Davies v. Commissioner of Social Security

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
BRENDA JEAN DAVIES,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 4:25-CV-00609-CEH
JUDGE CARMEN E. HENDERSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
MEMORANDUM 	OPINION 	AND
ORDER
I. Introduction
Brenda Jean Davies (“Davies” or “Claimant”), seeks judicial review of the final decision
of the Commissioner of Social Security denying her application for Disability Insurance Benefits
(“DIB”). This matter is before me by consent of the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 73. (ECF No. 12). For the reasons set forth below, the Court AFFIRMS
the Commissioner’s final decision finding Davies not disabled.
II. Procedural History
On October 14, 2022, Davies filed an application for DIB, alleging a disability onset date
of October 1, 2018. 	(ECF No. 8, PageID #: 45). The application was denied initially and upon
reconsideration, and Davies requested a hearing before an administrative law judge (“ALJ”).
(Id.). On January 25, 2024, an ALJ held a hearing, during which Claimant, who appeared with a
representative, and an impartial vocational expert testified. 	(Id. at PageID #: 59-84). 	On
February 28, 2024, the ALJ issued a written decision finding Davies was not disabled. 	(Id. at
Case: 4:25-cv-00609-CEH Doc #: 15 Filed: 11/19/25 1 of 12. PageID #: <pageID>

2
PageID #: 45-54). 	The ALJ’s decision became final on February 3, 2025, when the Appeals
Council declined further review. (Id. at PageID #: 29-31).
On March 27, 2025, Davies filed her Complaint to challenge the Commissioner’s final
decision. (ECF No. 1.) The parties have completed briefing in this case. (ECF Nos. 9, 13, 14).
Davies asserts a single assignment of error: “The ALJ did not reasonably find that this ‘advanced
aged’ Plaintiff can perform the arduous standing/walking and lifting requirements of medium
work (the only RFC finding supporting a denial of benefits pursuant to SSA’s ‘grid rules’),
requiring remand for further proceedings.” (ECF No. 9 at 1).
III. Background
A. Relevant Hearing Testimony
The ALJ summarized the relevant testimony from Davies’s hearing:
The claimant alleges being unable to work primarily due to pain
she experiences in her feet. She must wear prescribed shoes from
her podiatrist as well as custom orthotics. She testified to following
up with her podiatrist every two weeks for a treatment procedure.
She reports being limited in the number of tasks she can complete
in a day due to her foot pain. For example, she stated that she can
either run errands or grocery shop, and she can prepare dinner or
wash dishes. However, she is unable to perform both activities in
one day. The claimant also testified that she needs to elevate her
legs throughout the day.
(ECF No. 8, PageID #: 50).
B. Relevant Medical Evidence
The ALJ also summarized Davies’s health records and symptoms:
The record applicable to the claimant’s severe impairments does
not begin until March 2019 and is initially sparse at best. At that
time there is a primary care physician’s notation stating that she is
treating with a B-complex supplement for idiopathic neuropathy
(2F:23). However, there are no complaints regarding her feet and
no positive findings upon examination, including normal sensation
(2F:25). 	It 	is 	not 	until 	May 	2020 	that 	the 	first 	complaints
Case: 4:25-cv-00609-CEH Doc #: 15 Filed: 11/19/25 2 of 12. PageID #: <pageID>

