Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
TONI S., 	Case No. 	1:25-cv-00314
Plaintiff, 	Hon. 	Maarten Vermaat
U.S. Magistrate Judge
v.
COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
/
OPINION
This opinion addresses Plaintiff’s appeal of Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
Hixson’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 a number
of severe medically determinable impairments, including hypertension, degenerative
disc 	disease, 	periportal 	lymphadenopathy, 	congenital 	foot 	deformity, 	anxiety
disorder, personality disorder, and polysubstance abuse disorder. 	Plaintiff was 52
years old on the date that the ALJ issued the opinion. 	ECF No. 10, PageID.920.
Plaintiff 	asserts 	that 	the 	ALJ’s 	formulation 	of 	Plaintiff’s 	Residual 	Functional
Capacity (RFC) and assessment of the limiting effects of Plaintiff’s pain and
symptoms are not supported by substantial evidence and based upon an erroneous
application of the legal standards.
Plaintiff’s primary arguments are that the ALJ erred in failing to identify
evidence supporting her RFC determination that Plaintiff could perform light work
Case 1:25-cv-00314-MV ECF No. 13, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/13/26 Page 1 of 11

2
with a sit/stand option and failed to address her need to lie down during the day.
Further, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred by relying on her non-compliance with
recommended 	treatment 	and 	that 	her 	methadone 	treatment 	required 	physical
exertion 	that 	was 	inconsistent 	with 	her 	asserted 	physical 	limitations. 	The
Commissioner asserts that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision that
Plaintiff could perform light work with restrictions.
For the reasons stated below, the undersigned reverses the ALJ’s decision.
I. 	Procedural History
A. 	Key Dates
The ALJ’s decision notes that Plaintiff applied for SSI on May 31, 2022,
alleging an onset date of January 1, 2007. 	ECF No. 5-2, PageID.42. 	Plaintiff’s
claim was initially denied by the Social Security Administration (SSA) on January
18, 2023. 	Id. 	The claim was denied on reconsideration on October 9, 2023. 	Id.
Plaintiff then requested a hearing before an ALJ. 	ALJ Hixson conducted a hearing
on Plaintiff’s claim on July 9, 2024, and issued her decision on August 27, 2024. Id.,
PageID.59. 	Plaintiff timely filed this lawsuit on March 30, 2025. 	ECF No. 1.
B. 	Summary of ALJ’s Decision
The ALJ’s decision correctly outlined the five-step sequential process for
determining whether an individual is disabled. 	ECF No. 5-2, PageID.43-45.
At Step One, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial
gainful activity (SGA) since May 31, 2022. 	Id., PageID.45.
At Step Two, the ALJ found that the Plaintiff had the following severe
Case 1:25-cv-00314-MV ECF No. 13, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/13/26 Page 2 of 11

3
impairments:
hypertension; degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine; umbilical
hernia; periportal lymphadenopathy; congenital foot deformity; anxiety
disorder; personality disorder; and polysubstance use disorder.
Id., PageID.45.
The ALJ discussed a number of non-severe impairments, including hepatitis
C, 	gastroesophageal 	reflux 	disease, 	and 	posttraumatic 	stress 	disorder. 	Id.,
PageID.46. 	The ALJ also discussed the Paragraph B criteria, finding moderate
limitations in understanding, remembering, or applying information; in interacting
with others; in concentrating, persisting, or maintaining pace; and in adapting or
managing oneself. 	Id., PageID.47-48.
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 of the
listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. 	Id., PageID.46-
48. 	The ALJ specifically commented on the impairments listed in 1.15 (skeletal
spine disorders), 1.18 (joint abnormalities), 12.06 (anxiety and obsessive-compulsive
disorders), and 12.08 (personality and impulse control disorders). 	Id., PageID.46-47.
Before going on to Step Four, the ALJ found that the Plaintiff had the following
RFC:
to perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 416.967(b) except: The
claimant requires a sit/stand option every hour for five minutes; can
occasionally climb ramps and stairs; no ladders, ropes, or scaffolds;
frequently balance; occasionally stoop, kneel, crouch, and crawl. She can
have 	no 	concentrated 	exposure 	to 	vibration 	and 	no 	exposure 	to
unprotected heights, hazardous machinery, or commercial driving. She
can perform simple routine tasks with simple short instructions and
make simple decisions in an environment with occasional workplace
Case 1:25-cv-00314-MV ECF No. 13, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/13/26 Page 3 of 11

