular tendinosis of the bicep tendon long head; fraying of the biceps labral
anchor; and large glenohumeral joint effusion freely communicated with the subacromial-
subdeltoid bursal space. (Tr. 337).
After conservative treatment failed, Maurer presented for a follow up appointment to
discuss surgical options with Dr. Kyle L. Randall, M.D., on April 12, 2022. (Tr. 478). She
endorsed severe pain throughout her entire right shoulder, which prevented her from sleeping
throughout the night and performing her day-to-day activities. (Id.). A right shoulder exam
revealed no swelling, atrophy or deformity. (Tr. 481). Her range of motion was limited to 80
degrees forward flexion and abduction, L4 internal rotation, and 60 degrees of external rotation.
(Id.). Her supraspinatus strength measured 4-/5, but 5/5 for both external and internal rotation
strength. (Id.). The exam further revealed biceps and acromioclavicular tenderness and positive
results for Hawkin’s, Neer’s, Speed’s, and Yergason’s tests. (Id.). Crossbody adduction was also
positive. (Id.). Her ultimate diagnoses were (1) tear of right rotator cuff, unspecified tear extent,
unspecified whether traumatic; (2) impingement syndrome of right shoulder; (3) biceps
tendonitis on right; and (4) arthritis of right acromioclavicular joint. (Tr. 482).
On April 20, 2022, Maurer presented for pre-operative education with Kristin Schaber,
OT, for her upcoming surgery. (Tr. 474). She reported that her injury occurred over time, but that
she suffered ongoing pain for approximately one year, with symptoms increasing in the previous
four months. (Id.).
Case: 1:25-cv-00413-PAB Doc #: 12 Filed: 11/20/25 3 of 19. PageID #: <pageID>

4
After being cleared for surgery by James E. Richardson, M.D., Dr. Randall performed
right shoulder arthroscopic rotator cuff repair, shoulder arthroscopic subacromial
decompression/acromioplasty, shoulder arthroscopic biceps tenodesis, shoulder open subpec
biceps tenodesis, and shoulder arthroscopic distal clavicle excision on May 5, 2022. (Tr. 322,
468).
In the weeks following surgery, Maurer attended occupational therapy with Courtney
Barnett, OT, to rehabilitate her right shoulder. (Tr. 420). On May 9, 2022, Maurer reported that
she “over did it” while doing yard work the prior day and was educated on her restrictions. (Tr.
421). Maurer’s stated goal at this point was to return to work in four months. (Id.). She reported
being able to take a sponge bath with shirt and sling remaining on. (Id.). OT Barnett provided
modifications to assist Maurer in doffing/donning her shirt and in redressing her bandages. (Id.).
OT Barnett provided a plan of care, recommended for one to three times per week for twelve
weeks, depending on insurance limits. (Tr. 423-24). On May 13, 2022, she returned for
occupational therapy and endorsed a pain of 2/10. (Tr. 417).
On May 19, 2022, Maurer presented for a 14-day post-operation visit with Jordyn
Hatcher, CNP. (Tr. 414). She reported that her shoulder is “doing well overall” and denied any
issues or concerns. (Id.). The following day, Maurer returned to occupational therapy where
again she reported pain at 2/10. (Tr. 412). On May 27, 2022, Maurer reported pain of 1/10. (Tr.
409). On June 10, 2022, Maurer returned to occupational therapy with a sling donned, reporting
difficulty sleeping and pain of 2/10. (Tr. 406).
On June 16, 2022, Maurer met with CNP Hatcher for a six week follow up appointment.
(Tr. 404). CNP Hatcher reported that “[Maurer] is doing well at this time,” and was [p]rogressing
well ahead of schedule.” (Tr. 405). She recommended transitioning Maurer out of a sling. (Id.).
Case: 1:25-cv-00413-PAB Doc #: 12 Filed: 11/20/25 4 of 19. PageID #: <pageID>

