Case Name in Social Security Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
ANTHONY S.,1
Plaintiff,
vs.
COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No. 2:25-cv-132
District Judge Michael H. Watson
Magistrate Judge Peter B. Silvain, Jr.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS2
This matter is before the Court for review of Plaintiff Anthony S.’s claim challenging the
Social Security Administration’s denial of his application for Supplemental Security Income (SSI).
This case is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Statement of Errors (Doc. #10), the Commissioner’s
Memorandum in Opposition (Doc. #11), and the administrative record (Doc. #7).
I. 	Background
The Social Security Administration provides Supplemental Security Income to individuals
who are under a “disability,” among other eligibility requirements. Bowen v. City of New York,
476 U.S. 467, 470 (1986); see 42 U.S.C. § 1382(a). 	The term “disability” encompasses “any
medically determinable physical or mental impairment” that precludes an applicant from
performing “substantial gainful activity.” 	42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(A); see Bowen, 476 U.S. at
469-70.
1 The Committee on Court Administration and Case Management of the Judicial Conference of the United States has
recommended that, due to significant privacy concerns in social security cases, federal courts should refer to plaintiffs
only by their first names and last initials. See also S.D. Ohio General Rule 22-01.
2 Attached is a NOTICE to the parties regarding objections to this Report and Recommendations.
Case: 2:25-cv-00132-MHW-PBS Doc #: 12 Filed: 01/12/26 Page: 1 of 11 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
In the present case, Plaintiff applied for benefits on May 30, 2020,3 alleging disability due
to schizophrenia, depression, an anxiety disorder, hallucinations, and a learning disability. (Doc.
#7-6, PageID #510). After Plaintiff’s application was denied initially and upon reconsideration,
he requested and received a hearing before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Matthew Winfrey on
April 6, 2022. (Doc. #7-2, PageID #s 107-33). 	On May 9, 2022, ALJ Winfrey concluded that
Plaintiff was not eligible for benefits because he was not under a “disability” as defined in the
Social Security Act. (Doc. #7-3, PageID #s 196-224).
This matter was remanded by the Appeals Council on March 28, 2023. Id. at 225-29. Upon
remand, ALJ Winfrey held a subsequent hearing via telephone on November 28, 2023, (Doc. #7-
2, PageID #s 77-106) and issued a written decision, addressing each of the five sequential steps
set forth in the Social Security Regulations. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920. He reached the following
main conclusions:
Step 1: 	Plaintiff has not engaged in substantial gainful employment since May 30,
2020, the application date.
Step 2: 	He has the severe impairments of schizoaffective disorder; bipolar disorder;
disruptive 	mood 	dysregulation 	disorder; 	cognitive/learning 	disorder;
generalized anxiety disorder; depressive disorder; right knee meniscus tear
with reinjury requiring two surgical interventions to the right knee with
right knee degeneration/arthritis; and obesity.
Step 3: 	He does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets
or equals the severity of one in the Commissioner’s Listing of Impairments,
20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1.
Step 4: 	His residual functional capacity (RFC), or the most he could do despite his
impairments, see Howard v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 276 F.3d 235, 239 (6th
Cir. 2002), consists of “medium work … except [Plaintiff] could frequently
climb ramps and stairs. He could occasionally climb ladders, ropes, or
3 Plaintiff previously filed for benefits on March 3, 2015. That application was denied by administrative decision on
April 4, 2018. (Doc. #7-3, PageID #s 150-72).
Case: 2:25-cv-00132-MHW-PBS Doc #: 12 Filed: 01/12/26 Page: 2 of 11 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
scaffolds. He could occasionally kneel or crawl. [Plaintiff] could perform
simple, routine, repetitive tasks, but not at a production rate pace, such as
one has with assembly line work. [Plaintiff] would be off task no more than
10 percent of the workday. He could tolerate occasional interaction with
coworkers and the public, where interactions with others would be limited
to 	the straightforward 	exchange of 	information, 	without 	negotiation,
persuasion, conflict resolution, close teamwork, tandem work, or over the
shoulder supervision. He could tolerate no more than occasional changes in
duties and the work setting.”
He is unable to perform his past relevant work as a yard worker.
Step 5: 	Considering his age, education, work experience, and RFC, there are jobs
that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff can
perform.
(Doc. #7-2, PageID #s 47-67). Based on these findings, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff has not
been under a benefits-qualifying disability since May 30, 2020, the date the application was filed.
Id. at 67.
The evidence of record is adequately summarized in the ALJ’s decision (Doc. #7-2,
PageID 	#s 	42-67), 	Plaintiff’s 	Statement 	of 	Errors 	(Doc. 	#10), 	and 	the 	Commissioner’s
Memorandum in Opposition (Doc. #11). To the extent that additional facts are relevant, they will
be summarized in the discussion section below.
II. 	Standard of Review
Judicial review of an ALJ’s decision is limited to whether the ALJ’s findings are supported
by substantial evidence and whether the ALJ applied the correct legal standards. Blakley v. Comm’r
of Soc. Sec., 581 F.3d 399, 406 (6th Cir. 2009); see Bowen v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 478 F.3d 742,
745-46 (6th Cir. 2007). 	Substantial evidence is such “relevant evidence that a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Gentry v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 741 F.3d 708,
722 (6th Cir. 2014) (citing Rogers v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 486 F.3d 234, 241 (6th Cir. 2007)). It is
Case: 2:25-cv-00132-MHW-PBS Doc #: 12 Filed: 01/12/26 Page: 3 of 11 PAGEID #: <pageID>

