Delores Karnofel v. Commissioner of Social Security

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 13a0436n.06
No. 11-3974
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
DELORES KARNOFEL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
OHIO
Before: MARTIN, GILMAN, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. Delores Karnofel, a pro se Ohio resident, appeals a district court order
affirming the Commissioner’s denial of her applications for social security disability insurance
benefits and for supplemental security income benefits.
Karnofel alleged that she was disabled due to mercury toxicity, Wilson’s thyroid syndrome,
and candidiasis. Her applications for benefits were denied initially and on review. Karnofel then
sought review before an administrative law judge (ALJ). Following a hearing, the ALJ denied
Karnofel’s applications for benefits, finding that there were a significant number of jobs in the
economy that Karnofel could perform. The Appeals Council declined to review the ALJ’s decision.
Karnofel then sought judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision. The case was referred
to a magistrate judge who recommended affirming the Commissioner’s decision to deny benefits.
Upon de novo review of the magistrate judge’s report, the district court affirmed the Commissioner’s
denial of benefits.

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 11-3974
- 2 -
On appeal, Karnofel argues that: 1) she suffers from a combination of impairments that meet
or equal a specific impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1; 2) she was
denied due process when properly submitted documents were omitted from the record and falsified
testimony about her impairments was admitted at her hearing before the ALJ; and 3) the district court
overlooked her arguments that the ALJ was biased and that pertinent documents were omitted from
the record. Karnofel has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
We review a district court’s judgment de novo. Ealy v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 594 F.3d 504,
512 (6th Cir. 2010). “[O]ur review is limited to determining whether the Commissioner’s decision
is supported by substantial evidence and was made pursuant to proper legal standards.” Id. (internal
quotation marks omitted). “If the Commissioner’s decision is based upon substantial evidence, we
must affirm, even if substantial evidence exists in the record supporting a different conclusion.” Id.
Karnofel did not present in the district court her argument that she satisfied a listed
impairment specified in Appendix 1. Therefore, Karnofel has waived this argument on appeal. See
id. at 513; Willis v. Sullivan, 931 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 1991).
Karnofel argues that she was denied due process when the ALJ excluded properly submitted
documents from the administrative record due to his bias against her as a pro se litigant, and when
the vocational expert provided falsified testimony about her impairments. Karnofel has not shown
that she is entitled to relief because she does not cite any evidence to support the claim that the ALJ
was biased against her due to her pro se status. See Navistar Int’l Transp. Corp. v. EPA, 941 F.2d
1339, 1360 (6th Cir. 1991) (“[A]ny alleged prejudice on the part of the decisionmaker must be
evident from the record and cannot be based on speculation or inference.”). And her argument
regarding the vocational expert’s allegedly false testimony is waived because it was not raised in the
district court. See Ealy, 594 F.3d at 513.
Finally, Karnofel contends that the district court overlooked her arguments that the ALJ was
biased against her and that pertinent documents were omitted from the record. This argument,

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 11-3974
- 3 -
however, is improper because we review the ALJ’s determination, not the district court’s opinion.
Id. at 512.
For the foregoing reasons, Karnofel’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted and the
district court’s judgment is affirmed.

-- 3 of 3 --