5
Maurer continued to progress well as noted during her four month follow up appointment on
September 15, 2022. (Tr. 393). At occupational therapy on the following day, Maurer reported
pain of 1/10. (Tr. 401).
On July 1, 2022, Maurer presented for occupational therapy and reported increased bicep
tendon pain due to carrying a laundry basket. (Tr. 398). OT Barnett educated her on a one-to-
two-pound weight limit. (Id.). A week later, on July 8, 2022, Maurer returned to occupational
therapy and “report[ed] no pain.” (Tr. 395).
On November 15, 2022, Maurer presented to Avita Health Orthopedics for right knee
pain. (Tr. 390). Maurer stated that she was walking down a hill and twisted her leg. (Id.). The
day following the injury, she reported that she could not apply any pressure to her right leg and
that chiropractic treatment provided no relief. (Id.). On examination, her quad toe was fair, calf
was supple and nontender, and McMurray’s was mildly positive. (Id.). X-ray results revealed
mild arthritic changes of the medial compartment, but no fractures, dislocations, subluxations,
loose bodies, osteochondral lesions, or any arthritic changes of the lateral compartment or
patellofemoral joint. (Tr. 389).
On December 15, 2022, Maurer presented for a seven and a half month follow up with
CNP Hatcher. (Tr. 386). Maurer stated her shoulder was doing well, but CNP Hatcher noted the
“continued limitations of no more than a couple of pounds with [her] body or above shoulder
height due to the size of [the] rotator cuff tear she had.” (Tr. 387).
On June 6, 2023, Maurer presented for a 13 month follow up appointment with CNP
Hatcher. (Tr. 381). She stated her “shoulder is doing great.” (Id.). She endorsed occasional
shoulder weakness and soreness after work but is “doing well overall.” (Id.). An examination
revealed full range of motion and a supraspinatus strength of 5-/5. (Tr. 382).
Case: 1:25-cv-00413-PAB Doc #: 12 Filed: 11/20/25 5 of 19. PageID #: <pageID>

6
Nevertheless, her left knee pain worsened. (Tr. 381). She reported that the steroid
injection she received in January 2022 provided relief for approximately one year, but the pain
interfered with daily activities. (Id.). Maurer also endorsed aching pain, stiffness throughout her
knee, and occasional sharp pains that “shoot down her leg.” (Id.). Examination results revealed a
large popliteal cyst, tender with palpation (Baker’s cyst), medial joint line tenderness, and
positive patellar compression test results. (Tr. 382). After reviewing MRI results from 2019
showing medial meniscus extrusion, mild patellofemoral osteoarthritis, and mild to moderate
medial compartment knee osteoarthritis, Maurer elected to receive another intraarticular steroid
injection in her left knee. (Id.).
Upon referral of CNP Hatcher, Maurer met with Dr. Jeremy Riehm, D.O., on July 6,
2023. (Tr. 375). Maurer reported improvements to her left knee from the injection the month
prior. (Id.). While posterior swelling had significantly reduced, she reported some contralateral
knee pain and swelling at times with a known meniscus tear from the 2019 MRI. (Id.). X-rays
revealed severe left knee degenerative joint disease, with severe narrowing and spurring. (Id.).
On examination of her knee, Dr. Riehm noted a moderate Baker’ cyst, 5/5 flexion and extension,
and a non-antalgic gait. (Tr. 376).
On September 7, 2023, Maurer returned to Dr. Riehm for another left knee injection. (Tr.
369). Although the June 6 injection provided some relief, the pain had worsened, resulting in the
need for another injection. (Id.). An examination showed a small Baker’s cyst, no effusion, no
tenderness to palpation, a range of motion of 0-130 degrees, and 5/5 flexion and extension. (Tr.
513).
On February 26, 2024, Dr. Riehm administered another steroid injection to Maurer’s left
knee. (Tr. 511). Maurer reported constant pain that becomes aggravated from walking stairs,
Case: 1:25-cv-00413-PAB Doc #: 12 Filed: 11/20/25 6 of 19. PageID #: <pageID>