3
associated with the claimant’s feet is noted in the record (see
2F:14-20). At that time she reported burning and pain in the
bilateral feet and stated that she avoids walking barefoot. The
physical examination showed large calluses on both feet. The
record suggests that she had been treating with a podiatrist and
using orthotics, but was in the process of establishing with a new
podiatrist after moving.
In August 2020 the claimant is evaluated by podiatry for reports of
intermittent pain in the balls of the bilateral feet, lasting for about
30 years. She reported a history of debriding lesions that provided
temporary relief. The physical exam noted edema with callus, pain
on palpation and pressure, and a discrete hyperkeratotic lesion. She
was 	assessed 	with 	bursitis, 	porokeratosis, 	and
hyperkeratosis/hyperhidrosis. 	(See 	5F:11.) 	The 	claimant 	was
prescribed 	an 	antifungal 	cream 	and 	custom 	orthotics 	were
recommended. 	Within 	a 	month 	she 	reported 	about 	80%
improvement in her pain; however, she was using over the counter
orthotics, which her physician described as being noncompliant.
Her pain then began to slightly worsen and she agreed to custom
orthotics 	and 	was 	also 	advised 	on 	stretching 	exercises. 	She
reported improvement thereafter. (See 5F:14, 12, 9, and 5.)
Over the course of the next few months her pain continued to
gradually improve. By March 2021 she reported 100% relief
(5F:17). Although her pain returned the following month, the
claimant reported that she had purchased new sandals and was not
wearing her custom orthotics (5F:19). Again in May 2021 she
reported mild pain, also reported working outside extensively
building a rock wall and performing other heavy projects (5F:19).
The examination noted that she was noncompliant with the custom
orthotics and had mild recurrent bursitis with associated painful
porokeratosis and metatarsalgia but showed no signs/symptoms of
chronic hyperkeratosis/hyperhidrosis and was responding well to
treatment (5F:19). Of note, she did not report any issues with her
feet to her primary card [sic] physician during her annual wellness
examination that month, nor were any positive findings noted (see
2F:8-13).
The claimant again reported extensive outdoor work in September
2021 with fall cleanup and preparation of her garden and reported
only intermittent compliance with her treatment (5F:22). She also
reported going to Mexico on vacation. Despite her level of activity,
she relayed having only mild discomfort (Id.).
Although 	notes 	dated 	December 	2021 	do 	not 	document 	the
Case: 4:25-cv-00609-CEH Doc #: 15 Filed: 11/19/25 3 of 12. PageID #: <pageID>

4
claimant’s level of pain or discomfort, she was noted to still have
some neoplasm pain in the plantar central balls bilaterally (5F:21).
The physical exam, consistent with most of the documented exams
by the podiatrist, noted multiple incurvated borders with deformed
thick yellow crumbly nails to varying degree, very mild residual
functional capacity hyperkeratosis/hyperhidrosis bilaterally, and
residual functional capacity discrete hyperkeratotic lesion with
pain on direct pressure (5F:21). The claimant then underwent
surgical excision of the benign neoplasm of the plantar balls
bilaterally, with surgery dates in January 2022 and March 2022
(5F:23, 	7, 	2). 	Immediately 	after 	surgery 	the 	claimant 	began
reporting improvement, with statements of 100% improvement
bilaterally by April 2022 (see 2F:24-25). She also reported to her
primary care physician that her feet were feeling better after
surgery (2F:1).
The claimant returned with reports of some pain in August and
September 2022 (5F:26). The physician again noted that the
claimant is an avid gardener (5F:26). By October 2022 she was
advised to begin stretching exercises and was issued new orthotics
due to persistence of her pain (5F:27). Examinations showed no
edema but continued to document multiple incurvated borders with
deformed 	thick 	yellow 	crumbly 	nails, 	and 	recurrent 	discrete
hyperkeratotic lesions with pain on direct pressure of the plantar
central ball bilaterally (5F:28). After receiving the new orthotics,
the claimant reported 50% improvement in her pain and was
pleased with her results to date, but still adjusting to them.
There are no further treatment records. After the end of the
relevant period, the claimant testified that her pain returned and
that she now sees her podiatrist every two weeks for treatment. She
also testified that she will need to undergo a repeat of the 2022
surgeries.
(ECF No. 8, PageID #: 50-52).
IV. 	The ALJ’s Decision
The ALJ made the following findings relevant to this appeal:
1. 	The claimant last met the insured status requirements of the
Social Security Act on December 31, 2022.
2. 	The claimant did not engage in substantial gainful activity
during the period from her alleged onset date of October 1,
Case: 4:25-cv-00609-CEH Doc #: 15 Filed: 11/19/25 4 of 12. PageID #: <pageID>

5
2018 through her date last insured of December 31, 2022 (20
CFR 404.1571 et seq.).
3. 	Through the date last insured, the claimant had the following
severe impairments: porokeratosis; idiopathic neuropathy (20
CFR 404.1520(c)).
4. 	Through the date last insured, the claimant did not have an
impairment 	or 	combination 	of 	impairments 	that 	met 	or
medically equaled 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, through the date last 	insured, the
claimant 	had 	the 	residual 	functional 	capacity 	to 	perform
medium work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(c) but with the
following additional restrictions: She can occasionally climb
ladders, ropes or scaffolds, and can frequently climb ramps or
stairs.
6. 	Through the date last insured, the claimant was capable of
performing past relevant work as a resident care aide and a
groundskeeper. This work did not require the performance of
work-related activities precluded by the claimant’s residual
functional capacity (20 CFR 404.1565).
7. 	The claimant was not under a disability, as defined in the
Social Security Act, at any time from October 1, 2018, the
alleged onset date, through December 31, 2022, the date last
insured (20 CFR 404.1520(f)).
(ECF No. 8, PageID #: 47, 49-50, 53).
V. Law & Analysis
A. Standard of Review
The Court’s review “is limited to determining whether the Commissioner’s decision is
supported by substantial evidence and was made pursuant to proper legal standards.” Winn v.
Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 615 F. App’x 315, 320 (6th Cir. 2015); see also 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
“[S]ubstantial evidence is defined as ‘more than a scintilla of evidence but less than a
Case: 4:25-cv-00609-CEH Doc #: 15 Filed: 11/19/25 5 of 12. PageID #: <pageID>

