Case Name in Social Security Case - Unavailable

Page 1 of 16
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
MICHAEL E.,1 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
vs. 	) 	Case No. 4:25-CV-321-ACL
)
FRANK BISIGNANO, 	)
Commissioner of Social Security 	)
Administration, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff Michael E. brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial
review of the Social Security Administration Commissioner’s denial of his application for
Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) under Title II of the Social Security Act.
An Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) found that Plaintiff was not disabled because
he was capable of performing work existing in significant numbers in the national economy.
This matter is pending before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge, with consent
of the parties, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 	A summary of the entire record is presented
in the parties’ briefs and is repeated here only to the extent necessary.
For the following reasons, the decision of the Commissioner will be affirmed.
1 On May 1, 2023, the Committee on Court Administration and Case Management of the Judicial
Conference of the United States issued a memorandum recommending that courts adopt a local
practice of using only the first name and last initial of any non-government party in Social
Security opinions.
Case: 4:25-cv-00321-ACL Doc. #: 17 Filed: 02/19/26 Page: 1 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

Page 2 of 16
I. 	Procedural History
Plaintiff filed his application for benefits on August 1, 2022. 	(Tr. 17, 161-65.) 	He
claimed he became unable to work on January 15, 2022, due to stroke, heart problems, high
blood pressure, high cholesterol, sleep apnea, and arthritis in his low back. 	(Tr. 164, 196.)
Plaintiff was 52 years of age on his alleged onset of disability date. 	(Tr. 26.) 	His
application was denied initially. 	(Tr. 100-04.) 	On April 3, 2024, after a hearing, an ALJ
found that Plaintiff was not disabled. 	(Tr. 17-27.) 	The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s
claim for review. 	(Tr. 1-3.) 	Thus, the decision of the ALJ stands as the final decision of
the Commissioner. 	See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.981, 416.1481.
In this action, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ “failed to develop the record fully and
fairly.” 	(Doc. 12 at 6.)
II. 	The ALJ’s Determination
The ALJ first found that Plaintiff met the insured status requirements of the Social
Security Act through June 30, 2027. 	(Tr. 19.) 	She found that Plaintiff has not engaged in
substantial gainful activity since January 15, 2022, his alleged onset date. 	Id. 	Next, the
ALJ concluded that Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: a history of stroke, left
knee osteoarthritis, degenerative disc disease, obstructive sleep apnea, obesity, and bilateral
thumb carpometacarpal (CMC) arthritis (20 CFR 404.1520(c).). 	(Tr. 20.) 	The ALJ found
that Plaintiff did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or
medically equaled the severity of one of the listed impairments. 	Id.
Case: 4:25-cv-00321-ACL Doc. #: 17 Filed: 02/19/26 Page: 2 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

Page 3 of 16
As to Plaintiff’s RFC, the ALJ stated:
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 he
can occasionally climb ramps and stairs; never climb ladders,
ropes, or scaffolds; frequently balance as defined by the
DOT/SCO; occasionally stoop, kneel, crouch, and crawl;
frequently reach overhead with the left upper extremity;
frequently handle and finger with the bilateral hands; must avoid
extreme cold, extreme heat, and vibration; and must avoid
exposure to concentrated odors, fumes, gases, dusts, and poor
ventilation.
(Tr. 21-22.)
The ALJ found that Plaintiff was unable to perform any past relevant work, but was
capable of performing work existing in significant numbers in the national economy, such as
cleaner, hand packer, and production worker. 	(Tr. 27.) 	She concluded that Plaintiff was,
therefore, not under a disability from his alleged onset date through the date of the decision.
Id.
The ALJ’s final decision reads as follows:
Based on the application for a period of disability and disability
insurance benefits protectively filed on August 1, 2022, the
claimant is not disabled under sections 216(i) and 223(d) of the
Social Security Act.
Id.
III. 	Applicable Law
III.A. Standard of Review
The decision of the Commissioner must be affirmed if it is supported by substantial
evidence on the record as a whole. 	42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S.
Case: 4:25-cv-00321-ACL Doc. #: 17 Filed: 02/19/26 Page: 3 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