7
prolonged walking, and standing. (Id.). The examination showed a moderate Baker’s cyst, no
effusion or deformity, no tenderness to palpation, a range of motion of 0-130 degrees, and 5/5
flexion and extension. (Tr. 513).
C. Medical Opinion Evidence
On November 17, 2022, Jordyn Hatcher, CNP, completed an RFC questionnaire. (Tr.
351). She diagnosed Maurer with rotator cuff repair, right shoulder and asserted a disability date
until May 5, 2022. (Id.). Maurer could sit, stand, and walk continuously for six hours. (Id.). She
could lift or carry five pounds continuously for up to six hours per day, two days per week., but
never lift or carry 11 or more pounds. (Id.). She could bend and squat frequently, but never crawl
or climb. (Id.). Pain or other symptoms could occasionally interfere with her ability to maintain
attention and concentration needed to perform simple work tasks. (Id.). She would not be absent
from work for any days as a result of her impairments. (Id.).
On March 2, 2023, state agency consultant Dr. James Gatton, M.D., conducted a
consultative physical examination. (Tr. 358). Dr. Gatton noted right shoulder strength of 4/5 for
flexion, extension, abduction, external rotation, and internal rotation. (Tr. 353). Maurer was
unable to hop or squat. (Tr. 359). He opined that Maurer could walk and be on her feet for four
to five hours out of an eight-hour day. (Id.). She could carry less than 10 pounds frequently and
occasionally carry more than 20 pounds. (Id.). Dr. Gatton noted general limitations with her right
arm, including lifting, carrying, pushing am pulling. (Id.). Finally, he opined that crawling,
kneeling, crouching, climbing, stooping, and bending would “be difficult.” (Id.).
On June 28, 2023, state agency consulting physician Dr. Lawrence Landwehr, M.D.,
conducted a functional capacity examination. (Tr. 361-68). Dr. Landwehr opined that Maurer
could lift and/or carry 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently. (Tr. 362). She was not
Case: 1:25-cv-00413-PAB Doc #: 12 Filed: 11/20/25 7 of 19. PageID #: <pageID>

8
limited in her ability to push and/or pull. (Id.). She could sit, stand, and/or walk with normal
breaks for six hours in an eight-hour workday. (Id.). Maurer could occasionally climb ramps,
stairs, ladders, ropes, and scaffolds; frequently balance; and occasionally stoop, kneel crouch,
and crawl. (Tr. 363). She could frequently reach in all directions with her right shoulder and
lacked any limitations regarding handling and fingering. (Tr. 364).
On July 1, 2023, state agency reviewing physician Dr. Gary Hinzman, M.D., reviewed
Maurer’s file at the initial level. (Tr. 61). Dr. Hinzman opined that Maurer lift and/or carry 20
pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently. (Tr. 65). She could sit, stand, and/or walk with
normal breaks for six hours in an eight-hour workday. (Tr. 66). She could frequently push or pull
with her right shoulder. (Id.). She could occasionally climb ramps and stairs, but never climb
ladders, ropes, or scaffolds. (Id.). He further determined that she could occasionally balance,
stoop, kneel, and crawl, but never crouch. (Id.). She could frequently reach in front and laterally,
frequently reach overhead, and frequently handle with her right arm. (Id.). On October 8, 2023,
state agency reviewing physician Leon Hughes, M.D., affirmed these findings at the
reconsideration level. (Tr. 74-75).
D. Administrative Hearing Evidence
Maurer testified at a hearing before the ALJ on April 8, 2024. (Tr. 34). At that time,
Maurer was 5′7″ and weighed 145 pounds. (Tr. 39). She lived in a house with her husband. (Tr.
40). She is right-handed and completed the 12th grade. (Tr. 39, 40). Maurer has a driver’s
license, and stated driving was “doable, but . . . prior to a year after the surgery [sic]—it wasn’t
that good.” (Tr. 40).
Maurer stated that she was currently working as a bartender, which she had done for the
past 12 years at different locations, but with generally the same physical demands. (Tr. 41). The
Case: 1:25-cv-00413-PAB Doc #: 12 Filed: 11/20/25 8 of 19. PageID #: <pageID>