6
preponderance; it is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion.’” 	Rogers v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 486 F.3d 234, 241 (6th Cir. 2007)
(quoting Cutlip v. Sec’y of HHS, 25 F.3d 284, 286 (6th Cir. 1994)).
“After the Appeals Council reviews the ALJ’s decision, the determination of the council
becomes the final decision of the Secretary and is subject to review by this Court.” Olive v.
Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 3:06 CV 1597, 2007 WL 5403416, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 19, 2007)
(citing Abbott v. Sullivan, 905 F.2d 918, 922 (6th Cir. 1990); Mullen v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 535,
538 (6th Cir. 1986) (en banc)). If the Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial
evidence, it must be affirmed, “even if a reviewing court would decide the matter differently.”
Id. (citing 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Kinsella v. Schweiker, 708 F.2d 1058, 1059–60 (6th Cir. 1983)).
B. Standard for Disability
The Social Security regulations outline a five-step process that the ALJ must use in
determining whether a claimant is entitled to supplemental-security income or disability-
insurance 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.
§ 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1; (4) if not, whether the claimant can perform her past relevant
work in light of her residual functional capacity (“RFC”); and (5) if not, whether, based on the
claimant’s age, education, and work experience, she 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 claimant bears the ultimate burden of producing sufficient
evidence to prove that she is disabled and, thus, entitled to benefits. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1512(a).
Specifically, the claimant has the burden of proof in steps one through four. Walters v. Comm’r
Case: 4:25-cv-00609-CEH Doc #: 15 Filed: 11/19/25 6 of 12. PageID #: <pageID>

7
of Soc. Sec., 127 F.3d 525, 529 (6th Cir. 1997). The burden shifts to the Commissioner at step
five to establish whether the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform available
work in the national economy. Id.
C. Discussion
Davies raises a single issue on appeal, challenging the ALJ’s conclusion that she retained
the RFC to complete medium work, which was “the only RFC finding supporting a denial of
benefits pursuant to SSA’s ‘grid rules.’” (ECF No. 9 at 5). Plaintiff specifically challenges the
ALJ’s consideration of her subjective pain testimony, arguing that the “highly conclusory nature
of the ALJ’s decision – essentially a summary of the evidence followed by a ‘therefore the
claimant can perform medium work’ conclusion’ – is not ‘analysis’ which makes meaningful
judicial review possible.” 	(Id. at 9). 	Plaintiff argues that in finding her symptom testimony
inconsistent and unsupported by the record, the ALJ improperly relied on her trip to Mexico and
avid gardening without considering “that her vacation to Mexico did not involve a lot of
standing and walking – but that what little there was did affect her” or that she had to
“significantly curtail” her gardening and other activities. 	(Id. at 10). 	Additionally, Plaintiff
argues her ability to perform daily activities is insufficient to support a non-disability finding
under Sixth Circuit case law. (Id. at 10-11). Plaintiff argues the ALJ also failed to acknowledge
that she “has required multiple surgeries when it was expected that only one would be
necessary” or that Plaintiff’s alleged noncompliance was due to an inability to afford treatment.
(Id. at 11-12). 	Thus, Plaintiff argues the RFC is not supported by substantial evidence and
remand for further proceedings is appropriate. (Id. at 12).
The Commissioner responds that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s evaluation of
Plaintiff’s symptoms and ultimate RFC finding. (ECF No. 13 at 5). The Commissioner asserts
Case: 4:25-cv-00609-CEH Doc #: 15 Filed: 11/19/25 7 of 12. PageID #: <pageID>

