Hunt v. Commissioner of Social Security

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
ELIZABETH A HUNT,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 1:25-CV-01022-DCN
JUDGE DONALD C. NUGENT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
CARMEN E. HENDERSON
REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
I. Introduction
Plaintiff, Elizabeth A. Hunt (“Hunt” or “Claimant”), seeks judicial review of the final
decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying her application for Disability Insurance
Benefits (“DIB”). This matter is before me pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c)(3), and
Local Rule 72.2(b). For the reasons set forth below, it is RECOMMENDED that the Court
OVERRULE Claimant’s Statement of Errors and AFFIRM the Commissioner’s decision.
II. Procedural History
On March 4, 2022, Hunt filed an application for DIB, alleging a disability onset date of
March 4, 2022. 	(ECF No. 9, PageID #: 129). 	The application was denied initially and upon
reconsideration, and Hunt requested a hearing before an administrative law judge (“ALJ”). (Id.).
On March 6, 2024, an ALJ held a hearing, during which Claimant, represented by counsel, and
an impartial vocational expert testified. 	(Id. at PageID #: 79-104). 	On May 17, 2024, the ALJ
issued a written decision finding Hunt was not disabled. (Id. at PageID #: 129-43). The ALJ’s
Case: 1:25-cv-01022-DCN Doc #: 16 Filed: 01/12/26 1 of 17. PageID #: <pageID>

2
decision became final on March 21, 2025, when the Appeals Council declined further review.
(Id. at PageID #: 66-68).
On May 19, 2025, Hunt filed her Complaint to challenge the Commissioner’s final
decision. (ECF No. 1). The parties have completed briefing in this case. (ECF Nos. 11, 14, 15).
Hunt asserts the following assignments of error:
(1) The ALJ found at step four that Plaintiff was able to perform
her 	past 	relevant 	work. 	This 	finding 	is 	unsupported 	by
substantial evidence because her past work as a cashier at
Lowes 	Home 	Improvement 	was 	performed 	with
accommodations, and the vocational expert found that Plaintiff
could not perform the position as generally performed in the
national economy.
(2) The ALJ found at step four that Plaintiff had the residual
functional capacity to perform a range of light work. The
finding is unsupported by substantial evidence because the ALJ
failed to evaluate the medical opinions and prior administrative
medical findings pursuant to the regulations.
(ECF No. 11 at 1).
III. Background
A. Relevant Hearing Testimony
The ALJ summarized the relevant testimony from Hunt’s hearing:
The claimant premised her claim for disability on degenerative
disc in lower back, lost vision in the left eye, anxiety, and trigger
finger (2E/2). In a Function Report, from April 2022, she reported
that her medical condition(s) affected her ability to lift, squat,
bend, stand, reach, walk, sit, kneel, climb stairs, see, remember,
and to use her hands (3E/6). As for her physical limitations, she
indicated that she could only walk for one hundred yards before
needing to stop and rest. She stated that she could resume walking
after resting for ten to thirty minutes. As for activities of daily
living, she reported that she had difficulty performing personal
care activities, such as dressing and bathing (3E/2). She said she
prepares her own meals, such as frozen food and crockpot food
(3E/3). She also said that she performs some light household
chores, such as cleaning laundry, sweeping, and washing dishes.
Case: 1:25-cv-01022-DCN Doc #: 16 Filed: 01/12/26 2 of 17. PageID #: <pageID>

3
At 	the 	hearing, 	the 	claimant 	testified 	that 	she 	suffers 	from
herniated disc in her lower back, left eye visual impairment, and
anxiety (Hearing Testimony). As far as physical limitations, the
claimant testified that she could sit for fifteen minutes, stand for
half of an hour, and walk for an hour. She said she could only lift
twenty pounds. As for activities of daily living, she reported that
she was able to clean and do laundry. She reported that she was
able to dress and shower herself. She said that she was able to cook
and 	prepare 	food 	for 	herself, 	such 	as 	yogurt, 	peanut 	butter
sandwiches, string cheese, cereal, and microwave meals. She stated
that she was able to volunteer at her church working at a store,
straightening up merchandise. She indicated that she was allowed
to sit in chairs when needed. She said that she is attempting to go
on mission for her church to an orphanage in Kenya. She indicated
that she would be helping teach English.
(ECF No. 9, PageID #: 136).
B. Relevant Medical Evidence
The ALJ also summarized Hunt’s health records and symptoms:
In March 2020, an MRI of the lower back showed evidence of
moderate 	to 	severe 	foraminal 	stenosis 	at 	L5-S1, 	some
anterolisthesis, and disc bulge (5F/5). In April 2022, she weighed
255 pounds for a BMI of 42.43 (2F/72). She had a left eye patch.
Otherwise, he had normal findings on physical examination. In
August 2022, she weighed 253 pounds for a BMI of 42.15 (8F/27).
On physical examination, she had normal range of motion in the
cervical back (8F/28).
As part of his claim for disability, she presented to Karolis Bauza,
M.D., for a medical consultative examination in June 2022 (5F).
On physical examination, her gait was unsteady (5F/4-5). Her back
was tender to palpation. There was no joint swelling or effusion,
erythema or deformity. She was able to lift, carry, and handle light
objects. Her fine and gross manipulative abilities were grossly
normal. She was able to squat and rise from that position with
moderate difficulty. She was able to rise from a sitting position
without assistance and could get up and down from the exam table
with ease. She had moderate difficulty walking on heels and toes.
Her tandem walking was abnormal and unsteady, and the claimant
could stand but not hop on one foot bilaterally. X-rays of the right
knee did not any show evidence of acute osseous abnormality
(12F/39).
Case: 1:25-cv-01022-DCN Doc #: 16 Filed: 01/12/26 3 of 17. PageID #: <pageID>

