Wendy L. Liebhart v. Commissioner of Social Security

*The Honorable Daniel M. Friedman, United States Circuit Judge for the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals,
sitting by designation.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
File Name: 06a0213n.06
Filed: March 28, 2006
No. 05-3825
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
WENDY L. LIEBHART,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee,
____________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
OPINION
Before: COLE, GILMAN, and FRIEDMAN*, Circuit Judges.
RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. Wendy Liebhart filed an application with the
Social Security Administration for disability benefits. Her application was denied by both an
administrative law judge (ALJ) and the Commissioner of Social Security. Liebhart then filed a
complaint in federal district court, alleging that the administrative decision was improper. A
magistrate judge concluded that the ALJ’s decision was supported by substantial evidence. The
district court agreed, resulting in this appeal.
We must uphold the ALJ’s conclusions if they are supported by substantial evidence and if
the ALJ applied the correct legal criteria. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Heston v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.,
245 F.3d 528, 534 (6th Cir. 2001) (“Judicial review is limited to determining whether the district
court erred in finding that the ALJ’s ruling was supported by substantial evidence.”). Substantial

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
evidence is defined as “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion.” Id. (quoting Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971)). When
reviewing the ALJ’s conclusions, we “may not try the case de novo, nor resolve conflicts in
evidence, nor decide questions of credibility.” See Garner v. Heckler, 745 F.2d 383, 387 (6th Cir.
1984); see also Foster v. Halter, 279 F.3d 348, 353 (6th Cir. 2001) (noting that the court should
defer to the agency’s decision if it is supported by substantial evidence, “even if there is substantial
evidence in the record that would have supported an opposite conclusion”) (quoting Key v.
Callahan, 109 F.3d 270, 273 (6th Cir. 1997)).
The ALJ found that Liebhart was suffering from vestibular disturbance, dystonia, and
Lyme’s disease. According to the ALJ, these impairments were “severe” within the meaning of the
Social Security Act’s Regulations, “but not severe enough to meet or medically equal one of the
impairments listed [in the Regulations].” Despite finding that Liebhart suffered from severe
impairments, the ALJ concluded that she could still perform the job of a cashier as of the date that
her insured status expired—that date being December 31, 1998.
Because the persuasive reasoning that supports the judgment in favor of the Commissioner
has been clearly articulated by the magistrate judge in her comprehensive Report and
Recommendation that was adopted by the district court, the issuance of a detailed written opinion
by us would be unduly duplicative. The judgment rendered by the Honorable John R. Adams on
April 26, 2005, adopting the September 14, 2004 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge
Nancy A. Vecchiarelli, is accordingly AFFIRMED on the basis of the reasoning contained in those
documents.

-- 2 of 2 --