Tinsley v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
CHARLES TINSLEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 1:25-CV-00427-CEH
CARMEN E. HENDERSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
MEMORANDUM 	OPINION 	AND
ORDER
I. Introduction
Charles Tinsley (“Tinsley” or “Claimant”), seeks judicial review of the final decision of
the Commissioner of Social Security denying his application for Disability Insurance Benefits
(“DIB”). This matter is before me by consent of the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed. R.
Civ. P. 73. (ECF No. 4). For the reasons set forth below, the Court AFFIRMS the Commissioner
of Social Security’s final decision denying Tinsley benefits.
II. Procedural History
On September 15, 2022, Tinsley filed an application for DIB, alleging a disability onset
date of December 31, 2015. (ECF No. 7, PageID #: 40). The application was denied initially and
upon reconsideration, and Tinsley requested a hearing before an administrative law judge
(“ALJ”). 	(Id.). 	On February 7, 2024, an ALJ held a hearing, during which Claimant,
represented by counsel, and an impartial vocational expert testified. (Id. at PageID #: 59-82). At
that time, Plaintiff amended his alleged onset date to January 1, 2020. (Id. at PageID #: 64). On
February 22, 2024 the ALJ issued a written decision finding Tinsley was not disabled. 	(Id. at
Case: 1:25-cv-00427-CEH Doc #: 11 Filed: 11/19/25 1 of 17. PageID #: <pageID>

2
PageID #: 40-52). 	The ALJ’s decision became final on January 7, 2025, when the Appeals
Council declined further review. (Id. at PageID #: 24-26).
On March 4, 2025, Tinsley filed his Complaint to challenge the Commissioner’s final
decision. 	(ECF No. 1). 	The parties have completed briefing in this case. 	(ECF Nos. 8, 9).
Tinsley asserts the following assignments of error:
(1) Whether the ALJ erred when she rejected two consistent
opinions from the treating physician.
(2) Whether the ALJ erred in cherry picking evidence in the
evaluation of pain under Regulation 96-3p.
(3) Whether the ALJ failed to create a logical bridge between the
evidence of record and her assessment of Plaintiff’s residual
functional capacity.
(ECF No. 8 at 1).
III. Background
A. Relevant Hearing Testimony
The ALJ summarized Tinsley’s disability allegations and the relevant testimony from
Tinsley hearing:
In 	the 	Adult 	Disability 	Report, 	the 	claimant 	alleged 	work
limitations due to a knee surgery, hip disease, and degenerative
disc disease (Exhibit 2E). In his Adult Function Report, the
claimant wrote that he is unable to sit or stand for even short
periods due to pain, has problems with balance and holding things,
and that pain medications only provide up to 2 hours of relief
(Exhibit 5E). The claimant wrote that he can only lift up to five
pounds, has postural limitations, can only walk up to 15 feet at a
time, has problems getting along with others due to irritability, and
can have problems with focus due to pain. He stated that he is able
to drive, talk with friends over the phone, and is able to follow
instructions. He stated that he has a prescribed knee brace and uses
a back brace.
At the hearing, the claimant testified that he is unable to work due
to pain in the back, knees, and hips. The claimant is a younger
Case: 1:25-cv-00427-CEH Doc #: 11 Filed: 11/19/25 2 of 17. PageID #: <pageID>