Page 4 of 16
389, 401 (1971); Estes v. Barnhart, 275 F.3d 722, 724 (8th Cir. 2002). 	Substantial evidence
is less than a preponderance of the evidence, but enough that a reasonable person would find
it adequate to support the conclusion. 	Johnson v. Apfel, 240 F.3d 1145, 1147 (8th Cir.
2001). 	This “substantial evidence test,” however, is “more than a mere search of the record
for evidence supporting the Commissioner’s findings.” 	Coleman v. Astrue, 498 F.3d 767,
770 (8th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 	“Substantial evidence
on the record as a whole . . . requires a more scrutinizing analysis.” 	Id. (internal quotation
marks and citations omitted).
To determine whether the Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial
evidence on the record as a whole, the Court must review the entire administrative record and
consider:
1. 	The credibility findings made by the ALJ.
2. 	The plaintiff’s vocational factors.
3. 	The medical evidence from treating and consulting physicians.
4. 	The plaintiff’s subjective complaints relating to exertional and
non-exertional activities and impairments.
5. 	Any corroboration by third parties of the plaintiff’s
impairments.
6. 	The testimony of vocational experts when required which is
based upon a proper hypothetical question which sets forth the
claimant’s impairment.
Stewart v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 957 F.2d 581, 585-86 (8th Cir. 1992)
Case: 4:25-cv-00321-ACL Doc. #: 17 Filed: 02/19/26 Page: 4 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

Page 5 of 16
(internal citations omitted). 	The Court must also consider any evidence which fairly
detracts from the Commissioner’s decision. 	Coleman, 498 F.3d at 770; Warburton v. Apfel,
188 F.3d 1047, 1050 (8th Cir. 1999). 	However, even though two inconsistent conclusions
may be drawn from the evidence, the Commissioner's findings may still be supported by
substantial evidence on the record as a whole. 	Pearsall v. Massanari, 274 F.3d 1211, 1217
(8th Cir. 2001) (citing Young v. Apfel, 221 F.3d 1065, 1068 (8th Cir. 2000)). 	“[I]f there is
substantial evidence on the record as a whole, we must affirm the administrative decision,
even if the record could also have supported an opposite decision.” 	Weikert v. Sullivan, 977
F.2d 1249, 1252 (8th Cir. 1992) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also
Jones ex rel. Morris v. Barnhart, 315 F.3d 974, 977 (8th Cir. 2003). 	Put another way, a
court should “disturb the ALJ's decision only if it falls outside the
available zone of choice.” Papesh v. Colvin, 786 F.3d 1126, 1131 (8th Cir. 2015) (citation
omitted).
III.B. Determination of Disability
A disability is defined as the inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by
reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected
to result in death or that has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not
less than twelve months. 	42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(A); 20 C.F.R. § 416.905.
A claimant has a disability when the claimant is “not only unable to do his previous work but
cannot, considering his age, education and work experience engage in any kind of substantial
gainful work which exists … in significant numbers in the region where such individual lives
or in several regions of the country.” 	42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(B).
Case: 4:25-cv-00321-ACL Doc. #: 17 Filed: 02/19/26 Page: 5 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