9
job required her to lift approximately 50 pounds and to be on her feet during her shifts. (Tr. 43-
44). Maurer stopped working on April 28, 2022, shortly before her shoulder surgery, until
November 2022. (Tr. 41). Upon her return, she was limited to work only two days a week on the
lunch shift because those shifts were not as busy and reported issues with performing her duties
such as dropping plates. (Tr. 41, 47).
When asked about her typical day post-surgery, Maurer testified that she was “babying
[her] arm quite a bit because it was pretty painful after working the few days.” (Tr. 45). She
stated that she did household chores but was very careful with her shoulder because her surgeon
said it “looked like an 80-year-old man’s[.]” (Id.). She also required assistance from her husband
to get dressed. (Id.).
Maurer further reported that around a year after her surgery, she struggled to hold any
weight with her right arm while it was fully extended. (Tr. 45-46). She testified that she
generally relied on her left arm more and even used her left arm to lift her right arm up to
compensate its limitations. (Tr. 46). Depending on the level of arm extension, she claimed that
she could lift a maximum of five pounds. (Tr. 47). However, she reported no issues with
manipulation so long she did not lift her arm. (Id.).
The ALJ next asked about Maurer’s knee pain. (Tr. 47-48). She testified that until she
received cortisone injections, she could not apply any pressure on her knee in late 2022. (Tr. 48).
She stated that the injections “helped tremendously” and the pain is “nothing [she] can’t handle.”
(Id.) Finally, Maurer and the ALJ discussed her mental health and substance abuse history. (Tr.
49). She testified that she no longer uses drugs, but does suffer from depression. (Id.).
When questioned by her attorney, Maurer stated that during the alleged disability period,
there was “no way” she could have used her right arm six to eight hours per day for five days a
Case: 1:25-cv-00413-PAB Doc #: 12 Filed: 11/20/25 9 of 19. PageID #: <pageID>

10
week or lift ten pounds. (Tr. 51-52). She noted that during this period, she struggled with certain
outdoor household tasks such as mowing the lawn and tending to her flowerbeds because of the
pressure on her right shoulder. (Tr. 52).
Following Maurer’s testimony, the VE testified and classified Maurer’s work as
bartender, DOT 311.411-018, SVP 4, semi-skilled, physical demand level light, performed at
medium. (Tr. 55). The ALJ provided the following hypothetical: an individual with the same age,
education and work experience as Maurer who could perform light work; frequently push and/or
pull with the right upper extremity; frequently push and/or pull with the left lower extremity;
occasionally climb ramps and stairs, balance, stoop, kneel, and crouch; but cannot crawl or climb
ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; frequently reach with the dominate right upper extremity in all
directions; no limitation in reaching with the left upper extremity; have no exposure to
unprotected heights or moving mechanical parts; and could not perform commercial driving. (Tr.
55). The VE testified that the hypothetical individual could perform Mauer’s past work as a
bartender as classified per DOT, but not as performed by Maurer. (Tr. 56).
At the light physical demand level, this hypothetical individual could also perform the
jobs of: (1) merchandise marketer, DOT 209.587-034, SVP 2, unskilled, with 137,000 jobs in the
national economy; (2) routing clerk, DOT 222.687-022, SVP 2, unskilled, with 118,000 jobs in
the national economy; and (3) sales attendant, DOT 299.677-012, SVP 2, unskilled, with
174,000 jobs in the national economy. (Id.).
The ALJ presented a second hypothetical individual with the same limitations identified
in the first hypothetical, except instead of frequently reaching with the upper right extremity, the
second individual can only occasionally reach in all directions. (Id.). The VE testified that there
Case: 1:25-cv-00413-PAB Doc #: 12 Filed: 11/20/25 10 of 19. PageID #: <pageID>

