Browder v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
E.W.B., 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-25-108-ALM
)
FRANK BISIGNANO, 	)
Commissioner of Social Security,1 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
E.W.B.2 (“Plaintiff”) brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for judicial
review of the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
(“SSA”) 	denying 	his 	applications 	for 	disability 	insurance 	benefits 	(“DIB”) 	and
supplemental security income (“SSI”) under Title II and Title XVI of the Social Security
Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-34, 1382. 	(Doc. 1). 	The Commissioner filed the Administrative
Record (“AR”) (Doc. 7), and the parties have fully briefed the issues. (Docs. 15, 20).3 The
parties have consented to proceed before the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28
1 Frank Bisignano was sworn in as the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
on May 7, 2025, and is therefore substituted as Defendant in this matter, pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d).
2 For privacy purposes in light of the sensitive information disclosed in Social Security
cases, the Court refers to Plaintiff by initials only.
3 Citations to the parties’ briefs refer to the Court’s CM/ECF pagination. Citations to the
Administrative Record refer to its original pagination.
Case 5:25-cv-00108-ALM Document 21 Filed 03/10/26 Page 1 of 14

2
U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). (Docs. 11, 12). Based on the Court’s review of the record and issues
presented, the Court AFFIRMS the Commissioner’s decision.
I. 	The Disability Standard and Standard of Review
The Social Security Act defines “disability” 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 which has lasted or can be expected
to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). A
physical 	or 	mental 	impairment 	is 	an 	impairment 	“that 	results 	from 	anatomical,
physiological, or psychological abnormalities which are demonstrable by medically
acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.” 	Id. § 423(d)(3). 	A medically
determinable impairment must be established by “objective medical evidence” from an
“acceptable medical source,” such as a licensed physician or a licensed and certified
psychologist; whereas the claimant’s own “statement of symptoms, a diagnosis, or a
medical opinion” is not sufficient to establish the existence of an impairment. 20 C.F.R.
§§ 404.1521, 416.921; see id. §§ 404.1502(a), 404.1513(a), 416.902(a), 416.913(a). 	A
plaintiff is disabled under the Social Security Act “only if his physical or mental
impairment or impairments are of such severity that he is not only unable to do his previous
work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other
kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy.” 	42 U.S.C. §
423(d)(2)(A).
Social Security regulations implement a five-step sequential process to evaluate a
disability claim. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920; Williams v. Bowen, 844 F.2d 748, 750-
Case 5:25-cv-00108-ALM Document 21 Filed 03/10/26 Page 2 of 14

3
51 (10th Cir. 1988) (explaining five steps and burden-shifting process). 	To determine
whether a claimant is disabled, the Commissioner inquires: (1) whether the claimant is
engaged in any substantial gainful activity; (2) whether the claimant suffers from a severe
impairment 	or 	combination of impairments; (3) 	whether the 	impairment 	meets an
impairment 	listed 	in 	Appendix 	1 	of 	the 	relevant 	regulation; 	(4) 	considering 	the
Commissioner’s assessment of the claimant’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”),4
whether the impairment prevents the claimant from continuing claimant’s past relevant
work; and (5) considering assessment of the RFC and other factors, whether the claimant
can perform other types of work existing in significant numbers in the national economy.
20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(i)-(v), 416.920(a)(4)(i)-(v). 	Plaintiff bears the “burden of
establishing a prima facie case of disability under steps one, two, and four” of the SSA’s
five-step procedure. Fischer-Ross v. Barnhart, 431 F.3d 729, 731 (10th Cir. 2005). If the
plaintiff makes this prima facie showing, “the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show
the claimant has the [RFC] to perform other work in the national economy in view of
[claimant’s] age, education, and work experience.” 	Id. 	“The claimant is entitled to
disability benefits only if [he or she] is not able to perform other work.” Bowen v. Yuckert,
482 U.S. 137, 142 (1987).
This 	Court’s 	review 	of 	the 	Commissioner’s 	final 	decision 	is 	limited 	“to
determin[ing] whether the Commissioner applied the correct legal standards and whether
the agency’s factual findings are supported by substantial evidence.” Noreja v. Comm’r,
4 RFC is “the most [a claimant] can still do despite [a claimant’s] limitations.” 20 C.F.R.
§§ 404.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1).
Case 5:25-cv-00108-ALM Document 21 Filed 03/10/26 Page 3 of 14