4
changes no strict production rate or hourly quotas and occasional
interaction with coworkers, supervisors and the public.
Id., PageID.49.
The ALJ devoted nine pages to discussing Plaintiff’s RFC. 	This discussion
included the following:
 	a summary of the regulations regarding how the ALJ will address
Plaintiff’s symptoms, id., PageID.50-51,
 	a summary of Plaintiff’s statements, id., PageID.50
 	a summary of the medical records relating to a prior social security claim
involving 	a 	lumbar 	spine 	x-ray, 	foot 	deformities, 	hypertension,
polysubstance abuse, and a summary of an examination by consultative
psychologist Anne Kantor, MA, id., PageID.50-52,
 	a summary of the medical records relating to back and lower extremity
pain, umbilical hernia, polysubstance issues, mental health treatment
including treatment for depression and anxiety, id., PageID.52-55,
 	a summary of opinions by consultive examiners Dr. Simpson, Dr.
Friedman, Dr. Geoghegan, and psychologists Kantor and Jourdan, id.,
PageID.55-57, and
 	an explanation of how the ALJ arrived at her decision on the Plaintiff’s
RFC, id., PageID.57.
At Step Four, the ALJ concluded that, through the DLI, the Plaintiff was
unable to perform Past Relevant Work (PRW). 	Id.
At 	Step 	Five, 	the 	ALJ 	considered 	the 	Plaintiff’s 	age, 	education, 	work
Case 1:25-cv-00314-MV ECF No. 13, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/13/26 Page 4 of 11

5
experience and RFC and concluded that there are significant numbers of jobs in the
national economy that Plaintiff could perform. 	Id., PageID.58.
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
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
Case 1:25-cv-00314-MV ECF No. 13, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/13/26 Page 5 of 11

6
(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
Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred in her RFC determination by failing to
identify evidence to support her assessment that Plaintiff could perform light work
or perform light work that allowed her to alternate between walking, sitting, and
standing for five minutes per hour. 	Plaintiff further argues that the ALJ failed to
articulate how she could lift 20 pounds and ignored her assertion that she needed to
lie down during the day. 	The Commissioner argues that the ALJ is only required to
justify her RFC restrictions by the evidence in the record and is not required “to point
to 	evidence 	to 	prove 	that 	Plaintiff 	could 	perform 	light 	work.” 	ECF 	No. 	11,
PageID.936.
RFC is an administrative finding of fact reserved for the Commissioner. 	20
C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2); Deaton v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 315 F. App’x
595, 598 (6th Cir. 2009). 	While the RFC determination is made by the ALJ, an ALJ’s
RFC determination must be supported by substantial evidence. 	Torres v. Comm’r of
Soc. Sec, 490 F. App’x 748, 754 (6th Cir. 2012). 	If the record contains “conflicting
evidence that would suggest further limitations, under the substantial evidence
standard, 	administrative 	findings 	are 	not 	subject 	to 	reversal 	merely 	because
substantial evidence exists in the record to support a different conclusion.” 	Id.
Case 1:25-cv-00314-MV ECF No. 13, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/13/26 Page 6 of 11

7
Ultimately, the ALJ may consider all relevant evidence on record, including an
individual’s medical history, reports of daily activity, and recorded observations.
SSR 96-8p. 	The “ALJ is charged with the responsibility of determining the RFC
based on her evaluation of the medical and nonmedical evidence.” 	Rudd v. Comm’r
of Soc. Sec., 531 F. App’x 719, 728 (6th Cir. 2013).
The regulations define light work:
Light work involves lifting no more than 20 pounds at a time with
frequent lifting or carrying of objects weighing up to 10 pounds. Even
though the weight lifted may be very little, a job is in this category when
it requires a good deal of walking or standing, or when it involves sitting
most of the time with some pushing and pulling of arm or leg controls.
To be considered capable of performing a full or wide range of light work,
you must have the ability to do substantially all of these activities. If
someone can do light work, we determine that he or she can also do
sedentary work, unless there are additional limiting factors such as loss
of fine dexterity or inability to sit for long periods of time.
20 CFR 416.967(b)
Plaintiff says that she could only lift 5 pounds, and that the ALJ failed to
articulate how she could perform light work which requires her to lift 20 pounds.
ECF No. 5-2, PageID.83. 	Plaintiff says that the ALJ failed to articulate evidence in
the record that supported her finding that Plaintiff could perform light work with a
sit/stand option for five minutes every hour. 	At the hearing, Plaintiff stated that she
could stand for about ten minutes and sit without having to get up, for not more than
five minutes, before she would need to stretch. 	Id., PageID.84. 	Finally, Plaintiff
argues that the ALJ failed to address her need to lie down during the workday. 	Id.,
PageID.85.
In support of her RFC assessment, the ALJ noted that an x-ray revealed mild
Case 1:25-cv-00314-MV ECF No. 13, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/13/26 Page 7 of 11