4
By June 2023, a physical examination revealed normal medical
findings, including a normal gait with no motor weakness or
edema 	(16F/14). 	In 	September 	2023, 	a 	physical 	examination
revealed normal medical findings (22F/58). In November 2023, a
physical examination revealed mild to moderate muscle spasm,
tenderness, and fixation in the low back (21F/1). Her ranges of
motion of the lumbar were restricted and painful. In December
2023, a physical examination revealed normal medical findings
(22F/25). …
Regarding claimant’s vision impairments, during the consultative
exam, claimant reported loss of vision in her left eye since cataract
surgery in 2019 (5F). On exam, she had 20/50 visual acuity in her
right eye with corrective lenses, but claimed she could not see the
eye chart with her left eye. Id. The examiner noted “no response to
confrontation on the left” Id. A few weeks earlier, on June 7, 2022,
she attended an exam at the Retina Group to follow up on
hypotony maculopathy, and retina detachment with single break
(4F/1). She reported no changes since her last visit in December
2021. Id. She reported eye pain “when touched”, ocular redness,
and light sensitivity. Id. On exam, she had 20/40 vision OD and
DccHM 	@3ft 	OS. 	Id. 	The 	doctor 	diagnosed 	hypotony
maculopathy, IOP remains low despite STTA, vision stable, would
not 	recommend 	additional 	treatment; 	retinal 	detachment 	with
single 	break 	OS, 	retina 	remains 	stable 	and 	fully 	reattached;
resolved 	total 	retinal 	detachment 	OA; 	resolved 	acute
endophthalmitis OA; and pseudophakia OU, good post-operative
appearance. Id. at 2. In September 2022, she reported some blurred
vision after a long day at work and wearing a patch to focus better
(18F/1). She had 20/25 vision OD and DscHM OS. Id. In June
2023, she reported her vision was stable and no blurred vision
(19F/1). She testified she could see with her right eye well if
wearing her glasses, but sometimes up close she required 	a
magnifier and light table. Although she told the psychological
consultative examiner she could no longer read a book because she
could not focus with her one bad eye, she testified to reading her
Bible and participating in Bible study daily and plans to go on a
mission trip to help children learn to read English. She continues to
drive, mostly in daytime hours. She participates in crafts such as
scrapbooking and diamond art, which involves putting tiny gems
into designated spaces to create a picture (think: paint-by-numbers
with gems). She performs a seasonal job at Shutterfly 20-32 hours
per week, which consists of opening mail and separating cash from
check (Hearing Testimony). She began by working 32 hours per
week in September 2022, but then dropped down to 20 hours per
Case: 1:25-cv-01022-DCN Doc #: 16 Filed: 01/12/26 4 of 17. PageID #: <pageID>

5
week in October. Although she did complain to her doctor about
some blurry vision after a long day in September 2022, in October,
she told her doctor she was experiencing exhaustion after a long
day of work and possibly some depression, leading to laundry and
household chores to go unfinished (12F/53). She also reported
some additional back pain. Id. On October 18, 2022, she indicated
she wanted to reduce her hours from 8 hours per day to 5 hours per
day. She stated, [t]his will allow me a chance to catch up at home
and free up time for me to seek out someone to talk with”
(22F/174). Despite claimant’s having essentially monocular vision
she has been able to adapt quite well, she still does crafts that
requires seeing very small objects and requiring acute vision, does
work and other activities requiring reading relatively small type
(such as typeface in a Bible and reading mail), she continues to
drive, and perform daily activities of daily living.
(ECF No. 9, Page ID #: 137-38).
C. Opinion Evidence at Issue
In crafting Plaintiff’s RFC, the ALJ relied on opinions from the State agency consultants;
consultative examiner Dr. Karolis Bauza; Plaintiff’s physical therapist, Thomas Parkhurst;
psychologist 	Dr. 	James 	Tanley; 	Plaintiff’s 	treating 	physician, 	Dr. 	Nancy 	Mathieu; 	and
chiropractor Dr. Jeff Zaika. 	(ECF No. 9, PageID #: 139-41). 	The ALJ’s discussion of the
relevant opinions is set forth in greater detail below with respect to Plaintiff’s arguments.
IV. 	The ALJ’s Decision
The ALJ made the following findings relevant to this appeal:
1. 	The claimant meets the insured status requirements of the
Social Security Act through December 31, 2025.
2. 	The claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful activity
since March 4, 2022, the alleged onset date (20 CFR 404.1571
et seq.).
3. 	The 	claimant 	has 	the 	following 	severe 	impairments:
degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine, osteoarthritis of
the 	knee, 	obesity, 	and 	vision 	impairment 	(20 	CFR
404.1520(c)).
Case: 1:25-cv-01022-DCN Doc #: 16 Filed: 01/12/26 5 of 17. PageID #: <pageID>