4
SSA, 952 F.3d. 1172, 1177 (10th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). 	“Substantial evidence is
such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.” Staheli v. Comm’r, SSA, 84 F.4th 901, 905 (10th Cir. 2023) (quoting Wilson
v. Astrue, 602 F.3d 1136, 1140 (10th Cir. 2010)); see also Lax v. Astrue, 489 F.3d 1080,
1084 (10th Cir. 2007) (defining substantial evidence as “more than a scintilla, but less than
a preponderance”). 	A court’s review is based on the administrative record, and a court
must “meticulously examine the record as a whole, including anything that may undercut
or detract from the ALJ’s findings in order to determine if the substantiality test has been
met.” 	Grogan v. Barnhart, 399 F.3d 1257, 1261 (10th Cir. 2005). 	While the court
considers whether the ALJ followed the applicable rules of law in weighing particular types
of evidence in disability cases, the court will “neither reweigh the evidence nor substitute
[its] judgment for that of the agency.” 	Vigil v. Colvin, 805 F.3d 1199, 1201 (10th Cir.
2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). Even if a court might have reached a different
conclusion, the Commissioner’s decision stands if it is supported by substantial evidence.
See White v. Barnhart, 287 F.3d 903, 908 (10th Cir. 2002). But “an agency decision that
either applies an incorrect legal standard or is unsupported by substantial evidence is
subject to reversal.” Staheli, 84 F.4th at 905.
II. 	Procedural History
Plaintiff filed applications for DIB and SSI on June 10, 2022, alleging a disability
onset date of March 15, 2022. (AR, at 68-69). The SSA denied the applications initially
and on reconsideration. 	(Id. at 115-34, 136-51). 	An administrative hearing was held on
April 18, 2024. (Id. at 38-67). Afterwards, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) issued
Case 5:25-cv-00108-ALM Document 21 Filed 03/10/26 Page 4 of 14

5
a decision finding that Plaintiff was not disabled. 	(Id. at 15-30). 	The Appeals Council
subsequently denied Plaintiff’s request for review. (Id. at 1-6). Thus, the ALJ’s decision
became the final decision of the Commissioner. See Wall v. Astrue, 561 F.3d 1048, 1051
(10th Cir. 2009); 20 C.F.R. § 404.981.
III. 	The Administrative Decision
At Step One, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful
activity since March 15, 2022, the alleged onset date. (AR, at 17). At Step Two, the ALJ
determined Plaintiff suffers from the severe medically determinable impairments of lumbar
degenerative disc disease and spondylosis, cervical spondylosis, gout, and obesity. 	(Id.)
The ALJ also found that Plaintiff has the non-severe medically determinable impairments
of vision impairment, colon/gastrointestinal issues, and adjustment disorder. 	(Id. at 18-
20). The ALJ found that Plaintiff’s headaches were “not clearly shown to be a ‘medically
determinable’ impairment.” (Id. at 21).
At Step Three, the ALJ found Plaintiff’s impairments do not meet or medically
equal any of the listed impairments. 	(Id. at 21). 	The ALJ then determined that Plaintiff
had the RFC to:
perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) and 416.967(b), with
standing and/or walking for a total of six hours in an eight-hour workday,
and sitting for six hours in an eight-hour workday, except occasional
balancing, stooping, kneeling, crouching, crawling, and climbing ramps or
stairs; never climbing ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; occasional overhead
reaching; and must avoid . . . concentrated exposure (no more than frequent)
to hazards (moving mechanical parts and unprotected heights).
(Id. at 22-23). 	Then, at Step Four, the ALJ found Plaintiff could not perform any past
relevant work. (Id. at 28). At Step Five, however, the ALJ found Plaintiff could perform
Case 5:25-cv-00108-ALM Document 21 Filed 03/10/26 Page 5 of 14