11
were not any jobs available in the national economy due to the reduction to occasional reaching.
(Tr. 55-56).
Finally, the ALJ presented a third hypothetical individual with the same limitations as the
first hypothetical, including the light work limitation, or at least the standing, walking, and sitting
limitations of light work, but can only lift and/or carry ten pounds occasionally and frequently.
(Tr. 57). The VE noted that the jobs she previously presented would be eliminated and no light
exertional jobs exist for the hypothetical. (Id.).
IV. The ALJ’s Decision
1. The claimant meets the insured status requirements of the Social Security Act
through December 31, 2028.
2. The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since April 27, 2022,
the alleged onset date (20 CFR 404.1571 et seq.).
3. The claimant has the following severe impairments: bilateral knee osteoarthritis;
right should degenerative joint disease, status post arthroscopy (20 CFR
404.1520(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, and 404.1526).
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) except she can frequently push/pull with the right upper
extremity; frequently push/pull with the left lower extremity; occasionally climb
ramps/stairs, balance (as defined in the SCO), stoop, kneel, crouch; Never crawl;
Never climb ladders/ropes/scaffolds; Frequently reach with the dominant right
upper extremity; No exposure to unprotected heights, moving mechanical parts; No
commercial driving.
6. The claimant is capable of performing past relevant work as a bartender. This work
does not require the performance of work-related activities precluded by the
claimant’s residual functional capacity (20 CFR 404.1565).
7. The claimant has not been under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act,
from April 27, 2022, through the date of this decision (20 CFR 404.1520(f)).
Case: 1:25-cv-00413-PAB Doc #: 12 Filed: 11/20/25 11 of 19. PageID #: <pageID>

12
(Tr. 19-27).
V. Law & Analysis
A. Standard for Disability
Social Security regulations outline a five-step process the ALJ must use to determine
whether a claimant is entitled to benefits:
1. whether the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity;
2. if not, whether the claimant has a severe impairment or combination of
impairments;
3. if so, whether that impairment, or combination of impairments, meets or equals
any of the listings in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1;
4. if not, whether the claimant can perform their past relevant work in light of his
RFC; and
5. if not, whether, based on the claimant’s age, education, and work experience, they
can perform other work found in the national economy.
20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i)-(v); Combs v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 459 F.3d 640, 642-43 (6th Cir.
2006). The Commissioner is obligated to produce evidence at Step Five, but the claimant bears
the ultimate burden to produce sufficient evidence to prove they are disabled and, thus, entitled
to benefits. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1512(a).
B. Standard of Review
This Court reviews the Commissioner’s final decision to determine if it is supported by
substantial evidence and whether proper legal standards were applied. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g);
Rogers v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 486 F.3d 234, 241 (6th Cir. 2007). However, the substantial
evidence standard is not a high threshold for sufficiency. Biestek v. Berryhill, 587 U.S. 97, 103
(2019). “It means – and means only – ‘such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept
as adequate to support a conclusion.’” Id. quoting Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S.
197, 229 (1938). Even if a preponderance of the evidence supports the claimant’s position, the
Case: 1:25-cv-00413-PAB Doc #: 12 Filed: 11/20/25 12 of 19. PageID #: <pageID>

13
Commissioner’s decision cannot be overturned “so long as substantial evidence also supports the
conclusion reached by the ALJ.” Jones v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 336 F.3d 469, 477 (6th Cir.
2003).
Under this standard, the court cannot decide the facts anew, evaluate credibility, or re-
weigh the evidence. Id. at 476. And “it is not necessary that this court agree with the
Commissioner’s finding,” so long as it meets the substantial evidence standard. Rogers, 486 F.3d
at 241. This is so because the Commissioner enjoys a “zone of choice” within which to decide
cases without court interference. Mullen v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 535, 545 (6th Cir. 1986).
Even if substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s decision, the court will not uphold that
decision when the Commissioner failed to apply proper legal standards, unless the legal error
was harmless. Bowen v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 478 F.3d 742, 746 (6th Cir. 2006) (“[A] decision
. . . will not be upheld [when] the SSA fails to follow its own regulations and 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, 654 (6th Cir. 2009) (“Generally, . . . we review
decisions of administrative agencies for harmless error.”). Furthermore, this Court will not
uphold a decision when the Commissioner’s reasoning does “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). Requiring an accurate and logical bridge ensures that a claimant and the reviewing
court will understand the ALJ’s reasoning, because “[i]f relevant evidence is not mentioned, the
court cannot determine if it was discounted or merely overlooked.” Shrader v. Astrue, No. 11-
13000, 2012 WL 5383120, at *6 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 1, 2012); see also Bowen v. Comm’r of Soc.
Sec., 478 F.3d 742, 749 (6th Cir. 2007).
Case: 1:25-cv-00413-PAB Doc #: 12 Filed: 11/20/25 13 of 19. PageID #: <pageID>