8
degenerative disc disease, and that her primary care provider’s notes documented a
deformity in Plaintiff’s big toe on her right foot, and a deformity in her left foot. 	Id.,
PageID.50, 52. 	Consultative examiner Dr. Simpson observed that Plaintiff walked
with 	a 	slightly 	wide-based 	gait 	and 	had 	no 	difficulty 	getting 	on 	and 	off 	the
examination table and had mild difficulty with heel and toe walking and squatting.
Id. 	During a February of 2022 examination, back tenderness was noted, and in
March of 2022 Plaintiff received an injection in her back for pain. 	Id., PageID.51.
The ALJ acknowledged that Plaintiff had a history of polysubstance abuse.
Plaintiff was provided psychological consultative examinations by Anne Kanter in
2018 and again in 2023. 	Id., PageID.51, 54. 	Upon examination in 2018, it was
noted that Plaintiff had a normal posture and gait. 	During the 2023 examination,
the Plaintiff reported that her back pain made her toes go numb and that she could
stand for no longer than 15 minutes due to pain. 	Id., PageID.54.
In 2023, examination confirmed an abdominal hernia but examination of her
lumbar spine was unremarkable, with negative strait leg testing. 	Id., PageID.52.
An August 15, 2023, examination with consultative examiner Dr. Geoghegan
found that Plaintiff had full range of motion, negative straight leg raising, full
strength, full grip strength with full dexterity bilaterally, intact sensation, and no
paravertebral 	muscle 	spasms. 	Id. 	Plaintiff 	was 	able 	to 	get 	on 	and 	off 	the
examination 	table 	without 	difficulty 	and 	had 	mild 	difficulty 	squatting. 	Id.,
PageID.53. 	She refused to perform heel and toe walking due to pain. 	Id.
At her primary care examination in September 2023, Plaintiff indicated that
Case 1:25-cv-00314-MV ECF No. 13, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/13/26 Page 8 of 11

9
she was living in her car, which made it difficult for her to schedule care, but that she
had reengaged at the clinic for methadone treatment. 	Id. 	On examination, she had
a normal gait, negative straight leg testing, no spine tenderness, and mild tenderness
of 	the 	abdomen 	and 	reducible 	abdominal 	hernia. 	Id. 	During 	her 	October
examination, she showed a normal gait without tenderness at the back, negative
straight leg raising, mild nonpitting edema of the bilateral ankles, and hammertoe in
the left foot with a swollen great toe in the right foot. 	Id. 	An ultrasound in
November of 2023 confirmed a fat-containing umbilical hernia. 	Id.
During a February 2024 examination, Plaintiff showed decreased pinprick
sensation in her right leg with decreased motor strength and foot dorsiflexion. 	Id.
The ALJ stated that:
The existence of these impairments does help support the finding that
the claimant is limited to tasks with light physical demand, but the
treatment records do not contain any specific lifting restrictions, nor
recommendations from the claimant’s treatment providers that she
undergo surgical repair of the hernia.
Id., PageID.55. 	Medical consultant Dr. Friedman limited Plaintiff to medium work
with postural limitations including that Plaintiff could frequently climb ladders,
ropes and scaffolds, and stoop, kneel, crouch, and crawl. 	Id., PageID.56. 	The ALJ
found Dr. Freidman’s finding not fully persuasive because he failed to consider that
Plaintiff’s hernia could be a factor in lifting heavy weights and gave insufficient
consideration 	to 	her 	pain 	complaints. 	Id. 	The 	ALJ 	found 	Dr. 	Geoghegan’s
examination of Plaintiff persuasive because he determined that Plaintiff could
complete some tasks with mild difficulty; her range of motion and motor strength was
Case 1:25-cv-00314-MV ECF No. 13, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/13/26 Page 9 of 11

10
intact; she had normal gait and did not use an assistive device; and she had normal
grip strength and had a normal cardiac and pulmonary examination other than
elevated blood pressure. 	Id. 	The ALJ found Dr. Geoghegan’s opinion not fully
persuasive because he did provide an assessment of the degree of limitation that
Plaintiff would experience. 	Finally, the ALJ found the more recent psychological
assessments that Plaintiff was capable of understanding, remembering, and carrying
out instructions, making decisions, and performing simple, routine and repetitive
work was persuasive. 	Id., PageID.57.
The ALJ explained her reasoning for her RFC assessment:
Id.
Ultimately, it the responsibility of the ALJ to build an “accurate and logical
bridge” from the evidence to her conclusions. 	Lamere v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No.
2:17-CV-93, 2018 WL 4501201, at *4 (W.D. Mich. Sept. 20, 2018). 	The ALJ’s RFC
decision must allow the Court to trace the path of the ALJ’s reasoning. 	Skinner v.
Case 1:25-cv-00314-MV ECF No. 13, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/13/26 Page 10 of
11

11
Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 2:23-CV-155, 2024 WL 3970267, at *1 (W.D. Mich. Aug. 28,
2024). 	Here, however, the ALJ did not fully explain why she limited Plaintiff to a
sit/stand option every hour for five minutes. 	The ALJ provided this limitation due
to Plaintiff’s pain complaints, but the ALJ did not point to any medical evidence in
the record, including any opinion evidence, or any non-medical evidence in the record
that could show that Plaintiff was able to perform light work with a sit/stand option
every hour for five minutes. 	Nor did the ALJ address Plaintiff’s complaints that she
needed to lie down during the day. 	For these reasons, the Court respectfully
reverses the decision of the ALJ.
IV. 	Conclusion
Accordingly, the ALJ’s decision is reversed and this matter is remanded to the
Commissioner for further consideration.
Dated: 	February 13, 2026 	/s/ `ttÜàxÇ ixÜÅttà
MAARTEN VERMAAT
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-00314-MV ECF No. 13, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/13/26 Page 11 of
11