3
individual and was 44 years of age on the hearing date. The
claimant stated that he lives in a house with his wife and two
children, ages 17 and 20. He stated that he is able to drive his
daughter 	to 	school. 	The 	claimant 	stated 	that 	he 	takes 	pain
medications, but it does not help. The claimant stated that he has a
problem sleeping due to his hip pain, which affects his mood. The
claimant testified that he underwent a left hip procedure a week
prior to the hearing, and he still has pain in the right hip. He stated
that on a typical day, he takes his daughter to school and helps with
some chores such as folding laundry but has problems cooking due
to limitations with standing. He stated that he is able to shower and
get dressed. The claimant testified that he does not usually go
grocery shopping but can go make small purchases. He stated that
he does not use anything to help him walk but has problems
climbing stairs. The claimant testified that he could stand for 10
minutes at a time, can sit for 15 minutes at a time, can carry 10
pounds, and can walk half a block at a time. The claimant stated
that his back pain comes and goes, and the pain is better when he
changes position. The claimant stated that he needs to lie down
every day for three hours.
(ECF No. 7, PageID #: 45-46).
B. Relevant Medical Evidence
The ALJ also summarized Tinsley’s health records and symptoms:
In February 2020, imaging of the left knee showed ACL and
medial meniscus tears (Exhibit 2F/18). The claimant stated that he
injured his left ACL about 10 years ago and injured his left medial
meniscus about 5 years ago, and he recently began to experience
left knee pain after playing basketball. In March 2020, the claimant
underwent 	an 	ACL 	reconstruction 	and 	partial 	medial
meniscectomy surgery in the left knee (Exhibit 4F/17). A follow-
up treatment note in July 2020 indicated medical improvement, as
the claimant stated that he was doing very well in general but with
some pain when running (Exhibit 2F/14). The claimant was also no
longer wearing a knee brace (Exhibit 2F/14). In October 2020, the
claimant complained of right foot pain, but an x-ray of the right
foot mostly showed mild congruent hallux valgus (Exhibit 4F/6).
Evidence of improvement following his left knee surgery indicate
that he can perform some work activities.
The record also indicates bilateral hip pain, but the record also
indicates medical improvement following his hip procedures. In
January 2021, the claimant stated that he started to have hip pain
Case: 1:25-cv-00427-CEH Doc #: 11 Filed: 11/19/25 3 of 17. PageID #: <pageID>

4
that started in the last two months (Exhibit 4F/3). The claimant
stated that he is doing very well from his ACL surgery, but his
altered gait may have contributed to hip pain. Medical imaging
found mild degenerative joint disease in both hips and mild to
moderate degenerative joint disease in both sacroiliac (“SI”) joints
(Exhibit 	2F/21). 	The 	examiner 	recommended 	conservative
treatment. The claimant was started on physical therapy and
attended 8 sessions, but he was discharged from physical therapy
in July 2021 due to noncompliance (Exhibit 6F/2). In an annual
physical in March 2022, the claimant complained of low back pain
on the right side and right hip pain that sometimes radiates to the
right thigh (Exhibit 7F/10). A physical examination noted some
tenderness to deep palpation in the right SI joint and left ulnar
groove (Exhibit 7F/12). However, the examination also noted that
the claimant was in no acute distress, had normal gait, and normal
straight leg raising on the right side. An x-ray of the right hip and
lumbosacral 	spine 	had 	normal 	findings 	(Exhibit 	7F/17, 	19).
Medical imaging showing degenerative changes in the hips and SI
joints 	indicate 	work 	limitations. 	However, 	findings 	that 	the
claimant had normal gait and normal muscle strength indicate that
he could perform daily activities independently.
In August 2022, the claimant complained of low back pain after
playing basketball (Exhibit 7F/5). A physical examination noted
some lower back pain with palpation, but also noted that the
claimant was in no acute distress and had normal gait. The
claimant was advised to use anti-inflammatory patches and to take
ibuprofen 600mg. The claimant declined physical therapy and was
advised to perform daily back exercises at home. A December
2022 examination noted positive straight leg raising on the left side
and right shoulder pain to deep palpation (Exhibit 8F/4). However,
the examiner noted that the claimant does not need assistance with
sitting, standing, or walking. He was started on meloxicam 15 mg
and gabapentin 300 mg. Ongoing findings that the claimant did not
need assistance with sitting, standing, or walking indicate that he
can perform some work.
In a January 2023 consultative examination with Dorothy Bradford
M.D., 	the 	claimant 	stated 	that 	he 	has 	right 	hip 	pain 	with
ambulation, has low back pain and is unable to sit or stand for 20
minutes continuously, and still has pain after his 2020 left knee
surgery (Exhibit 10F/7). Upon physical examination, Dr. Bradford
noted that the claimant had mildly decreased range of motion in
the right hip. However, Dr. Bradford also found that the claimant
was in no acute distress, had normal strength in all muscle groups,
had normal gait, and had no focal neurological deficit. An x-ray of
Case: 1:25-cv-00427-CEH Doc #: 11 Filed: 11/19/25 4 of 17. PageID #: <pageID>