6
jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy, such as cashier, receptionist
and information clerk, and maid/housekeeper/cleaner. (Id. at 29-30). Thus, the ALJ found
that Claimant had not been under a disability since March 15, 2022. (Id. at 30).
IV. 	Claim Presented for Judicial Review
Plaintiff contends the ALJ erred by failing to properly evaluate Plaintiff’s subjective
statements. (Doc. 15, at 8-12). Plaintiff further asserts the ALJ’s assessment of Plaintiff’s
RFC was flawed and not supported by substantial evidence. (Id. at 12-15).
The Commissioner argues that the ALJ’s symptom analysis and RFC determination
were legally sound and supported by substantial evidence. (Doc. 20, at 4-13).
The Court agrees with the Commissioner.
V. 	The ALJ Conducted an Appropriate Symptom Analysis, and the RFC Is
Supported By Substantial Evidence.
A. 	The SSA’s Framework for Analyzing Symptoms
The Commissioner has a two-step process for evaluating a claimant’s
symptoms, 	that 	is, 	his 	or 	her 	subjective 	statements 	about 	his 	or 	her
impairments and limitations. 	See SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304 (Oct. 25,
2017). 	At the first step, the ALJ determines whether the claimant has a
medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to
produce the pain or other symptoms alleged. 	Id. at *3. If so, at the second
step, the ALJ “evaluate[s] the intensity and persistence of [the claimant’s]
symptoms . . . and determine[s] the extent to which [a claimant’s] symptoms
limit his or her ability to perform work-related activities.” 	Id. at * 4. 	In
making this evaluation, the ALJ considers the medical evidence of record,
along with several factors, including the claimant’s activities of daily living.
See id. at *7.
James v. Comm’r, SSA, 2024 WL 1133442, at *3 (10th Cir. Mar. 15, 2024).
With regard to the second step of this analysis, the SSA states:
Case 5:25-cv-00108-ALM Document 21 Filed 03/10/26 Page 6 of 14

7
[i]n 	considering 	the 	intensity, 	persistence, 	and 	limiting 	effects 	of 	an
individual’s symptoms, we examine the entire case record, including the
objective medical evidence; an individual’s statements about the intensity,
persistence, 	and 	limiting 	effects 	of 	symptoms; 	statements 	and 	other
information provided by medical sources and other persons; and any other
relevant evidence in the individual’s case record.
Soc. Sec. Ruling (“SSR”) 16-3p: Titles II & XVI: Evaluation of Symptoms in Disability
Claims, 2017 WL 5180304, at *4 (S.S.A. Oct. 25, 2017). With respect to consideration of
objective medical evidence, the SSA explains that
[s]ymptoms cannot always be measured objectively through clinical or
laboratory diagnostic techniques. However, objective medical evidence is a
useful indicator to help make reasonable conclusions about the intensity and
persistence of symptoms, including the effects those symptoms may have on
the ability to perform work-related activities . . . . We must consider whether
an individual’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting
effects of his or her symptoms are consistent with the medical signs and
laboratory findings of record.
. . .
However, we will not disregard an individual’s statements about the
intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms solely because the
objective medical evidence does not substantiate the degree of impairment-
related symptoms alleged by the individual. A report of minimal or negative
findings or inconsistencies in the objective medical evidence is one of the
many factors we must consider in evaluating the intensity, persistence, and
limiting effects of an individual’s symptoms.
If we cannot make a disability determination or decision that is fully
favorable based solely on objective medical evidence, then we carefully
consider other evidence in the record in reaching a conclusion about the
intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of an individual’s symptoms.
Other evidence that we will consider includes statements from the individual,
medical sources, and any other sources that might have information about
the individual’s symptoms, including agency personnel, as well as the factors
set forth in our regulations.
Case 5:25-cv-00108-ALM Document 21 Filed 03/10/26 Page 7 of 14