4
“less than a preponderance but more than a scintilla.” Id.
The second judicial inquiry—reviewing the correctness of the ALJ’s legal analysis—may
result in reversal even if the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record.
Rabbers v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 582 F.3d 647, 651 (6th Cir. 2009). Under this review, “a decision
of the Commissioner will not be upheld where the [Social Security Administration] fails to follow
its own regulations and where that error prejudices a claimant on the merits or deprives the claimant
of a substantial right.” Bowen, 478 F.3d at 746 (citing Wilson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 378 F.3d 541,
546-47 (6th Cir. 2004)).
III. 	Discussion
In his sole assignment of error, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ failed to properly evaluate the
opinion from the medical expert, Jeffrey Andert, Ph.D. (Doc. #10, PageID #s 979-85).
Specifically, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ failed to account for Dr. Andert’s opinion limiting
Plaintiff to interacting with a small group of six to eight coworkers on a routine and occasional
basis in the ALJ’s mental RFC finding. Id. at 983-86.
The Commissioner contends that the ALJ’s more restrictive RFC limitation of “occasional
interaction with coworkers and the public, where interactions with others would be limited to the
straightforward exchange of information, without negotiation, persuasion, conflict resolution,
close teamwork, tandem work, or over the shoulder supervision” – though not the same as Dr.
Andert’s opinion – more than adequately accounted for Dr. Andert’s opined social interaction
limitations. (Doc. #11, PageID #s 990-95); (Doc. #7-2, PageID #50).
An individual’s RFC “is the most [he] can still do despite [his] limitations.” 20 C.F.R. §
404.1545(a)(1); see also Poe v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 342 F. App’x 149, 155 (6th Cir. 2009). The
Case: 2:25-cv-00132-MHW-PBS Doc #: 12 Filed: 01/12/26 Page: 4 of 11 PAGEID #: <pageID>

5
Social Security regulations, rulings, and Sixth Circuit precedent provide that the ALJ is charged
with the final responsibility in determining a claimant’s RFC. See, e.g., 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)
(the final responsibility for deciding the residual functional capacity “is reserved to the
Commissioner”); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1546(c) (if the claimant’s case is at the ALJ hearing level, the
ALJ is responsible for assessing his RFC); Coldiron v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 391 F. App’x 435,
439 (6th Cir. 2010) (“The Social Security Act instructs that the ALJ—not a physician—ultimately
determines a claimant’s RFC.”). The ALJ’s RFC assessment must be based on all the relevant
evidence in the case record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a). Further substantial evidence must support
the ALJ’s RFC finding. Berry v. Astrue, No. 1:09CV000411, 2010 WL 3730983, at *8 (S.D. Ohio
June 18, 2010) (Hogan, M.J.).
In formulating Plaintiff’s mental RFC, ALJ Winfrey considered the opinion of the medical
expert, Dr. Andert, who reviewed the record and provided testimony at the administrative hearing
on November 28, 2023. (Doc. #7-2, PageID #65) (citing Doc. #7-2, PageID #s 93-97). Dr. Andert
testified that the record “consistently indicated a combination of a mood disorder as a depressive
disorder and psychotic features, auditory and visual hallucinations, as well as some paranoid
thought.” Id. at 93-94. Dr. Andert asserted that the combination of those problems is considered a
schizoaffective disorder, depressive type. Id. at 94.
As to the B criteria of the Listings, Dr. Andert found the Plaintiff was moderately impaired
in his ability to understand and recall information; interact with others; and his ability to maintain
concentration, persistence, and pace. Id. at 95. He found Plaintiff’s ability for adaptation was
markedly limited. Id. at 96. Dr. Andert opined Plaintiff would be limited to simple, routine and
repetitive tasks, no more than two steps where judgment was required at each step to complete a
Case: 2:25-cv-00132-MHW-PBS Doc #: 12 Filed: 01/12/26 Page: 5 of 11 PAGEID #: <pageID>