5
the left knee noted mild patellofemoral arthritis, and imaging of the
pelvis noted minimal arthritis (Exhibit 9F/1, 2). Dr. Bradford
assessed the claimant with right hip impingement and degenerative
joint 	disease 	of 	the 	left 	knee 	and 	lumbar 	spine 	without
radiculopathy. Dr. Bradford’s findings indicate some ongoing left
knee pain and hip pain. However, findings of normal muscle
strength and intact neurological findings indicate that he could
perform activities of daily living despite his pain.
Later in January 2023, the claimant complained of right shoulder
pain, but an x-ray of the right shoulder had unremarkable findings
(Exhibit 11F/10, 15). The claimant received an injection in his
right 	shoulder. 	In 	another 	January 	2023 	treatment 	note, 	the
claimant alleged right hip pain, and an x-ray of the right hip found
femoroacetabular 	impingement 	(Exhibit 	12F/24; 	13F/10).
However, the examination also noted intact sensation in the lower
extremities 	and 	normal 	muscle 	strength. 	In 	February 	2023,
magnetic resonance imaging (“MRI”) of the right hip noted a
labral tear, and an MRI of the right shoulder found minimal
tendinopathy 	(Exhibit 	13F/9; 	11F/14). 	Imaging 	of 	the 	right
shoulder that had mild findings indicate that he can use his right
arm to perform work activities.
In 	a 	March 	2023 	treatment 	note 	with 	Divya 	Sree
Madhuramthakam, M.D. to establish care for increased anxiety and
insomnia, 	the 	claimant 	stated 	that 	he 	has 	been 	experiencing
excruciating pain and is unable to sleep, which probably leads to
his increasing anxiety (Exhibit 16F/11). The claimant was advised
to take medications including Tramadol, Tylenol, and gabapentin.
One week later, the claimant told Dr. Madhuramthakam that his
pain has been better managed with pain medications, but he has
pain 	with 	ambulation 	(Exhibit 	16F/11). 	However, 	a 	physical
examination did not appear to specifically note acute problems
other than suppleness in the neck (Exhibit 16F/16). The claimant
was prescribed Atarax and Luvox for anxiety and depression. In
April 2023, a home sleep apnea test report had findings suggestive
of 	only 	mild 	obstructive 	sleep 	apnea 	(Exhibit 	16F/24). 	The
claimant’s statement that his pain had improved with medication
indicate that medication compliance can help manage his pain.
On May 4, 2023, the claimant underwent right hip arthroscopy,
decompression, and labral repair surgery (Exhibit 17F/21). Follow-
up treatment notes one week later noted that the claimant was
doing well and was healing from the procedure (Exhibit 17F/24).
Another 	follow-up 	treatment 	note 	in 	June 	2023 	again 	noted
improvement in his right hip pain (Exhibit 21F/12). However, the
Case: 1:25-cv-00427-CEH Doc #: 11 Filed: 11/19/25 5 of 17. PageID #: <pageID>

6
claimant complained of increasing pain in the left side, and
medical imaging of the left hip found a cam type deformity with
femoral acetabular impingement and tearing of the anterior labrum
(Exhibit 	21F/15). 	Treatment 	notes 	in 	July 	and 	August 	2023
continued to note “significant” improvement following his right
hip surgery (Exhibit 12F/10, 13). However, the claimant stated that
his left hip pain has become “debilitating,” and he was scheduled
for left hip surgery (Exhibit 23F/13). Imaging of the lumbar spine
in November 2023 found degenerative changes at L5-S1 (Exhibit
26F/2). The claimant testified that he underwent a left hip surgery
one week prior to the hearing.
(ECF No. 7, PageID #: 47-48).
C. Opinion Evidence at Issue
The ALJ considered multiple medical opinions in the record. Of relevance to the issues
before the Court are two opinions of Plaintiff’s provider, Dr. Madhuramthakam.
In 	December 	2020, 	Dr. 	Madhuramthakam 	completed 	a 	medical 	source 	statement
indicating Plaintiff was able to occasionally lift ten pounds; was limited to two hours of standing
and/or walking, and only half an hour uninterrupted; had similar limitations in sitting; could
never 	climb, 	crouch, 	kneel, 	or 	crawl, 	but 	could 	occasionally 	balance 	and 	stoop; 	could
occasionally 	reach, 	push/pull, 	and 	use 	fine 	manipulation, 	but 	could 	rarely 	use 	gross
manipulation; experienced severe pain that would interfere with his concentration, ability to
remain on-task, and cause absenteeism; would need two hours of additional breaks a day; and
would need to be able to alternate positions between sitting, standing, and walking at will. (ECF
No. 	7, 	PageID 	#: 	873-74). 	As 	the 	medical 	findings 	to 	support 	his 	assessments, 	Dr.
Madhuramthakam listed “left hip osteoarthritis.” (Id.).
Dr. Madhuramthakam completed a second medical source statement in March 2023,1
1 Dr. Madhuramthakam also authored an opinion regarding Plaintiff’s mental capacity, which the ALJ found
persuasive. (ECF No. 7, PageID #: 48, 732-33). As Plaintiff does not challenge the ALJ’s treatment of this opinion,
it is not discussed further here.
Case: 1:25-cv-00427-CEH Doc #: 11 Filed: 11/19/25 6 of 17. PageID #: <pageID>