Page 6 of 16
To determine whether a claimant has a disability within the meaning of the Social
Security Act, the Commissioner follows a five-step sequential evaluation process outlined in
the regulations. 	20 C.F.R. § 416.920; see Kirby v. Astrue, 500 F.3d 705, 707 (8th Cir.
2007). 	First, the Commissioner will consider a claimant’s work activity. 	If the claimant is
engaged in substantial gainful activity, then the claimant is not disabled. 	20 C.F.R. §
416.920(a)(4)(i).
Second, if the claimant is not engaged in substantial gainful activity, the
Commissioner looks to see “whether the claimant has a severe impairment that significantly
limits the claimant’s physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities.” 	Dixon v.
Barnhart, 343 F.3d 602, 605 (8th Cir. 2003). 	“An impairment is not severe if it amounts
only to a slight abnormality that would not significantly limit the claimant’s physical or
mental ability to do basic work activities.” 	Kirby, 500 F.3d at 707; see 20 C.F.R. §§
416.920(c), 416.921(a).
The ability to do basic work activities is defined as “the abilities and aptitudes
necessary to do most jobs.” 	20 C.F.R. § 416.921(b). 	These abilities and aptitudes include
(1) physical functions such as walking, standing, sitting, lifting, pushing, pulling, reaching,
or handling; (2) capacities for seeing, hearing, and speaking; (3) understanding, reaching out,
and remembering simple instructions; (4) use of judgment; (5) responding appropriately to
supervision, co-workers, and usual work situations; and (6) dealing with changes in a routine
work setting. 	Id. § 416.921(b)(1)-(6); see Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 141 (1987).
“The sequential evaluation process may be terminated at step two only when the claimant’s
impairment or combination of impairments would have no more than a minimal impact on
Case: 4:25-cv-00321-ACL Doc. #: 17 Filed: 02/19/26 Page: 6 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

Page 7 of 16
his ability to work.” 	Page v. Astrue, 484 F.3d 1040, 1043 (8th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
Third, if the claimant has a severe impairment, then the Commissioner will consider
the medical severity of the impairment. 	If the impairment meets or equals one of the
presumptively disabling impairments listed in the regulations, then the claimant is considered
disabled, regardless of age, education, and work experience. 	20 C.F.R. §§
416.920(a)(4)(iii), 416.920(d); see Kelley v. Callahan, 133 F.3d 583, 588 (8th Cir. 1998).
Fourth, if the claimant’s impairment is severe, but it does not meet or equal one of the
presumptively disabling impairments, then the Commissioner will assess the claimant’s RFC
to determine the claimant’s “ability to meet the physical, mental, sensory, and other
requirements” of the claimant’s past relevant work. 	20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)(4)(iv),
416.945(a)(4). 	“RFC is a medical question defined wholly in terms of the claimant’s
physical ability to perform exertional tasks or, in other words, what the claimant can still do
despite his or his physical or mental limitations.” 	Lewis v. Barnhart, 353 F.3d 642, 646 (8th
Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted); see 20 C.F.R. § 416.945(a)(1). 	The claimant
is responsible for providing evidence the Commissioner will use to make a finding as to the
claimant’s RFC, but the Commissioner is responsible for developing the claimant’s
“complete medical history, including arranging for a consultative examination(s) if
necessary, and making every reasonable effort to help [the claimant] get medical reports
from [the claimant’s] own medical sources.” 	20 C.F.R. § 416.945(a)(3). 	The
Commissioner also will consider certain non-medical evidence and other evidence listed in
the regulations. 	See id. 	If a claimant retains the RFC to perform past relevant work, then
Case: 4:25-cv-00321-ACL Doc. #: 17 Filed: 02/19/26 Page: 7 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

