Case Name in Social Security Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
Anthony A. S.,
Plaintiff,
V.
Commissioner of Social Security,
CaseNo. 2:25-cv-132
Judge Michael H. Watson
Magistrate Judge Silvain, Jr.
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff applied for Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") but was denied
initially and on reconsideration. Tr. 435^0, ECF No. 7-5; Tr. 154-70, ECF No. 7-
3. After an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") held a hearing, theALJ determined
that Plaintiff was not disabled. Tr. 174-94, ECF No. 7-3. The Appeals Council
remanded, Tr. 200-03, ECF No. 7-3, and another ALJ held a new hearing but,
again, concluded that Plaintiff was not disabled. Tr. 18-44, ECF No. 7-2. The
Appeals Council refused to review that decision. Id. at 1-4. Plaintiff then sued
here. Compl., ECF No. 6. The case is before the Undersigned on Plaintiff's
objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), ECF
No. 13.
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).
Case: 2:25-cv-00132-MHW-PBS Doc #: 14 Filed: 02/27/26 Page: 1 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>

II. ANALYSIS
The R&R recommends that the Court overrule Plaintiff's Statement of
Specific Errors and affirm the Commissioner of Social Security's
("Commissioner") non-disability finding. R&R, ECF No. 12.
On objection, Plaintiff contends that the ALJ failed to properly account for
the social interaction limitations opined by Dr. Jeffrey Andert ("Dr. Andert") and
that the R&R deemed this argument moot by incorrectly concluding that theALJ's
Residual Functional Capacity ("RFC") was more limiting than Dr. Andert's
opinion. Obj., ECF No. 13.
As relevant here, Dr. Andert was an impartial medical expert who
performed a file review and testified before the second ALJ. Tr. 18, ECF No. 7-2.
Dr. Andert opined, inter alia, that Plaintiff was limited to interacting with only "a
small group of coworkers, perhaps six to eight with whom he interacted on a
routine basis and even that would be occasional. " Id. at 72. He opined no
limitations on interactions with supervisors but opined that Plaintiff should be
limited to only occasional interactions with the general public. Id. at 72-73.
TheALJ's RFC 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 26
CaseNo. 2:25-cv-132 	Page 2 of 5
Case: 2:25-cv-00132-MHW-PBS Doc #: 14 Filed: 02/27/26 Page: 2 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>

Accordingly, both Dr. Andert and the ALJ limited Plaintiff to occasional
interaction with the public and coworkers. But Plaintiff points to the following
difference: theALJ's RFC qualitatively \\m\ted that occasional interaction (to the
straightforward exchange of information) whereas Dr. Andert's opinion
quantitatively limited the occasional coworker interaction (to a small group of
perhaps six to eight). Plaintiff maintains that the qualitative limitation does not
sufficiently account for the quantitative limitation, such that the ALJ failed to either
adopt, or explain the rejection of, Dr. Andert's quantitative limitation. Obj. 2-3.
The Court disagrees. At bottom, Dr. Andert opined that Plaintiff could
interact with only a small group of coworkers. Tr. 72, ECF No. 7-2. Although Dr.
Andert limited the number of coworkers with whom Plaintiff could interact, he
placed no limit on the number of supervisors or members of the general public
with whom Plaintiff could interact. Moreover, Dr. Andert placed no limit on the
nature of Plaintiff's interactions with the public, that small group of coworkers, or
supervisors. Id. Instead of permitting Plaintiffto engage in a wide range of
communication with a limited number of coworkers but an unlimited number of
members of the public and supervisors, theALJ permitted Plaintiff to interact with
an unlimited number of coworkers, supervisors, and members of the general
public but ensured that all such communications involved only the straightforward
exchange of information. Id. at 26. The Court agrees that the latter restriction is
more restrictive than the former because it limits Plaintiff to the type of
communication he can handle. By limiting interaction to the type Plaintiff can
Case No. 2:25-cv-132 	Page 3 of 5
Case: 2:25-cv-00132-MHW-PBS Doc #: 14 Filed: 02/27/26 Page: 3 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>

handle, theALJ's RFC accounts for the bases of Dr. Andert's opinion, which was
that Plaintiff "had symptoms of paranoid thoughts of avoidance of social
situations and a tendency to isolate himself. " Id. at 30, 71. In sum, the Court
agrees with the R&R.
Alternatively, to the extent theALJ's RFC is not more restrictive than Dr.
Andert's opinion, the ALJ adequately explained his failure to adopt the "small
group" portion of that opinion. TheALJ noted that he did not adopt Dr. Andert's
opinion verbatim Id. at 41 . The ALJ concluded that Dr. Andert's opinions were
"partially persuasive" because they were "generally consistent" with Plaintiff's
history of mental health symptoms but that Plaintiff's symptoms improved with
medication and treatment compliance to the point that "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 has felt in a while. " Id. at 41-42.
Elsewhere in the decision, theALJ also noted inconsistencies between Plaintiff's
self-reports that "he did not like being around many people" and "would get into
confrontations with others" and the fact that Plaintiff hung out with friends, had a
girlfriend, had no history of assaults or fights with others, and was able to "getQ
out and do[] things" when medication compliant. Id. at 38.
Finally, the Court notes that the Vocational Expert never testified that
further limiting Plaintiff's coworker interactions to only a small group of coworkers
CaseNo. 2:25-cv-132 	Page 4 of 5
Case: 2:25-cv-00132-MHW-PBS Doc #: 14 Filed: 02/27/26 Page: 4 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>

would impact the availability ofjobs that Plaintiff could perform. Id. at 78.1
Plaintiff's counsel failed to follow up with the Vocational Expert on this issue, and
counsel fails to even argue that adoption of the "small group" limitation would
change theALJ's non-disability finding.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's objections,
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.
I HAELH. ATSON, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
1 See Tr. 78, ECF No. 7-2 ("Q: But if we were further limiting interaction to no more than
six to eight coworkers, are you able to provide an opinion as to howthat would impact the
availability of work? A: 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. ").
CaseNo. 2:25-cv-132 	Page 5 of 5
Case: 2:25-cv-00132-MHW-PBS Doc #: 14 Filed: 02/27/26 Page: 5 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>