7
further limiting Plaintiff to only occasionally lifting five pounds; needing to elevate his legs 45
degrees at will; and being prescribed a cane and brace; but finding that Plaintiff could now
occasionally climb, crouch, kneel, and crawl and frequently reach and use fine and gross
manipulation. 	(Id. 	at 	PageID 	#: 	729-730). 	Dr. 	Madhuramthakam 	cited 	Plaintiff’s
“femoroacetabular impingement of right hip” and “acetabular labeum tear right” as supporting
his assessment. (Id.).
The ALJ found Dr. Madhuramthakam’s opinions unpersuasive. (Id. at PageID #: 49).
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, 2023.
2. 	The claimant did not engage in substantial gainful activity
during the period from his amended alleged onset date of
January 1, 2020 through his date last insured of December 31,
2023 (the “relevant period”) (20 CFR 404.1571 et seq.).
3. 	Through the date last insured, the claimant had the following
severe impairments: left knee arthritis, lumbar degenerative
changes, bilateral hip femoral acetabular impingement and
labral tear, status post right hip arthroscopy, and tendinopathy
of right shoulder (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
sedentary work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(a). In addition,
the claimant could lift/carry 20 pounds occasionally and 10
pounds frequently, and he could stand/walk for 2 hours and sit
for 6 hours in an 8-hour workday. The claimant must alternate
sitting and standing every 20 minutes to relieve pain and
Case: 1:25-cv-00427-CEH Doc #: 11 Filed: 11/19/25 7 of 17. PageID #: <pageID>

8
discomfort. The claimant could occasionally push/pull with the
lower 	extremities. 	The 	claimant 	could 	never 	climb
ladders/ropes/scaffolds, kneel, crouch, or crawl; and could
occasionally 	climb 	ramp/stairs, 	balance, 	and 	stoop. 	The
claimant could frequently perform reaching with the right
upper extremity. The claimant could have no work around
heavy machinery or unprotected heights.
6. 	Through the date last insured, the claimant was unable to
perform any past relevant work (20 CFR 404.1565)
…
10. Through the date last insured, considering the claimant’s age,
education, work experience, and residual functional capacity,
there were jobs that existed in significant numbers in the
national economy that the claimant could have performed (20
CFR 404.1569 and 404.1569a).
11. The claimant was not under a disability, as defined in the
Social Security Act, at any time from January 1, 2020, the
amended alleged onset date, through December 31, 2023, the
date last insured (20 CFR 404.1520(g)).
(ECF No. 7, PageID #: 42-45, 50-52).
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
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)).
Case: 1:25-cv-00427-CEH Doc #: 11 Filed: 11/19/25 8 of 17. PageID #: <pageID>

9
“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
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.
Case: 1:25-cv-00427-CEH Doc #: 11 Filed: 11/19/25 9 of 17. PageID #: <pageID>

10
C. Discussion
Tinsley raises three issues on appeal.2 	First, he argues the ALJ erred in evaluating his
pain by cherry-picking the record instead of considering it in its entirety. (ECF No. 8 at 12-16).
Next, Plaintiff argues the ALJ erred in rejecting Dr. Madhuramthakam’s opinions. 	(Id. at 17-
20). Finally, Plaintiff argues the ALJ erred because she failed to create a logical bridge between
the evidence and Plaintiff’s RFC. (Id. at 21-22).
1. 	Consideration of Plaintiff’s Pain
Plaintiff’s first argument challenges the ALJ’s consideration of his pain testimony. (ECF
No. 8 at 12-16).
The evaluation of a claimant’s subjective complaints rests with the ALJ. 	See Siterlet v.
Sec’y of HHS, 823 F.2d 918, 920 (6th Cir. 1987); Rogers, 486 F.3d at 248 (noting that
“credibility determinations regarding subjective complaints rest with the ALJ”). In evaluating a
claimant’s symptoms, the ALJ must look to medical evidence, statements by the claimant, other
information provided by medical sources, and any other relevant evidence on 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 and 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 induvial 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
2 In the body of his brief, Plaintiff presents his arguments in a different order than in his issues presented. (Compare
ECF No. 8 at 1 with id. at 12-22). The Court addresses the issues in the order they are argued in the body of the
brief.
Case: 1:25-cv-00427-CEH Doc #: 11 Filed: 11/19/25 10 of 17. PageID #: <pageID>