Page 8 of 16
the claimant is not disabled. 	Id. § 416.920(a)(4)(iv).
Fifth, if the claimant’s RFC as determined in Step Four will not allow the claimant to
perform past relevant work, then the burden shifts to the Commissioner to prove that there is
other work that the claimant can do, given the claimant’s RFC as determined at Step Four,
and his age, education, and work experience. 	See Bladow v. Apfel, 205 F.3d 356, 358-59 n.
5 (8th Cir. 2000). 	The Commissioner must prove not only that the claimant’s RFC will
allow the claimant to make an adjustment to other work, but also that the other work exists in
significant numbers in the national economy. 	Eichelberger v. Barnhart, 390 F.3d 584, 591
(8th Cir. 2004); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(v). 	If the claimant can make an adjustment to
other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy, then the
Commissioner will find the claimant is not disabled. 	If the claimant cannot make an
adjustment to other work, then the Commissioner will find that the claimant is disabled. 	20
C.F.R. § 416.920(a)(4)(v). 	At Step Five, even though the burden of production shifts to the
Commissioner, the burden of persuasion to prove disability remains on the claimant.
Stormo v. Barnhart, 377 F.3d 801, 806 (8th Cir. 2004).
IV. 	Discussion
In his single claim, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ failed to develop the record fully and
fairly. 	Specifically, he contends that the ALJ failed to obtain an updated medical opinion to
“translate new diagnoses into functional limitations.” 	(Doc. 12 at 1.)
The new diagnoses Plaintiff references—osteoarthritis of the left shoulder and
hands—are based on a series of x-rays Plaintiff underwent on July 15, 2023.2 	The x-rays of
2 Although the ALJ found Plaintiff had several severe impairments, Plaintiff’s argument is
Case: 4:25-cv-00321-ACL Doc. #: 17 Filed: 02/19/26 Page: 8 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

Page 9 of 16
Plaintiff’s left shoulder revealed moderate osteoarthritis of the glenohumeral joint and AC
joint. 	(Tr. 724.) 	X-rays of the left hand revealed moderate osteoarthritis of the first
carpometacarpal joint (base of the thumb) and small erosion in the head of the middle
phalanx of the middle finger; and x-rays of the right hand revealed mild-to-moderate
osteoarthritis of the first carpometacarpal joint. 	(Tr. 713-14.)
On June 13, 2023—approximately one month prior to the x-rays—state agency
medical consultant Jacinto DeBorja, M.D., conducted a quality review of the opinions from
prior medical consultants. 	(Tr. 41-42.) 	Dr. DeBorja indicated that he agreed with the prior
opinions that Plaintiff could lift or carry 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently,
stand or walk a total of six hours in an eight-hour workday, and sit six hours in an eight-hour
workday, consistent with the performance of light work. 	(Tr. 41.) 	Dr. DeBorja and the
prior consultants also found Plaintiff had some postural and environmental limitations, but
no manipulative limitations. 	(Tr. 41-42.)
Plaintiff argues that the state agency consultants did not consider the new
impairments diagnosed by the July 2023 x-rays, namely moderate osteoarthritis in the left
shoulder and hands. 	Plaintiff contends that the ALJ was required to obtain new medical
evidence evaluating how these impairments affect Plaintiff’s RFC, and her failure to do so
results in a physical RFC that is not supported by substantial evidence.
RFC is the most a claimant can do in a work setting despite that claimant’s physical
or mental limitations. 	Martise v. Astrue, 641 F.3d 909, 923 (8th Cir. 2011) (citation
restricted to her osteoarthritis of the left shoulder and hands. 	As such, the undersigned’s
discussion of the medical evidence will be limited to those impairments.
Case: 4:25-cv-00321-ACL Doc. #: 17 Filed: 02/19/26 Page: 9 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