8
Id. at * 5-6 (footnotes omitted). 	The SSA regulations direct the ALJ to consider the
following factors: (1) daily activities; (2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of
pain or other symptoms; (3) factors that precipitate and aggravate the symptoms; (4) the
type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medication to alleviate pain or other
symptoms; (5) treatment, other than medication, the claimant has received to relieve pain
or other symptoms; (6) any measures other than treatment an individual uses or has used
to relieve pain or other symptoms; and (7) any other factors concerning functional
limitations and restrictions. Id. at *7-8; see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3).
B. 	The ALJ Analyzed Objective Medical Evidence As Well As Other
Factors 	and 	Explained 	How 	He 	Weighed 	It 	Against 	Plaintiff’s
Subjective Statements. 	This Constitutes an Appropriate Symptom
Analysis and Substantial Evidence To Support the RFC.
Plaintiff argues that the ALJ failed to properly evaluate his subjective statements
about his physical symptoms.5 (Doc. 15, at 8). 	Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ “relied solely
on 	the 	objective 	medical 	evidence 	to 	justify 	discounting 	[Plaintiff’s] 	subjective
statements.” 	(Doc. 15, at 10). 	He further asserts that the ALJ did not provide enough
explanation of his symptom analysis because he did not specifically relate his conclusions
5 Plaintiff’s arguments focus on the alleged physical symptoms related to his spinal
problems. (Doc. 15, at 11, discussing a “limited daily routine” of physical inactivity and
limitations; discussing subjective statements about “limitations to minimal amounts of
lifting, carrying, standing, walking, and sitting,” as well as knee problems; id. at 12,
discussing pain related to standing, walking, and sitting). 	Accordingly, the undersigned
will not analyze the ALJ’s treatment of Plaintiff’s mental symptoms, gastrointestinal
symptoms, or visual symptoms arising from his non-severe impairments. (See AR, at 18-
20). 	The undersigned finds that Plaintiff’s brief attack of the ALJ’s assessment of
Plaintiff’s headaches as not a medically determinable impairment, (Doc 15, at 12 n.2), is a
request to re-weigh the evidence, which this court cannot do, Vigil, 805 F.3d at 1201, and
so likewise does not address Plaintiff’s headache symptoms.
Case 5:25-cv-00108-ALM Document 21 Filed 03/10/26 Page 8 of 14

9
to Plaintiff’s statements about his “limited daily routines” or about perceived limitations as
to lifting, carrying, standing, walking, and sitting. (Id. at 11). The undersigned disagrees
and finds that the ALJ appropriately considered objective medical evidence and other
factors and then provided an explanation of his conclusions that shows he considered
Plaintiff’s statements.
The ALJ’s decision first detailed Plaintiff’s self-reported symptoms, which were
obtained from Adult Function Reports in August and December 2022 and from Plaintiff’s
April 2024 hearing testimony, as follows:
difficulty squatting, bending, walking, and changing positions. . . . [Plaintiff]
estimated he could walk about 40 to 50 feet before having to rest about 10
minutes. He could lift only 10 pounds and had difficulty with bending and
reaching.
(AR, at 23).
[Plaintiff] testified to pain and tingling in his legs, limited mobility in his
neck, and knee problems. He described his legs as in constant, shooting pain,
and feeling like they were being stung by bees. [Plaintiff] indicated he has
collapsed and fallen due to his symptoms. . . .
. . . He also described pain when tilting his head to the side. . . . He
also asserted he sometimes gets tingling and numbness in his arms and hands,
causing him to drop things. [Plaintiff] further testified his lower back pain
was worse than his neck pain, and primarily caused problems with standing
and 	walking. 	[Plaintiff] 	asserted 	a 	Dr. 	Conly 	has 	restricted 	him 	to
lifting/carrying five to 10 pounds, but he tries to no lift/carry that much.
[Plaintiff] estimated he can stand 10 to 15 minutes, sit 20 to 30 minutes, and
walk five to 10 minutes. He tries to help his wife with chores but cannot do
much before needing to sit down. 	He spends most of his day, 80 to 90
percent, in his recliner. [Plaintiff] denied any hobbies or interests, but
indicate he tried to do a little fishing with his son. [Plaintiff] continues to go
shopping but uses a cane and needs a cart when in Walmart. He estimated he
can walk with the cart for only five minutes, but then must squat down or sit
for a minute.
Case 5:25-cv-00108-ALM Document 21 Filed 03/10/26 Page 9 of 14