11
but should show that he considered 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).
Plaintiff argues that in finding his symptoms allegations inconsistent with the record, “the
ALJ selectively cited only limited evidence in the record, and made assumptions beyond her
medical expertise—ultimately downplaying the severity and persistence of Plaintiff’s pain rather
than providing a fair evaluation of the evidence.” (ECF No. 8 at 13). Plaintiff further argues the
ALJ erred “in failing to focus and evaluate evidence that documents the persistent reports made
by Mr. Tinsley of hip, knee, and back pain” and “failed to provide a clear understanding of what
evidence was or was not considered under the requirements of 16-3p.” (Id. at 15).
The Commissioner responds that “[d]espite Plaintiff’s protestations otherwise, the ALJ
properly evaluated his subjective symptoms” and that determination should be given great
weight and deference. (ECF No. 9 at 6). The Commissioner argues the ALJ properly considered
multiple relevant factors, including the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of Plaintiff’s
impairments along with precipitating and aggravating factors; the effectiveness of Plaintiff’s
Case: 1:25-cv-00427-CEH Doc #: 11 Filed: 11/19/25 11 of 17. PageID #: <pageID>

12
medication, treatments other than medication, and other measures used to relieve pain; and
Plaintiff’s activities of daily living. (Id. at 8-9).
The Court agrees with the Commissioner. 	Here, the ALJ provided the following initial
explanation for finding Plaintiff’s allegations inconsistent with the record:
As for the claimant’s statements about the intensity, persistence,
and limiting effects of his or her symptoms, they are not fully
consistent with the record. The record indicates work limitations
from the claimant’s history of hip, knee, and shoulder pain.
However, the record also indicates that his left knee surgery and
right hip surgery have helped. The claimant testified that he
recently underwent left hip surgery, and the record does not
include 	evidence 	of 	complications 	from 	the 	recent 	surgery.
Examiners consistently noted that the claimant can walk without
assistive devices and had normal muscle strength. The claimant
appears able to perform activities of daily living independently
such as driving and performing personal care. The record also
indicates that the claimant was able to engage in activities such as
running 	and 	playing 	basketball 	after 	the 	alleged 	onset 	date.
Treatment notes have not indicated a high degree of side effects
from medications, and the claimant has declined to complete or
follow 	up 	with 	recommended 	physical 	therapy. 	Overall, 	the
medical record shows a greater level of functioning than generally
alleged and is consistent with the ability to perform a limited range
of sedentary work.
(ECF No. 7, PageID #: 46). 	As the Commissioner argues, this discussion reflects that the ALJ
found Plaintiff’s symptom allegations inconsistent with the overall record based on proper
factors, including improvement with surgery, lack of objective evidence supporting limitations,
and Plaintiff’s daily activities. 	See SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304 at *7-8. 	Additionally, the
citations provided by the ALJ throughout his discussion of the medical evidence amount to
substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s conclusion. 	(See ECF No. 7, PageID #: 437 (doing
well after surgery); 479 (doing “very well” after ACL surgery but believed altered gait resulted
in hip pain); 515 (discharged from physical therapy for failing to schedule but noting he was
“back in the gym 3-4 times a week”); 618 (noting back pain started after playing basketball and
Case: 1:25-cv-00427-CEH Doc #: 11 Filed: 11/19/25 12 of 17. PageID #: <pageID>