8
that “the ALJ wrote a detailed decision setting forth the evidence that led to his reasonable
conclusion that Plaintiff’s subjective complaints were inconsistent with the evidence in the
record as a whole” and this decision illustrates that the ALJ properly relied on the location,
duration, frequency, and intensity of Plaintiff’s symptoms, the precipitating and aggravating
factors, 	the 	effectiveness 	of 	Plaintiff’s 	medication, 	treatments 	she 	received 	other 	than
medication, and other measures she used to relieve her symptoms. 	(Id. at 5-6). 	The
Commissioner argues the ALJ also properly relied on an opinion from the State agency medical
consultant indicating Plaintiff could perform medium work and Plaintiff’s reported activities to
her providers during the relevant time. (Id. at 7-8). 	Thus, the Commissioner’s position is that
“Plaintiff failed to demonstrate any error by the ALJ in evaluating her symptoms.” (Id. at 9).
Plaintiff replies that the Commissioner’s “response simply parrots the ALJ’s rationales,
without addressing Plaintiff’s actual arguments regarding them.” (ECF No. 14 at 2).
At step four, the ALJ must determine a claimant’s RFC by considering all relevant
medical and other evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). In evaluating a claimant’s symptoms, an
ALJ must look to medical evidence, statements by the claimant, other information provided by
medical sources, and any other relevant evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c); Social
Security Ruling (“SSR”) 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304. 	Beyond the medical evidence, an ALJ
should consider daily activities; location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the pain or other
symptoms; factors that precipitate and aggravate the symptoms; type, dosage, effectiveness, and
side effects of medication to alleviate pain or other symptoms; treatment other than medication;
any measures other than treatment the individual uses to relieve symptoms; and any other factors
concerning the individual’s functional limitations and restrictions. 	SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL
5180304 at *7-8. The ALJ need not analyze all seven factors but should show that he considered
Case: 4:25-cv-00609-CEH Doc #: 15 Filed: 11/19/25 8 of 12. PageID #: <pageID>

9
the relevant evidence. See Cross v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 373 F. Supp. 2d 724, 733 (N.D. Ohio
2005). An ALJ’s “decision must contain specific reasons for the weight given to the individual’s
symptoms … and be clearly articulated so the individual and any subsequent reviewer can assess
how the adjudicator evaluated the individual’s symptoms.” Id.; see also Felisky v. Bowen, 35 F.
3d 1027, 1036 (6th Cir. 1994) (“If an ALJ rejects a claimant’s testimony as incredible, he must
clearly state his reason for doing so.”). 	While a reviewing court gives deference to an ALJ’s
credibility determination, “the ALJ’s credibility determination will not be upheld if it is
unsupported by the record or insufficiently explained.” Carr v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 3:18-
cv-1639, 2019 WL 2465273, at *10 (N.D. Ohio April 24, 2019) (citing Rogers, 486 F.3d at 248-
49), report & recommendation adopted, 2019 WL 3752687 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 8, 2019).
Here, after summarizing Plaintiff’s symptom allegations, the ALJ indicated that while her
“medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to cause the alleged
symptoms,” her testimony regarding “the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of these
symptoms [were] not entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence in the
record.” (ECF No. 8, PageID #: 50). The ALJ then summarized Plaintiff’s medical record, and
provided the following explanation of why he found Plaintiff’s testimony inconsistent with the
overall record:
Overall, 	the 	medical 	record 	does 	document 	the 	claimant’s
complaints 	of 	bilateral 	foot 	pain. 	She 	has 	regularly 	sought
treatment 	through 	podiatry, 	but 	the 	record 	documents 	that
treatment beginning in August 2020, almost two years after the
alleged 	onset 	date. 	The 	treatment 	notes 	also 	show 	that 	the
prescribed treatment was helpful at significantly decreasing the
claimant’s pain, at times up to 100%. Although her pain returned at
times and she was required to seek additional treatment, the
treatments 	have been 	successful. 	Furthermore, 	throughout 	the
majority of the relevant period, the claimant has only required
custom 	orthotics 	and 	shoes 	with 	occasional 	instruction 	on
stretching exercises. She has not been advised to stay off her feet
Case: 4:25-cv-00609-CEH Doc #: 15 Filed: 11/19/25 9 of 12. PageID #: <pageID>