Page 10 of 16
omitted); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). 	The ALJ determines a claimant’s RFC “based on all
relevant evidence, including medical records, observations of treating physicians and others,
and claimant's own descriptions of [his or her] limitations.” 	Kraus v. Saul, 988 F.3d 1019,
1024 (8th Cir. 2021) (quoting Papesh v. Colvin, 786 F.3d 1126, 1131 (8th Cir. 2015)); 20
C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1).
Although the ALJ bears the primary responsibility for assessing a claimant’s RFC
based on all relevant evidence, “a claimant's residual functional capacity is a medical
question.” 	Lauer v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 700, 704 (8th Cir. 2001) (quoting Singh v. Apfel, 222
F.3d 448, 451 (8th Cir. 2000)). 	“Because a claimant's RFC is a medical question, an ALJ’s
assessment of it must be supported by some medical evidence of the claimant’s ability to
function in the workplace.” 	Hensley v. Colvin, 829 F.3d 926, 932 (8th Cir. 2016) (quoting
Cox v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 614, 619 (8th Cir. 2007)). 	“An administrative law judge may not
draw upon his own inferences from medical reports.” 	Nevland v. Apfel, 204 F.3d 853, 858
(8th Cir. 2000).
The ALJ “has a duty to fully and fairly develop the evidentiary record.” 	Byes v.
Astrue, 687 F.3d 913, 915-16 (8th Cir. 2012). 	In some cases, the duty to develop the record
requires the ALJ to obtain medical evidence, such as a consultative examination of the
claimant, before rendering a decision. 	See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1519a(b). 	“The ALJ is required
to order medical examinations and tests only if the medical records presented to him do not
give sufficient medical evidence to determine whether the claimant is disabled.” 	McCoy v.
Astrue, 648 F.3d 605, 612 (8th Cir. 2011). 	“[I]t is reversible error for an ALJ not to order a
consultative examination when such an evaluation is necessary for him to make an informed
Case: 4:25-cv-00321-ACL Doc. #: 17 Filed: 02/19/26 Page: 10 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

Page 11 of 16
decision.” 	Freeman v. Apfel, 208 F.3d 687, 692 (8th Cir. 2000) (quoting Reeves v. Heckler,
734 F.2d 519, 522 n. 1 (11th Cir.1984)).
Here, the ALJ properly considered Plaintiff’s left shoulder and hand osteoarthritis
when determining his RFC. 	Although the ALJ did not include these diagnoses as severe
impairments, she specifically set out the July 2023 x-ray findings confirming the diagnoses.
(Tr. 23.) 	The ALJ discussed the findings of Rahcel Dibooglu, FNP-C, who examined
Plaintiff on November 29, 2022, at the request of the Commissioner. 	(Tr. 547-54.)
Plaintiff complained of pain from arthritis in his lower back, hips, neck, knees, and hands
that began several years prior. 	(Tr. 548.) 	He reported that he had dislocated his left
shoulder twice, and experienced residual symptoms of increased pain and weakness and
numbness/tingling in the hands up to the elbows. 	Id. 	On examination, Plaintiff ambulated
without an assistive device, with an antalgic gait and uneven stride. 	(Tr. 549.) 	The strength
in his biceps and triceps against resistance was “mildly weak” on the left at 4/5, due to left
shoulder pain and weakness. 	(Tr. 550.) 	Ms. Dibooglu noted tenderness of the left
shoulder, with crepitus, pain, and stiffness palpated with range of motion on the left. 	Id.
Plaintiff’s shoulder range of motion was normal bilaterally. 	Id. 	Plaintiff’s hand
examination revealed no redness, edema, warmth, tenderness, or deformities of the bilateral
digits and hands. 	Id. 	He was able to make a normal closed fist and fully extend his fingers
bilaterally and oppose all digits bilaterally. 	Id. 	Plaintiff’s grip strength was normal, his
fine and gross motor movements were fully intact bilaterally, and range of motion of the
hands was normal bilaterally 	Id. 	Ms. Dibooglu diagnosed Plaintiff with polyarthritis. 	(Tr.
551.)
Case: 4:25-cv-00321-ACL Doc. #: 17 Filed: 02/19/26 Page: 11 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