13
was treated with ibuprofen); 695 (“left knee is doing very well in general but with running he has
some pain”); 837 (“right side is doing great” after hip arthroscopy); 857 (reporting left hip pain
but right was “in a much better place than it was before surgery”). 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. Massanari, 321 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 subject to reversal merely because there
exists in the record substantial evidence to support a different conclusion.”). 	Plaintiff’s first
argument fails.
2. 	Consideration of Dr. Madhuramthakam’s Opinions
Plaintiff next challenges the ALJ’s treatment of Dr. Madhuramthakam’s opinions.
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). Under the current regulations, the SSA
“will not defer or give any specific evidentiary weight, including controlling weight, to any
medical opinion(s) or prior administrative medical finding(s).” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(a).
Nevertheless, an ALJ must “articulate how [he] considered the medical opinions and prior
administrative medical findings” in adjudicating a claim. Id. Medical source opinions are
evaluated using the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(c). The factors include
supportability; consistency; the source’s relationship with the claimant; the source’s specialized
area of practice, if any; and “other factors that tend to support or contradict a medical opinion.”
20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(c). The ALJ is required to explain how he considered the supportability
and consistency of a source’s medical opinion but generally is not required to discuss other
factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(b)(2). Under the regulations, “[t]he more relevant the objective
Case: 1:25-cv-00427-CEH Doc #: 11 Filed: 11/19/25 13 of 17. PageID #: <pageID>

14
medical evidence and supporting explanations presented by a medical source are to support his
or her medical opinion(s) or prior administrative medical finding(s), the more persuasive the
medical opinions or prior administrative medical finding(s) will be” and “[t]he more consistent a
medical opinion(s) or prior administrative medical finding(s) is with the evidence from other
medical sources and nonmedical sources in the claim, the more persuasive the medical opinion(s)
or prior administrative medical findings(s) will be.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(c)(1)-(2).
Here, the ALJ provided the following explanation for finding Dr. Madhuramthakam’s
opinions unpersuasive:
In December 2020, Dr. Madhuramthakam opined that the claimant
could lift up to 10 pounds; could stand, walk, and sit for 2 hours;
could 	occasionally 	reach, 	push/pull, 	and 	perform 	fine
manipulation, and can rarely perform gross manipulation; has
severe pain that interferes with concentration and job attendance;
and 	requires 	additional 	unscheduled 	breaks 	totaling 	2 	hours
(Exhibit 25F). In March 2023, Dr. Madhuramthakam gave a
similar 	opinion 	but 	further 	limiting 	the 	claimant 	to 	only
lifting/carrying up to 5 pounds occasionally (Exhibit 14F). The
undersigned 	does 	not 	find 	these 	opinions 	persuasive. 	Dr.
Madhuramthakam provided limited support for the high degree of
functional limitations, only noting that the claimant has left hip
osteoarthrosis and impingement and tear in the right hip. The
claimant initially received treatment with Dr. Madhuramthakam
for anxiety and insomnia rather than hip pain. The opinion is also
not 	supported 	by 	a 	March 	2023 	physical 	with 	Dr.
Madhuramthakam that did not appear to note a high degree of
musculoskeletal findings (Exhibit 16F/12). The opinion is not
consistent with the record showing that the claimant is able to walk
without assistive devices and had improvement following his right
hip surgery (Exhibit 17F/24).
(ECF No. 7, PageID #: 49).
Plaintiff argues “the ALJ failed to ground her rejection of these opinions to the evidence,
and then reconcile it with the RFC assigned to Plaintiff, specifically when addressing the issue of
pain and sustainability.” (ECF No. 8 at 18). Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ’s conclusion that Dr.
Case: 1:25-cv-00427-CEH Doc #: 11 Filed: 11/19/25 14 of 17. PageID #: <pageID>

15
Madhuramthakam’s opinions “lacked relevance because the claimant initially sought care for
anxiety and insomnia rather than right hip pain” is a mischaracterization of the record because
“Plaintiff’s mental health complaints cannot simply be separated from his physical condition.”
(Id.). 	Additionally, Plaintiff argues the ALJ improperly relied on the lack of significant
musculoskeletal findings to conclude Dr. Madhuramthakam’s opinions were not supported by his
own 	records 	because 	“[p]ain, 	by 	its 	nature, 	is 	subjective, 	and 	a 	lack 	of 	imaging 	or
musculoskeletal abnormalities does not negate the presence of debilitating pain.” 	(Id. at 19).
Finally, Plaintiff argues the ALJ’s reliance on the lack of need for an assistive device and
improvement following surgery was improper because “[t]hese issues simply fail to address the
critical question” of whether Plaintiff can sustain employment. (Id.).
The Commissioner responds that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s treatment of the
opinions. (ECF No. 9 at 9). The Commissioner argues that in finding the opinions unpersuasive,
the ALJ properly relied on the fact that the first opinion was only 10 days after Plaintiff’s initial
visit with Dr. Madhuramthakam; the lack of objective evidence to support the limitations; the
opinions being set out in a checklist format; and inconsistencies in the overall record, including
Plaintiff’s own testimony that he did not need a brace or assistive device. (Id. at 10-11).
The Court once again agrees with the Commissioner. 	The ALJ’s discussion of the
opinions makes clear that he considered their supportability and found that the restrictive
limitations were not supported by Dr. Madhuramthakam’s own treatment notes. 	(ECF No. 7,
PageID #: 49). As the ALJ noted, these treatment notes reflect that while Plaintiff attributed his
anxiety 	partially 	to 	his 	pain 	and 	trouble 	sleeping, 	Plaintiff 	primarily 	sought 	care 	from
Madhuramthakam for the anxiety and there were no abnormal musculoskeletal findings on
examination. 	(Id. at 745-56). 	The ALJ’s discussion also illustrates her conclusion that the
Case: 1:25-cv-00427-CEH Doc #: 11 Filed: 11/19/25 15 of 17. PageID #: <pageID>