10
or avoid exertional activities, and there are no positive findings
suggesting any abnormality in her gait. The claimant remained
active 	throughout 	the 	relevant 	period, 	working 	outdoors
performing heavy exertion tasks such as building rock walls, and
consistently gardening. While the claimant testified that she has
had to scale back on her garden recently, the records during the
relevant period show that she was still quite active at that time.
Overall, the record supports no more than a few work related
limitations. The undersigned has restricted the claimant to medium
exertion in order to avoid exacerbation of her pain. This limitation
also addresses any issues related to her non-severe impairments
discussed 	in 	Finding 	3 	above, 	such 	as 	the 	sacroiliitis. 	The
undersigned finds that the claimant’s foot pain also limits her
ability to climb, again to avoid any exacerbation of level of pain.
(Id. at PageID #: 50-52).
This discussion makes clear that the ALJ considered multiple of the relevant factors in
finding that Plaintiff’s testimony was not fully credible. 	While the ALJ acknowledged that the
record supported that Plaintiff complained of pain in her feet, he noted that there were no
treatment records for her feet until almost two years after the alleged onset date and the records
contained reports of significant improvement, at times totaling 100%. 	(ECF No. 8, PageID #:
304, 309 (May 2020 visit noting pain in feet and callouses); 385 (prescribed orthotics in August
2020); 386 (50% improvement with over the counter orthotics in August 2020); 388 (85%
improvement with custom orthotics in October 2020); 391 (reporting 100% relief in March 2021,
even with increased activity); 397 (80% improvement in April 2022 following surgical excision
on right foot); 398 (100% relief with no pain in March 2022 following surgical excision on left
foot); 399 (reporting 100% relief with no paint at all in April and June 2022); 378 (50% relief in
November 2022 after receiving new custom orthotics)). 	The ALJ also noted that contrary to
Plaintiff’s testimony that her impairments impacted her activities, the records included reports to
her providers that she continued to do “heavy kind of projects” during the relevant period. (Id. at
Case: 4:25-cv-00609-CEH Doc #: 15 Filed: 11/19/25 10 of 12. PageID #: <pageID>

11
PageID #: 393 (reporting building a rock wall and working outside in May 2021); 396 (reporting
“working extensively in her yard” and doing fall cleanup in September 2021)). While the record
supports Plaintiff’s position that she was initially noncompliant due to inability to afford the
custom orthotics (see id. at PageID #: 386), the ALJ relied on records indicating Plaintiff was not
always complaint with wearing her orthotics even after she received them. (Id. at 393 (admitting
to not wearing her custom orthotics at certain times); 396 (“Pt admits intermittent complaint
w/Tx as she took her elderly mother to Mexico on vacation and she has to return to her home in
New York.”)).
In addition to relying on Plaintiff’s own reports of improvement with treatment, her
reported continued activities, and noncompliance, the ALJ highlighted the lack of objective
evidence supporting any limitations due to Plaintiff’s impairments. As indicated by the ALJ, the
record does not contain any recommendation that Plaintiff elevate her legs, and there are
“generally minimal findings with no suggestion of difficulty standing or walking.” 	(Id. at
PageID #: 53; see id. at 294-95, 302, 315, 320 (normal physical exams); 309 (exam noting
“callous balls of both feet. Parasthesias both feet” but otherwise normal physical exam)). 	The
ALJ also relied on the only medical opinion in the record, in which the State agency consultant
concluded Plaintiff retained the ability to perform medium work. (Id. at 92-97).
Overall, the ALJ adequately explained his treatment of Plaintiff’s subjective pain
complaints and RFC finding, and the ALJ’s analysis is supported by substantial evidence in the
record. Thus, the Court must defer to the ALJ’s decision, “even if there is substantial evidence
in the record that would have supported an opposite conclusion.” Wright v. Massanri, 32 F.3d
611, 614 (6th Cir. 2003) (quoting Key v. Callahan, 109 F.3d 270, 273 (6th Cir. 1997)); see
Buxton v. Halter, 246 F..3d 762, 772 (6th Cir. 2001) (“The findings of the Commissioner are not
Case: 4:25-cv-00609-CEH Doc #: 15 Filed: 11/19/25 11 of 12. PageID #: <pageID>

12
subject to reversal merely because there exists in the record substantial evidence to support a
different conclusion.”) (citation omitted). Thus, Plaintiff’s argument is without merit.
VI. Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the Court AFFIRMS the Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration’s final decision denying Davies benefits.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 19, 2025
Case: 4:25-cv-00609-CEH Doc #: 15 Filed: 11/19/25 12 of 12. PageID #: <pageID>