10
(Id. at 24). The ALJ concluded that Plaintiff’s “medically determinable impairments could
reasonably be expected to cause some of the alleged symptoms; however, [Plaintiff’s]
statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of these symptoms are
not entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence in the record for the
reasons explained in this decision.” (Id.)
In accordance with SSA guidance, the ALJ first appropriately looked to the
objective medical evidence and found it did “not corroborate[]” Plaintiff’s statements about
his symptoms. (Id.) The ALJ noted that Plaintiff had a 2001 neck surgery and a history of
neck pain since 2020, and then a motor vehicle accident on March 15, 2022, where he
reported to the emergency room with neck and back pain and muscle spasms, but showed
normal gait, ranges of motion, strength, and sensation. 	(Id. at 24-25). 	The ALJ then
provided a detailed summary of the medical record, noting objective evidence that related
to Plaintiff’s symptoms and showed contemporaneous abnormal6 and normal7 findings
6 Including “unbearable cervical and lumbar area pain;” tenderness, pain, and limited range
of motion in the neck and back; extremity strength deficits in the right wrist and fingers
(April 2022); spine MRI showing disc degeneration and severe bilateral degenerative
foraminal stenosis (May 2022); neck and back pain, tingling and weakness in the right leg,
mild right antalgic gait, back and neck tenderness and decreased ranges of motion (June
2022); right knee pain and swelling, knee MRI showing inflammatory process and
crystalline arthropathies (November 2022); left foot pain and swelling due to gout (January
2023); neck and back pain, positive straight leg test bilaterally, multilevel degenerative disc
disease (February 2023).
7 Including intact 5/5 strength in upper and lower extremities, intact sensation, normal gait,
no need for assistive device (April 2022); spine MRI showing mostly mild spondylosis and
stenosis but no compression fracture or acute abnormality (May 2022); no pain, numbness,
or tingling in upper extremities; normal gait pattern and tandem gait, intact 5/5 strength in
upper and lower extremities (June 2022); normal gait and stance (January 2023); normal
Case 5:25-cv-00108-ALM Document 21 Filed 03/10/26 Page 10 of 14

11
throughout the time period from April 2022 through January 2024. 	(Id. at 25-27). 	The
ALJ specifically noted that “the medical evidence does not show [Plaintiff] to have any
difficulty using his hands or arms or significant gait disturbances continuously since the
March 2022 accident, or show the claimant to use or require a cane or other assistive
device.” (Id. at 22).
The ALJ also incorporated relevant regulatory factors, and summarized the types of
medication, treatments, and other measures that Plaintiff had received or been advised to
use to address his symptoms. Significantly, Plaintiff received a lumbar epidural steroid
injection in June 2022, and by July 2022 reported a 75 percent improvement. (Id. at 25).
A doctor recommended disc surgery or replacement, but Plaintiff did not undergo surgery
perhaps due to lack of insurance or because his wife was working and would not be home
to help him. (Id. at 23; 25; 26). Plaintiff reported back pain in October 2022, but it was
noted that he was not doing home exercises or stretching. 	(Id. at 25-26). 	In December
2022, Plaintiff’s primary care doctor saw him for gout and instructed him to “drink less
sweet tea, rest and elevate[] his foot, and increase [medication].” (Id. at 26). In February
2023, an orthopedist saw Plaintiff for his neck and back pain, and he recommended a
lumbar corset for extra support and protection for re-injury, and he was instructed to engage
in weightbearing and activities as tolerated. (Id. at 26).
The ALJ’s opinion noted Plaintiff’s reported daily activities, as stated above, but
also Plaintiff’s reports that he “was sometimes able to prepare meals and perform chores,
gait and coordination, intact reflexes and sensation, no edema (February 2023); slow but
steady and intact gait; pleasant, smiling, comfortable, in no distress (April and July 2023).
Case 5:25-cv-00108-ALM Document 21 Filed 03/10/26 Page 11 of 14

