Case Name in Social Security Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
Jessica J. E.,
Plaintiff,
V.
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
CaseNo. 2:25-cv-16
Judge Michael H. Watson
IVIagistrate Judge Silvain, Jr.
OPINION AND ORDER
Jessica J. E. ("Plaintiff") applied for child's disability benefits and
supplemental security income, ultimately alleging a disability onset date of
January 27, 2021. ECF No. 7-5 at PAGEID ## 282-315. Her claims were
denied initially and on reconsideration. ECF No. 7-3 at PAGEID ## 112-59.
After the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") held a hearing, theALJ found Plaintiff
not disabled. ECF No. 7-2 at PAGEID ## 43-57. Plaintiff appealed to the
Appeals Council, who declined to review the decision. Id. at PAGEID ## 27-29.
Plaintiff then initiated this case and alleged three errors in theALJ's decision.
Compl., ECF No. 1; Stmt. of Specific Errors, ECF No. 8. It is before the
Undersigned on Plaintiff's objection to the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation ("R&R"). Obj., ECF No. 13.
Case: 2:25-cv-00016-MHW-PBS Doc #: 15 Filed: 02/10/26 Page: 1 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the Court reviews de
novo those portions of the R&R to which Plaintiff properly objected. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b).
II. ANALYSIS
The Magistrate Judge's R&R recommended that the Court overrule
Plaintiff's Statement of Specific Errors and uphold the Commissioner of Social
Security's ("Commissioner") non-disability finding. R&R, ECF No. 12.
Specifically, the R&R acknowledged that Plaintiff raised three arguments in
her Statement of Specific Errors: (1) the ALJ failed to explain how she evaluated
the "supportability" of Dr. Swain's and Dr. Delcour's opinions; (2) the ALJ failed to
explain how she evaluated the "other most persuasive factors" of Kessler's, Dr.
Zsanbok's, Smiley's, and perhaps Dr. Oricoli's opinions, given that the ALJ found
them each equally persuasive; and (3) the ALJ incorrectly concluded that Kessler
failed to cite objective medical evidence. R&R 4-5, ECF No. 12 (citing Stmt. of
Specific Errors, ECF No. 8).
The Magistrate Judge rejected Plaintiff's first contention of error by noting
that the ALJ could not evaluate the supportability of Dr. Swain's and Dr. Delcour's
opinions because they merely adopted a prior ALJ's mental Residual Functional
Capacity ("MRFC") without offering their own explanations, and the lack of an
independent explanation makes it impossible to evaluate the supportability of the
same. R&R 8-9, ECF No. 12. More importantly, because the instant ALJ
Case No. 2:25-cv-16 Page 2 of 6
Case: 2:25-cv-00016-MHW-PBS Doc #: 15 Filed: 02/10/26 Page: 2 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

imposed an M RFC that was more restrictive than that recommended by Drs.
Swain and Delcour, the Magistrate Judge concluded that any failure to address
the supportability of those doctors' opinions did not prejudice Plaintiff or deprive
her of a substantial right. Id.
With respect to Plaintiff's second contention of error, the Magistrate Judge
concluded that the ALJ did not err in failing to evaluate "other most persuasive
factors" with respect to Kessler's, Dr. Zsambok's, or Smiley's opinions because
the ALJ found their opinions equally unsupported, not equally well supported. Id.
at 9-12. The same analysis would apply to Dr. Oricoli.
Finally, the Magistrate Judge rejected Plaintiff's third contention of error as
an incorrect characterization oftheALJ's finding and, alternatively, as meritless
(even as mischaracterized). Id. at 12-13.
On objection, Plaintiff takes issue with only the Magistrate Judge's first and
third conclusions. See generally Ob'}., ECF No. 13. Plaintiff therefore forfeited
her right to de novo review by the Undersigned and her right to appeal the
Court's adoption of the Magistrate Judge's R&R with respect to Plaintiff's second
contention of error: theALJ's failure to evaluate "other most persuasive factors"
concerning Kessler's, Dr. Zsanbok's, Smiley's, and perhaps Dr. Oricoli's opinions.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (noting the district judge must determine de novo
only those portions of an R&R that were properly objected to); R&R 16, ECF No.
12 (warning Plaintiff of forfeiture).
CaseNo. 2:25-cv-16 	Page 3 of 6
Case: 2:25-cv-00016-MHW-PBS Doc #: 15 Filed: 02/10/26 Page: 3 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

