Dahlheimer v. Commissioner of Social Security

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
LESTER JOHN DAHLHEIMER, 	§
Soc. Sec. #XXX-XX-2948, 	§
§
Plaintiff, 	§
§
VS. 	§ 	Civil Action No. 3:24-CV-3142-D
§
FRANK BISIGNANO, 	§
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 	§
SECURITY, 	§
§
Defendant. 	§
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
The 	United 	States 	Magistrate 	Judge 	made 	findings, 	conclusions, 	and 	a
recommendation (“FCR”) in this case. 	Plaintiff-Appellant Lester John Dahlheimer
(“Dahlheimer”) filed objections. The court has reviewed de novo the portion of the FCR to
which objection was made, and has reviewed the remainder for plain error. Finding no error,
the court adopts the FCR.
The court deems it appropriate to address one of Dalheimer’s objections to the FCR.
Dalheimer objects on the ground that the FCR overlooks the impact of severe and sudden
cognitive decline on his ability to sustain employment. He maintains that “both the ALJ and
Magistrate Judge appear to use their lay interpretation to presume ‘low average’ scores
translate to less impairment than experienced by Plaintiff,” which “leads to a well
acknowledged impermissible level of playing doctor.” P. Objs. (ECF No. 23) at 4. The court
disagrees and therefore overrules the objection.
Case 3:24-cv-03142-D Document 24 Filed 01/21/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID <pageID>

Neither the ALJ nor the magistrate judge substituted a lay opinion for the medical
opinions of experts. Cf. Williams v. Astrue, 355 Fed. Appx. 828, 832 (5th Cir. 2009) (per
curiam) (concluding that ALJ’s findings regarding claimant’s RFC were not supported by
substantial evidence where “the ALJ impermissibly relied on his own medical opinions as
to the limitations presented by ‘mild to moderate stenosis’ and ‘posterior spurring’ to develop
his factual findings”); Butler v. Barnhart, 99 Fed. Appx. 559, 560 (5th Cir. 2004) (per
curiam) (“There was no medical opinion or evidence submitted reflecting that, after Butler
had two and one-half toes amputated from his left foot, he could perform work requiring
standing or walking for six-hour periods during an eight-hour work day. Thus, there was not
substantial medical evidence in the record to support the ALJ’s determination that Butler
could perform a full range of light work or his past relevant work as a dishwasher.”). And
with this objection set aside, there is substantial evidence in the administrative record to
support the ALJ’s findings.
Accordingly, the court adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the
United States Magistrate Judge and affirms the commissioner’s decision by judgment filed
today.
SO ORDERED.
January 21, 2026.
_________________________________
SIDNEY A. FITZWATER
SENIOR JUDGE
- 2 -
Case 3:24-cv-03142-D Document 24 Filed 01/21/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID <pageID>