14
VI. Discussion
Although written as a single issue in her Brief on the Merits, Maurer appears to raise two
distinct issues for review:
1. Did the ALJ err in his evaluation of Jordyn Hatcher, CNP, by failing to compare
her opinion with the supportive explanations provided in the treatment notes?
2. Did the ALJ err by rejecting the closed period of alleged disability?
(ECF Doc. 8, p. 1).
As to the second issue, the ALJ denied the requested closed period of disability, finding
Maurer not disabled from April 28, 2022, through the date of the decision on April 24, 2024. (Tr.
17). Maurer makes no detailed argument in her brief regarding this issue. (See generally ECF
Doc. 8). “Issues adverted to in a perfunctory manner, unaccompanied by some effort at
developed argumentation, are deemed waived. It is not sufficient for a party to mention a
possible argument in the most skeletal way, leaving the court to . . . put flesh on its bones.”
McPherson v. Kelsey, 125 F.3d 989, 995-96 (6th Cir. 1997) (internal citations omitted). Absent
further explanation of the ALJ’s alleged error, I deem Maurer has waived this argument.
Nevertheless, I note that the ALJ considered evidence within the alleged 12-month period
in reaching his disability determination in Maurer’s case. The ALJ cited to Dr. Gatton’s
examination records and opinion from March 2023—eleven months after the alleged onset—and
progress notes from treating physicians during post-surgical recovery in the months following
Maurer’s shoulder surgery. (Tr. 25). To qualify for disability, the claimant must satisfy the
durational requirement of an impairment “which has lasted or can be expected to last for a
continuous period of at least 12 months.” See SSR 23-1p, 2023 WL 8236247 at *2. Having
reviewed the ALJ’s decision, I do not find error in his consideration of the durational period
when he rejected the alleged closed period of disability.
Case: 1:25-cv-00413-PAB Doc #: 12 Filed: 11/20/25 14 of 19. PageID #: <pageID>

15
Notwithstanding, Maurer argues that the ALJ did not properly evaluate the opinion of
Jordyn Hatcher, CNP, alleging failure to compare her opinion to treatment notes, and that the
ALJ’s opinion lacked an adequate analysis regarding supportability and consistency. (ECF Doc.
8, p. 10). Specifically, she argues that “[t]he ALJ failed to identify evidence inconsistent with
CNP Hatcher’s opinion, and the ALJ failed to accurately cite to the post-surgical orthopedic
records indicating that [her] limitations were primarily preventative due to the severity of the tear
in her shoulder.” (Id.). She later states “the ALJ provided multiple reasons for discounting the
persuasiveness afforded to the opinion of CNP Hatcher, including [her] ultimate recovery after
surgery, and most of the reasons are conclusory and not tied to evidence [in] the record.” (ECF
Doc. 8, p. 13).
Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e), the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) assesses a
claimant’s Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) based on all medical and other relevant evidence
in the record. In doing so, the ALJ must explain how medical opinions and prior administrative
medical findings were considered. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(a). At a minimum, the ALJ is
required to address two key factors when evaluating medical opinions: supportability and
consistency. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(b)(2). Other factors generally do not need to be
discussed. Id.
Consistency refers to how well a medical opinion aligns with other evidence in the record
as a whole. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(c)(1)-(2). The more consistent an opinion is with this
evidence, the more persuasive it will be. Supportability concerns how well the medical opinion is
backed by relevant objective medical evidence and the medical source’s own explanations. The
stronger this support, the more persuasive the opinion. Id.
Case: 1:25-cv-00413-PAB Doc #: 12 Filed: 11/20/25 15 of 19. PageID #: <pageID>