16
opinions were inconsistent with the overall record, specifically with respect to Plaintiff’s ability
to walk without assistive devices and improvement with surgery. (Id. at PageID #: 49). As the
ALJ noted, Plaintiff himself denied needing an assistive device to walk. (Id. at PageID #: 72).
At best, Plaintiff points to additional evidence to argue for alternative treatment of Dr.
Madhuramthakam’s opinions. However, because the ALJ properly considered the supportability
and consistency of the opinions and substantial evidence supports her analysis, it is the ALJ’s
decision that must be upheld. Plaintiff’s second argument is without merit.
3. 	Logical Bridge
Finally, 	Plaintiff 	argues 	“[t]he 	ALJ’s 	determination 	that 	[he] 	retains 	the 	residual
functional capacity to perform full-time sedentary work is not supported by substantial evidence
and does not provide a clear path of understanding to the result.” 	(ECF No. 8 at 21).
Specifically, Plaintiff argues the ALJ failed to account for his “chronic, debilitating pain that
interferes with his ability to sit, stand, concentrate, and remain on task.” (Id.).
The 	Commissioner 	responds 	that 	“[s]ubstantial 	evidence 	supports 	the 	ALJ’s
determination that Plaintiff was not disabled and could perform a range of sedentary work,
despite his physical limitations.” 	(ECF No. 9 at 11). 	The Commissioner argues “the ALJ
discussed the medical evidence, the medical opinion evidence, and Plaintiff’s subjective
complaints in detail in setting forth the RFC determination” and properly relied on opinions from
the State agency consultants in crafting the RFC. (Id. at 12-13).
Having reviewed the ALJ’s decision, the Court rejects Plaintiff’s argument because the
ALJ built an accurate and logical bridge from the evidence of record to the RFC determination.
The Court can easily follow the ALJ’s explanation for finding Plaintiff retained the RFC set forth
in the decision and finds substantial evidence in the records supports the ALJ’s conclusion.
Case: 1:25-cv-00427-CEH Doc #: 11 Filed: 11/19/25 16 of 17. PageID #: <pageID>

17
Specifically, the ALJ made clear that while Plaintiff had limitations due to his hip, knee, and
shoulder pain, he retained the ability to perform sedentary work with some additional limitations,
consistent with Plaintiff’s noted improvement following various surgeries, his ability to complete
daily activities and engage in more strenuous activities such as running, and the State agency
opinions based on a review of the record. (See ECF No. 7, PageID #: 45-50).
It is hard to characterize Plaintiff’s argument as anything more than a request that the
Court review the evidence and reach a different conclusion than the ALJ. However, it is not the
role of this Court “to reconsider the facts, re-weigh the evidence, resolve conflicts in evidence,
decide questions of credibility, or substitute its judgment for that of the ALJ.” 	Reynolds v.
Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 424 F. App’x 411, 414 (6th Cir. 2011) (citing Youghiogheny & Ohio Coal
Co. v. Webb, 49 F.3d 244, 246 (6th Cir. 1995)). 	Rather, because substantial evidence supports
the Commissioner’s decision, the Court must defer to it, “even if there is substantial evidence
that would have supported an opposite conclusion.” Wright, 321 at 614. Thus, Plaintiff’s final
argument is without merit.
VI. Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the Court AFFIRMS the Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration’s final decision denying Tinsley benefits.
Dated: November 19, 2025
Case: 1:25-cv-00427-CEH Doc #: 11 Filed: 11/19/25 17 of 17. PageID #: <pageID>