6
finish product; he was not capable of fast-paced work or production type activity; he could only
occasionally interact with the general public; and he would be limited to occasional interaction
with a small group of six to eight coworkers, with whom he interacted on a routine basis. Id. Dr.
Andert also found Plaintiff would only be able to adapt to new tasks that were simple, routine and
repetitive. Id. at 97. Dr. Andert concluded that Plaintiff would be off task 10% of the time. Id.
The ALJ found Dr. Andert’s opinion “partially persuasive.” (Doc. #7-2, PageID #66). As
relevant here, ALJ Winfrey did not adopt Dr. Andert’s social interaction limitations verbatim,
including Dr. Andert’s opined limitation of occasional interaction with a small group of 	six to
eight 	coworkers, 	but 	found 	“the 	social 	functioning 	limitations 	generally 	consistent 	with
[Plaintiff’s] history of mental symptoms, including depression, anxiety, with reported increased
anxiety in public settings, as well as breakthrough hallucinatory activity, with reports of
intermittent irritability and rude behavior, especially prior to routinely taking medication.” Id. at
65. Therefore, the ALJ limited Plaintiff to “occasional interaction with coworkers and the public,
where interactions with others would be limited to the straightforward exchange of information,
without negotiation, persuasion, conflict resolution, close teamwork, tandem work, or over the
shoulder supervision.” 	Id. at 50. However, the ALJ found Dr. Andert’s opinion “partially
persuasive” because evidence in the record showed that “with medication and treatment
compliance, [Plaintiff] experienced improvement in mental health symptomology, admitting his
moods were not bad, he was sleeping well, he was doing okay, [Plaintiff’s] conditions were
‘manageable,’ he could get through any bad moments, he had minimal hallucinations, which he
could manage, and he felt ‘the best’ he [had] felt in a while.” (Doc. #7-2, PageID #66) (citing Doc.
#7-7, PageID #s 931, 936).
Case: 2:25-cv-00132-MHW-PBS Doc #: 12 Filed: 01/12/26 Page: 6 of 11 PAGEID #: <pageID>

7
For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s argument that the ALJ did not account for Dr.
Andert’s social interaction limitation restricting Plaintiff to occasional interaction with a small
group of six to eight coworkers within Plaintiff’s mental RFC is not well-taken. First, the ALJ
included the social interaction limitation in Plaintiff’s mental RFC that Plaintiff would only have
occasional interaction with the public and coworkers, consistent with Dr. Andert’s testimony.
(Doc. #7-2, PageID #50); accord (Doc. #7-2, PageID #96). Additionally, the ALJ’s inclusion of
the limitation that Plaintiff’s contact with coworkers would be such “where interactions with others
would be limited to the straightforward exchange of information, without negotiation, persuasion,
conflict resolution, close teamwork, tandem work, or over the shoulder supervision” arguably
further limits Plaintiff from interacting with coworkers than Dr. Andert’s limitation of “a small
group of coworkers, perhaps six to eight with whom he interacted on a routine basis.” (Doc. #7-2,
PageID #50); (Doc. #7-2, PageID #96). For example, the “without … tandem work” limitation is
arguably more restrictive than only interacting with a small group of coworkers, as courts in this
district have found that, when “tandem” is defined as “working in conjunction with each other,” a
limitation of no tandem work precludes Plaintiff from working with any coworkers in a sustained
capacity. See Brian M. v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 2:23-CV-2649, 2024 WL 2059775, at *6 (S.D.
Ohio May 8, 2024) (Litkovitz, M.J.), report and recommendation adopted, No. 2:23-CV-2649,
2024 WL 2702009 (S.D. Ohio May 23, 2024) (Watson, D.J.) (finding the ALJ’s limitation to no
tandem tasks to be more restrictive than a limitation of “a small group of coworkers and
supervisors” and therefore not inconsistent with each other). Combined with the ALJ’s other social
interaction limitations on Plaintiff’s interactions with coworkers, Plaintiff would not be interacting
with any coworkers on a routine basis, much less the six or eight Dr. Andert testified that he could
Case: 2:25-cv-00132-MHW-PBS Doc #: 12 Filed: 01/12/26 Page: 7 of 11 PAGEID #: <pageID>