16
“Although the ALJ may not substitute his opinion for that of a physician[,]” the ALJ “is
not required to recite the medical opinion of a physician verbatim in his finding.” Poe v. Comm'r
of Soc. Sec., 342 F. App'x 149, 157 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3)).The ALJ
must only “articulate how [he] considered the medical opinions” and “how persuasive [he]
find(s) all of the medical opinions.” 20 C.F.R 416.920; Gamble v Berryhill, No. 5:16-CV-2896,
2018 WL 1080916, at *5 (N.D. Ohio, Feb. 28, 2018). An ALJ is not required to explain every
piece of evidence in the record, but “can consider all the evidence without directly addressing in
his written decision every piece of evidence submitted by a party.” Bayes v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.,
757 F. App’x 436, 445 (6th Cir. 2018).
Here, the ALJ found the opinions of Jordyn Hatcher, CNP, not persuasive. (Tr. 25). He
noted that the opinions were restricted to May 5, 2023, one year after Maurer’s surgery, but were
offered in November of 2022, without reference to Maurer’s significant postsurgical recovery
and progress. (Id.). In support of his conclusion, the ALJ expressly stated why he found CNP
Hatcher’s opinions unsupported and inconsistent with evidence in the record. (Id.).
Regarding supportability, the ALJ explained that CNP Hatcher’s opinion of Maurer’s
functional capaicty lacked “any significant supporting rationale, only noting the claimant’s prior
surgery.” (Id.). Specifically, the ALJ stated that “[o]pinions that the claimant could never climb
are unsupported by any physical findings [], as the only noted impairment was the claimant’s
shoulder[,]” and “opinions [that] the claimant could only work 2 days per week for 6 hours, for a
year after her surgery is not supported by any objective findings[.]” (Id.). Maurer argues that “the
ALJ failed to consider the content of the treatment notes of CNP Hatcher during the closed
period of alleged disability, including objective findings and why [Maurer] has limitations[.]”
(ECF Doc. 8, p. 12). However, the Commissioner correctly notes that “the ALJ’s decision is
Case: 1:25-cv-00413-PAB Doc #: 12 Filed: 11/20/25 16 of 19. PageID #: <pageID>

17
supported by substantial evidence, as the opinion itself contained almost no explanation or
objective evidence.” (ECF Doc. 10, p. 7). For example, in her RFC examination, CNP Hatcher
opined that Maurer was restricted to six hours of continuously sitting, standing, or walking and
could not continuously lift or carry five pounds. (Tr. 351). In contrast, CNP Hatcher’s treatment
notes demonstrate significant post-surgical recovery. While Maurer reported occasional right
arm pain and CNP Hatcher instructed her of her limitations, she consistently denied any other
issues or concerns. (See Tr. 393, 404, 415). The ALJ acknowledged this evidence and weighed it
accordingly. (See Tr. 22 (“She was advised to continue no more than a few pounds with the right
upper extremity. She was advised to use Tylenol for pain and continue exercises at home.")).
Additionally, Maurer argues that the ALJ omitted from his opinion certain evidence in
the record that undermined his conclusion and could have supported a different finding regarding
the severity of her symptoms. (Id. at pp. 13-16). In support of her position, Maurer offers
evidence from the record she argues supports her case, but in substance, this amounts to asking
this Court to reweigh the evidence in her favor. Such an exercise is beyond the scope of this
Court’s review, as I cannot decide the facts anew, evaluate credibility, or re-weigh the evidence.
See Jones, 336 F.3d at 476. So long as substantial evidence supports the Commissioner’s
decision this Court will not reverse “even if there is substantial evidence in the record that would
have supported the opposite conclusion” Blakley v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 581 F.3d 399, 409 (6th
Cir. 2009). As a result, I find the record comports with the ALJ’s finding that CNP Hatcher’s
opinion lacked sufficient supporting rationale.
With respect to consistency, the ALJ noted that CNP Hatcher’s opinion about lifting
limitations was inconsistent with Maurer’s own reports and examinations around the required
one-year durational requirements, citing to relevant portions of the medical record. (Tr. 25). He
Case: 1:25-cv-00413-PAB Doc #: 12 Filed: 11/20/25 17 of 19. PageID #: <pageID>