Page 12 of 16
The ALJ discussed the opinions of the medical consultants, and found that the
opinions were not “entirely persuasive,” because they were “inconsistent with the record as a
whole which merits the additional limitations of only frequently reaching overhead with the
left upper extremity and only frequently handling and fingering with the bilateral hands due
to the claimant’s left shoulder residuals and pain and bilateral hand osteoarthritis and pain.”
(Tr. 24-25.)
The ALJ concluded that Plaintiff was capable of performing a range of light work
despite his combination of impairments, including his osteoarthritis with examinations on
occasion showing decreased left upper extremity strength at 4/5. 	(Tr. 25.) 	In support of
this finding, the ALJ stated that examinations generally revealed an unassisted gait, normal
sensation, normal range of motion, and normal muscle strength. 	Id. 	In consideration of
Plaintiff’s left shoulder and bilateral hand pain, the ALJ limited him to frequent reaching
overhead with the left upper extremity and frequent handling and fingering with the bilateral
hands. 	Id.
Plaintiff's assertion that the ALJ drew impermissible inferences instead of obtaining a
medical opinion fails, as there is no requirement that the RFC finding be supported by a
specific medical opinion, and the examination findings considered by the ALJ speak directly
to Plaintiff's ability to function in the workplace. 	See Hensley v. Colvin, 829 F.3d 926, 934
(8th Cir. 2016) (finding medical evidence, including disability exam and treatment records,
evidenced Plaintiff’s ability to function in the workplace); Hurst v. Kijakazi, No. 4:20-CV-
00080-MTS, 2021 WL 3021424, at *7 (E.D. Mo. July 16, 2021) (“[O]bjective medical
Case: 4:25-cv-00321-ACL Doc. #: 17 Filed: 02/19/26 Page: 12 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

Page 13 of 16
findings and evidence can constitute sufficient medical support for an RFC assessment even
in the absence of medical opinion evidence.”).
Plaintiff’s reliance upon Noerper v. Saul, 964 F.3d 738, 745 (8th Cir. 2020), is
unavailing. 	In Noerper, the ALJ favored the opinion of the plaintiff’s primary care
physician over the more detailed opinion of her orthopedist as to her left knee issues, and
assessed that the plaintiff could stand or walk for six hours in an eight-hour workday. 	964
F.3d at 745-46. 	The Court noted that the only record coming close to supporting this
opinion predated “the majority of the treatment records concerning Noerper’s knee
conditions.” 	Id. at 747. 	The Eighth Circuit concluded that “the absence of evidence
translating the medical evidence and subjective complaints into functional limitations,
coupled with the failure to address or resolve the differences between the medical opinions
of Drs. Wilkerson and Jones leaves us unable to determine the permissibility of the
Commissioner’s RFC determination.” 	Id. at 745-46 (emphasis added). 	The Court noted
that it was not suggesting that an ALJ “must in all instances obtain from medical
professionals a functional description that wholly connects the dots between the severity of
pain and the precise limits on a claimant's functionality.” 	Id. at 746.
Here, unlike Noerper, the ALJ did not reject a more detailed opinion of a specialist
regarding Plaintiff’s shoulder or hand impairments. 	Additionally, the ALJ had sufficient
medical evidence before her regarding Plaintiff’s left shoulder and hand impairments with
which to determine Plaintiff’s RFC.
The record reveals that Sarah Rion, FNP, at Healthway Primary Care ordered x-rays
of Plaintiff’s left shoulder and hands after Plaintiff complained of pain during a June 30,
Case: 4:25-cv-00321-ACL Doc. #: 17 Filed: 02/19/26 Page: 13 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