Having identified the scope of Plaintiff's objections, the Court now turns to
the merits of the same.
Plaintiff argues first that the Magistrate Judge improperly shifted "the
burden of articulating the supportability factor to Plaintiff by requiring Plaintiff to
'point out' the evidence purportedly relied upon by Drs. Swain and Delcour. " Obj.
2, ECF No. 13. She contends that the law puts the burden on the ALJ to
evaluate (and explain the evaluation of) the supportability factor, and she argues
that the Court must reverse theALJ's decision even iftheALJ's error of law is
unlikely to produce a different outcome on remand. Id.
This objection is OVERRULED.
Dr. Swain and Dr. Delcour opined that Plaintiff had only mild to moderate
impairments, and they adopted a prior ALJ's M RFC as their own opinions. ECF
No. 7-3 at PAGEID ## 117, 119, 139, 143-44.
The instant ALJ concluded that their findings were "partially persuasive"
because "some" of their opined mild-to-moderate limitations were consistent with
examinations wherein Plaintiff exhibited only mild symptoms. ALJ Dec., ECF No.
7-2 at PAGEID # 54. But theALJ nonetheless concluded that Dr. Swain's and Dr.
Delcour's opined limitations were too lenient and that Plaintiff's autism warranted
additional limitations. Id.
Plaintiff objects that the ALJ erred by failing to explain why she rejected the
more lenient portions of Dr. Swain's and Dr. Delcour's opinions without explaining
how those portions were unsupportable. But because the ALJ's partial rejection
Case No. 2:25-cv-16 	Page 4 of 6
Case: 2:25-cv-00016-MHW-PBS Doc #: 15 Filed: 02/10/26 Page: 4 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

benefited Plaintiff, any error in failing to explain the basis of the rejection did not
prejudice Plaintiff. Accordingly, even assuming that the ALJ erred by failing to
explain why the rejected portions were unsupportable, remand is unwarranted 1
Cf., e. g., Bowen v. Comm'rofSoc. See., 478 F. 3d 742, 746 (6th Cir. 2007) ("Even
if supported by substantial evidence, ... a decision of the Commissioner will not
be upheld where the SSA fails to follow its own regulations and where that error
prejudices a claimant on the merits or deprives the claimant of a substantial
right. " (citing Wilson v. Comm'rofSoc. See., 378 F. 3d 541, 546-47 (6th Cir.
2004))).
The Court also OVERRULES Plaintiff's objection regarding the Magistrate
Judge's third conclusion (as to whether Kessler cited objective medical
evidence). As the R&R explains, Plaintiff's Statement of Specific Errors
mischaracterizes the ALJ's decision. Contrary to Plaintiff's Statement of Specific
Errors, Stmt. Specific Errors 16-17, ECF No. 8, theALJ did not find that Kessler
failed to cite objective findings. Rather, the ALJ found that Kessler "did not cite to
objective findings that support extreme limitations. " ALJ Dec. 29, ECF No. 7-2 at
PAGEID # 54 (emphasis added). Thus, the objection fails because the argument
1 Given this conclusion, the Court need not consider the Magistrate Judge's alternative
conclusion that theALJ's ability to conduct a "supportability" analysis was limited
because Drs. Swain and Delcour failed to explain their opinions. R&R 8, ECF No. 12.
The Court notes, however, that it is this conclusion that Plaintiffargues results from
improper burden shifting. Obj. 2-3, ECF No. 13. Plaintiff failed to meaningfully engage
with the conclusion that remand is unwarranted because any error benefited Plaintiff,
apart from reciting the general rule that courts should not avoid remand simply because
the same outcome is likely to occur on remand. See id.
Case No. 2:25-cv-16 Page 5 of 6
Case: 2:25-cv-00016-MHW-PBS Doc #: 15 Filed: 02/10/26 Page: 5 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>

in the Statement of Specific Errors was a mischaracterization oftheALJ's
decision.
Moreover, even if Plaintiff had timely asserted a different argument in her
Statement of Specific Errors (e. g., that Kessler's opinions about extreme
limitations were supported by her narrative notes), that argument would likewise
fail. The three narrative statements to which Plaintiff cites, see Obj. 3, ECF No.
13, are vague and general. None of them are specific enough to support the
extreme limitations in the areas Kessler identified on the questionnaire. See ECF
No. 7-10 at PAGEID ##1511-14. Kessler's treatment notes likewise do not
support her opinion on extreme limitations. Id. at PAGEID ## 1455-64.
III. CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, Plaintiff's objections are OVERRULED. The Court
ADOPTS the R&R, OVERRULES Plaintiff's Statement of Specific Errors, and
AFFIRMS the Commissioner's decision. The Clerk shall enter judgment for the
Commissioner and terminate this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ICHAEL H. WATSON, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CaseNo. 2:25-cv-16 	Page 6 of 6
Case: 2:25-cv-00016-MHW-PBS Doc #: 15 Filed: 02/10/26 Page: 6 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>