18
then noted that “opinions that the claimant’s symptoms would interfere with attention and
concentration[] are wholly unsupported and inconsistent with the claimant’s own recovery[,]
rating her pain as only 1-2/10 (Exhibit 7F).” (Id.). Maurer argues that “the ALJ only compared
CNP Hatcher’s opinion to her own treatment notes.” (ECF Doc. 8, p. 17). This argument,
however, fails to take into account the substance of the record upon which the ALJ relied in his
decision.
In a portion of the record cited by the ALJ, Dr. Gatton opined that Maurer could carry
less than 10 pounds frequently and more than 20 pounds on occasion as opposed to CNP
Hatcher’s opinion that Maurer was limited to five pounds. (Tr. 359). Moreover, occupational
therapy progress notes reveal continuous progress throughout postsurgical recovery. Although
shortly after her surgery Maurer reported difficulty sleeping (see Tr. 406) and increased bicep
tendon pain due to carrying a laundry basket on one occasion (see Tr. 398), Maurer consistently
reported pain on a scale of 1-2/10 or no pain at all. (Tr. 395, 401, 406). Other progress notes
show that Maurer reported that knee pain worsened over time, but the injections “provided good
relief in the past.” (Tr. 369). As such, I find that the ALJ’s analysis of the consistency factor is
supported by substantial evidence in the record. Rogers, 486 F.3d at 241, quoting Consol. Edison
Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938).
In sum, I find that the ALJ properly “articulate[d] how [he] considered the medical
opinions” and “how persuasive [he] find(s) all of the medical opinions[,]” and therefore built a
logical bridge supported by substantial evidence that allows this Court to follow his reasoning.
20 C.F.R 416.920; Gamble, 2018 WL 1080916, at *5; Bowen, 478 F.3d at 749. Consequently, I
must recommend leaving the Commissioner’s decision undisturbed.
Case: 1:25-cv-00413-PAB Doc #: 12 Filed: 11/20/25 18 of 19. PageID #: <pageID>

19
VII. Recommendation
Because the ALJ applied proper legal standards and reached a decision supported by
substantial evidence, I recommend that the Commissioner’s final decision denying Maurer’s
application for DIB be affirmed.
Dated: November 20, 2025
Reuben J. Sheperd
United States Magistrate Judge
OBJECTIONS
Objections, Review, and Appeal
Within 14 days after being served with a copy of this report and recommendation, a party
may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations of
the magistrate judge. Rule 72(b)(2), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; see also 28
U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.3(b). Properly asserted objections shall be reviewed de novo
by the assigned district judge.
* * *
Failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the forfeiture or waiver
of the right to raise the issue on appeal either to the district judge or in a subsequent appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals, depending on how or whether the party responds to the report
and recommendation. Berkshire v. Dahl, 928 F.3d 520, 530 (6th Cir. 2019). Objections must be
specific and not merely indicate a general objection to the entirety of the report and
recommendation; “a general objection has the same effect as would a failure to object.” Howard
v. Sec’y of Health and Hum. Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991). Objections should focus
on specific concerns and not merely restate the arguments in briefs submitted to the magistrate
judge. “A reexamination of the exact same argument that was presented to the Magistrate Judge
without specific objections ‘wastes judicial resources rather than saving them, and runs contrary
to the purpose of the Magistrates Act.’” Overholt v. Green, No. 1:17-CV-00186, 2018 WL
3018175, *2 (W.D. Ky. June 15, 2018) quoting Howard. The failure to assert specific objections
may in rare cases be excused in the interest of justice. See United States v. Wandahsega, 924
F.3d 868, 878-79 (6th Cir. 2019).
Case: 1:25-cv-00413-PAB Doc #: 12 Filed: 11/20/25 19 of 19. PageID #: <pageID>