Page 14 of 16
2023 visit. 	(Tr. 721.) 	On July 25, 2023, Plaintiff returned to the clinic with complaints of
left shoulder pain due to dislocating his shoulder at the age of 20 and again between the ages
of 30 to 36. 	(Tr. 708.) 	He described the pain as aching, occurring constantly, and
aggravated by lifting, movement, and turning his head. 	Id. 	On examination, Kati Hinkle,
FNP, noted Plaintiff had full flexion and abduction of the left shoulder; no redness, warmth,
or swelling; his neurovascular status was intact distally; and tenderness to palpation was
noted at the acromioclavicular and sternoclavicular joints. 	(Tr. 710.) 	Plaintiff was given a
steroid injection in his left shoulder, and was encouraged to exercise the shoulder as much as
possible. 	(Tr. 710, 712.) 	He saw Ms. Rion on September 25, 2023, for complaints of right
hand numbness and left shoulder pain. 	(Tr. 700.) 	Plaintiff reported that vibration, such as
with mowing the lawn, made his right hand numbness worse. 	Id. 	He indicated that his left
shoulder pain was somewhat improved for the past three weeks. 	Id. 	Ms. Rion did not note
any findings on examination, but referred Plaintiff to an orthopedist for his left shoulder
arthritis. 	(Tr. 705.) 	Plaintiff saw rheumatologist Romila Aslam, M.D., upon the referral of
Ms. Rion on November 13, 2023. 	(Tr. 761.) 	Plaintiff reported experiencing joint pain for
over ten years in his back, knees, and hands; occasional swelling in his hands; and overall
joint pain and stiffness. 	Id. 	On examination, Plaintiff had 18/18 tender points. 	(Tr. 763.)
Dr. Aslam assessed chronic pain in unspecified joints, with a history and examination
consistent with fibromyalgia. 	(Tr. 764.) 	Dr. Aslam started Plaintiff on medication for
fibromyalgia and ordered additional testing. 	Id.
Although the x-rays showing moderate osteoarthritis in the left shoulder and hands
were not performed until July 2023, Plaintiff complained of pain and other symptoms related
Case: 4:25-cv-00321-ACL Doc. #: 17 Filed: 02/19/26 Page: 14 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

Page 15 of 16
to these impairments prior to this time. 	In fact, Plaintiff reported to providers that he had
experienced joint pain in these areas for more than ten years. 	(Tr. 708, 761.) 	As discussed
above, consultative examiner Ms. Dibooglu noted Plaintiff’s complaints of pain and
decreased strength in the left shoulder and weakness and numbness/tingling in the hands in
November 2022. 	(Tr. 548.) 	Ms. Dibooglu found the strength of Plaintiff’s biceps and
triceps was mildly weak on the left due to his left shoulder pain and weakness, and she noted
tenderness and crepitus with range of motion of the left shoulder. 	(Tr. 550.) 	Ms. Dibooglu,
however, found Plaintiff’s shoulder range of motion was normal bilaterally, and his hand
examination was normal in all respects. 	Id.
The July 2023 x-rays do not reflect a new condition that was not considered by the
ALJ. 	Instead, the x-rays provided radiographic confirmation of Plaintiff’s existing
complaints of pain and weakness in these areas for which he received treatment. 	Ms.
Dibooglu’s findings on examination are consistent with the subsequent x-ray findings of
moderate osteoarthritis. 	The ALJ considered Plaintiff’s complaints of pain and limitations
in his left shoulder and hand by addressing those impairments when determining his RFC.
Specifically, the ALJ included additional limitations of only frequently reaching overhead
with the left upper extremity and only frequently handling and fingering with the bilateral
hands.
In sum, the ALJ considered the opinions of the state agency medical consultants, the
imaging results, the report of the consultative examiner, and the treatment notes showing
essentially normal findings on examination. 	Accordingly, this is not a case in which a
crucial issue was undeveloped and it was not necessary for the ALJ to obtain additional
Case: 4:25-cv-00321-ACL Doc. #: 17 Filed: 02/19/26 Page: 15 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

Page 16 of 16
medical opinions regarding Plaintiff's work-related limitations. 	Upon review of the record
as a whole, the Court finds substantial evidence supports the ALJ's determination that
Plaintiff was capable of a limited range of light work.
Accordingly, Judgment will be entered separately in favor of Defendant in accordance
with this Memorandum.
/s/ Abbie Crites-Leoni
ABBIE CRITES-LEONI
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Dated this 19th day of February, 2026.
Case: 4:25-cv-00321-ACL Doc. #: 17 Filed: 02/19/26 Page: 16 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>