8
interact with on a routine basis. Thus, while the ALJ did not adopt Dr. Andert’s limitation verbatim,
he permissibly accounted for Plaintiff’s social interaction limitations by providing even more
restrictive limitations in Plaintiff’s mental RFC.
Furthermore, the ALJ discussed some of the evidence related to Plaintiff’s ability to
interact with others in the workplace in his decision. (Doc. #7-2, PageID #s 51-53, 59, 65-66).
For example, the ALJ acknowledged Plaintiff’s testimony that he did not like to go to the grocery
store by himself, and that he considers more than five people to be a lot of people. Id. at 51-52.
However, ALJ Winfrey noted that Plaintiff would talk to his friends remotely and would go out to
see them every few months. Id. at 53. Additionally, the ALJ observed that the record shows that,
while Plaintiff could be “agitated, short, and rude,” upon examination, these moods corresponded
with medication non-compliance and several missed appointments. 	Id. at 59 (citing Doc. #7-7,
PageID #905). However, the ALJ found that, once Plaintiff became compliant with medication,
his symptoms improved, with Plaintiff “admitting his moods were not bad, he was sleeping well,
he was doing okay, his conditions were ‘manageable,’ he could get through any bad moments, he
had minimal hallucinations, which he could manage, and he felt ‘the best’ he [had] felt in a while.”
Id. 65-66 (citing Doc. #7-7, PageID #s 931, 936). 	Together, this evidence supports the ALJ’s
assessment of Plaintiff’s mental limitations.
Finally, Plaintiff argues that the vocational expert’s testimony in response to a hypothetical
question containing the ALJ’s assigned limitations was clearer than the testimony in response to a
hypothetical question containing Dr. Andert’s testimony, demonstrating that the ALJ did not
incorporate Dr. Andert’s opinion in Plaintiff’s mental RFC. (Doc. #10, PageID #s 984-85).
Plaintiff’s argument is unpersuasive.
Case: 2:25-cv-00132-MHW-PBS Doc #: 12 Filed: 01/12/26 Page: 8 of 11 PAGEID #: <pageID>

9
During the hearing, the ALJ first posed this hypothetical question to the vocational expert
(VE):
ALJ: Considering the same hypothetical individual and that same hypothetical with
all of its limitations, but adding to that that interactions with others would be limited
to the straightforward exchange of information without negotiation, persuasion,
conflict resolution, close teamwork, tandem work or over the shoulder supervision,
would that impact your responses?
VE: The interactions as superficial can be managed in the jobs I provided.
(Doc. #7-2, PageID #101).
Subsequently, the ALJ posed this hypothetical to the VE:
ALJ: If the hypothetical individual were limited – I already have, of course, a
limitation to occasional interaction with coworkers and I qualified the quality of
that limitation or, excuse me, that interaction. But if we were further limiting
interaction to no more than six to eight coworkers, are you able to provide an
opinion as to how that would impact the availability of work?
VE: I would say that if the employee is working in a department with six people,
that’ll be fine. Some departments are bigger and may require more than six to eight
workers. It will really depend on the company. It will vary.
(Doc. #7-2, PageID #102).
Plaintiff asserts that the VE’s response “reveals that the two social interaction limitations
are not the same, at least not vocationally speaking.” (Doc. #10, PageID #985). Plaintiff is correct
that the limitations are not exactly the same. As explained above, the ALJ’s social interaction
limitations are more restrictive than Dr. Andert’s.
In sum, the ALJ did adopt Dr. Andert’s opinion that Plaintiff should be limited to
occasional interaction with general public and co-workers. However, the ALJ did not adopt Dr.
Andert’s opinion verbatim, finding social interaction limitations that were ultimately more
Case: 2:25-cv-00132-MHW-PBS Doc #: 12 Filed: 01/12/26 Page: 9 of 11 PAGEID #: <pageID>

10
restrictive than Dr. Andert’s opinion. These limitations are consistent with Dr. Andert’s opinion
and are supported by substantial evidence.
Based on the foregoing reasons, it is RECOMMENDED that the Court AFFIRM the
Commissioner’s decision.
IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT:
1. 	Plaintiff’s Statement of Errors (Doc. #10) be DENIED;
2. 	The Commissioner’s non-disability finding be
AFFIRMED; and
3. 	The case be terminated on the Court’s docket.
January 12, 2026 	s/ Peter B. Silvain, Jr.
Peter B. Silvain, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge
Case: 2:25-cv-00132-MHW-PBS Doc #: 12 Filed: 01/12/26 Page: 10 of 11 PAGEID #: <pageID>

11
NOTICE REGARDING OBJECTIONS
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written objections
to the proposed findings and recommendations within FOURTEEN days after being served with
this Report and Recommendations. 	Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d), this period is extended to
SEVENTEEN days because this Report is being served by one of the methods of service listed in
Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C), (D), (E), or (F). Such objections shall specify the portions of the Report
objected to and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. If
the Report and Recommendation is based in whole or in part upon matters occurring of record at
an oral hearing, the objecting party shall promptly arrange for the transcription of the record, or
such portions of it as all parties may agree upon or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient, unless
the assigned District Judge otherwise directs. A party may respond to another party’s objections
within FOURTEEN days after being served with a copy thereof.
Failure to make objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal.
See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir.
1981).
Case: 2:25-cv-00132-MHW-PBS Doc #: 12 Filed: 01/12/26 Page: 11 of 11 PAGEID #: <pageID>