12
with breaks. . . . [H]e continued to drive, go out alone, shop in stores, and put gas in his
car.” (Id. at 23). 	As prescribed by the SSA, the ALJ went on to consider “other sources
that 	might 	have 	information 	about 	the 	individual’s 	symptoms, 	including 	agency
personnel.” SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *5-6. Indeed, two state agency consultants
found Plaintiff “retained the ability to perform a full range of light level work, with lifting
and/or carrying up to 20 pounds occasionally, 10 pounds frequently; standing and/or
walking about six hours in an eight-hour day; sitting about six hours in an eight-hour day;
no limitations on pushing or pulling other than those listed under lifting and/or carrying.”
(AR, at 27). The ALJ found this assessment was “persuasive because it is consistent with
the overall record.” (Id.) The ALJ explained,
[a]s noted, [Plaintiff] was abnormal on examination in the months following
the motor vehicle accident, but by about late 2022, was typically described
as intact as to gait, strength, sensation, and reflexes. 	While [Plaintiff’s]
combination of impairments could reasonably support a restriction to light
level work, [his] lumbar and cervical degenerative changes would also
support certain limitations in postural activities and reaching, as set forth in
the above residual functional capacity.
(Id.) (record citations omitted).
Finally, the ALJ provided an explanation of how he weighed Plaintiff’s self-
reported symptoms against the objective medical evidence, evidence of medications and
treatments, evidence of daily activities, and the opinions of the state agency consultants:
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned finds [Plaintiff] has the above
residual functional capacity assessment, including light exertion limitation,
which is supported by his combination of impairments, primarily cervical
and lumbar degenerative disc disease. 	While [Plaintiff’s] spinal symptoms
could reasonably interfere with his ability to perform more strenuous types
of work, the treatment records show his acute spinal exacerbations improved
after 	the 	March 	2022 	motor 	vehicle 	accident. 	In 	subsequent 	records,
Case 5:25-cv-00108-ALM Document 21 Filed 03/10/26 Page 12 of 14

13
[Plaintiff] 	was 	shown 	to be improved 	and 	typically unremarkable on
examinations, including intact gait, strength, and/or sensation. [Plaintiff’s]
persistent 	symptoms 	would 	also 	warrant 	restriction 	to 	no 	more 	than
occasional postural activities, with no climbing ladders, ropes, and scaffolds,
and occasional overhead reaching. He should also avoid concentrated
exposure (no more than frequent) to hazards due to possible instability due
to his spinal conditions. Accordingly, since the alleged onset date, [Plaintiff]
is found to retain the functional abilities set forth in the above residual
functional capacity.
(Id. at 28). This explanation refers to Plaintiff’s “spinal symptoms” that are “persistent,”
which is sufficient to show that the ALJ had in mind the various subjective statements
Plaintiff made about his limitations. The explanation likewise shows how the ALJ found
that Plaintiff was not disabled and crafted the RFC to accommodate Plaintiff’s symptoms.
In summary, the ALJ utilized the appropriate factors and articulated a symptom
analysis that was supported by substantial evidence. Consistency findings are “peculiarly
the province of the finder of fact,” and courts should “not upset such determinations when
supported by substantial evidence.” Cowan v. Astrue, 552 F.3d 1182, 1190 (10th Cir.
2008).
Plaintiff’s argument that the ALJ’s assessment of Plaintiff’s RFC was flawed and
not supported by substantial evidence fails for similar reasons. (See Doc. 15, at 12-15).
Plaintiff asserts that an RFC assessment should “be supported by a narrative discussion
citing specific medical and non-medical evidence and describing how that evidence
supports the conclusions reached therein.” (Id. at 13, citing SSR 96-8p). The ALJ provided
such a discussion, as described above. Plaintiff’s argument on this point merely highlights
objective medical evidence and symptoms that could arguably support a finding of
disability. (Id. at 14-15). 	But this is a request for this Court to re-weigh the evidence and
Case 5:25-cv-00108-ALM Document 21 Filed 03/10/26 Page 13 of 14

14
come to a conclusion different than the ALJ. This Court must decline that request. Vigil,
805 F.3d at 1201 (holding that the court will “neither reweigh the evidence nor substitute
[its] judgment for that of the agency”) (internal quotation marks omitted). “The ALJ was
entitled to resolve [ ] evidentiary conflicts and did so.” Allman v. Colvin, 813 F.3d 1326,
1333 (10th Cir. 2016).
VI. 	Conclusion
Having reviewed the medical evidence of record, the transcript of the administrative
hearing, the decision of the ALJ, and the pleadings and briefs of the parties, the Court
AFFIRMS the decision of the Commissioner.
IT SO ORDERED this 10th day of March, 2026.
Case 5:25-cv-00108-ALM Document 21 Filed 03/10/26 Page 14 of 14