6
4. 	The claimant does not have an impairment or combination of
impairments that meets or medically equals 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, I find that the
claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform light
work as 	defined 	in 20 	CFR 404.1567(b) 	except she can
frequently sit, stand frequently, and walk occasionally. She can
occasionally climb ramps and stairs, but never climb ladders,
ropes, and scaffolds. She can occasionally stoop and bend. She
can frequently crouch and occasionally kneel.
6. 	The claimant is capable of performing past relevant work as a
Cashier 	II 	(DOT 	211.462-010), 	Sales 	Attendant 	(DOT
299.677-010), and Hospital Admitting Clerk (DOT 205.362-
018). This work does not require the performance of work-
related 	activities 	precluded 	by 	the 	claimant’s 	residual
functional capacity (20 CFR 404.1565).
7. 	The claimant has not been under a disability, as defined in the
Social Security Act, from March 4, 2022, through the date of
this decision (20 CFR 404.1520(f)).
(ECF No. 9, PageID #: 131-32, 134-35, 142
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-01022-DCN Doc #: 16 Filed: 01/12/26 6 of 17. PageID #: <pageID>

7
“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-01022-DCN Doc #: 16 Filed: 01/12/26 7 of 17. PageID #: <pageID>

8
C. Discussion
Hunt raises two issues on appeal, challenging (1) the ALJ’s finding that she could
perform her past relevant work and (2) the ALJ’s consideration of two medical opinions in
forming the RFC. (ECF No. 11 at 1).
1. 	Ability to Perform Past Relevant Work
Plaintiff first challenges the ALJ’s determination that she could perform her past relevant
work as a cashier, sales attendant, and hospital admitting clerk. 	(ECF No. 11 at 14). 	Plaintiff
argues that because her claim was still pending with the Appeals Council as of June 22, 2024,
her claim is subject to Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 24-2p such that her only past relevant
work was as a cashier. 	(Id.). 	Further, Plaintiff argues that in her cashier position, she required
an accommodation from her employer but “the ALJ did not consider whether this position was
performed with accommodations, and the ALJ did not indicate the ability to sit or stand as
needed was not an accommodation.” 	(Id. at 15). 	Plaintiff argues this error was not harmless
since she was unable to “perform her past relevant work as generally performed or as performed
without accommodations, and the step four finding would be unsupported by substantial
evidence.” (Id. at 16).
The Commissioner responds that “Plaintiff has not shown that her alleged sit/stand option
satisfies a ‘special condition’ as outlined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1573(c).” 	(ECF No. 14 at 12).
Further, the Commissioner argues Plaintiff failed to point to any evidence beyond her own
testimony to support that she needed a medical accommodation. 	(Id. at 13). 	To the extent
Plaintiff relies on SSR 24-2p, the Commissioner argues the new rule would have no bearing on
the ALJ’s step four finding because the cashier job was performed within the past five years and
the ability to perform even one previous job would support the nondisability finding. (Id. at 12
Case: 1:25-cv-01022-DCN Doc #: 16 Filed: 01/12/26 8 of 17. PageID #: <pageID>

9
n.4).
At step four of the sequential evaluation, an ALJ must determine whether a claimant can
perform her past relevant work. 	20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iv). 	When Hunt filed her initial
claim and when the ALJ issued her decision, past relevant work was defined as “work that you
have done within the past 15 years, that was substantial gainful activity, and that lasted long
enough for you to learn to do it.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1560(b)(1) (2012). However, effective June
22, 2024, the definition was changed to only include work that was performed in the last five
years. 	20 C.F.R. § 404.1560(b)(1) (2024). 	Under the regulations, if a claimant maintains the
RFC to perform her past relevant work, she is not disabled and additional factors, including the
claimant’s vocational factors of age, education, and work experience or whether the past relevant
work exists in significant numbers in the national economy, are irrelevant. 	20 C.F.R. §
404.1560(b)(3).
Here, the ALJ found that Hunt retained the RFC to perform light work except “she can
frequently sit, stand frequently, and walk occasionally. She can occasionally climb ramps and
stairs, but never climb ladders, ropes, and scaffolds. She can occasionally stoop and bend. She
can frequently crouch and occasionally kneel.” (ECF No. 9 at PageID #: 135). The ALJ made
the following finding concerning Plaintiff’s ability to work:
In comparing the claimant’s residual functional capacity with the
physical and mental demands of this work, I find that the claimant
is able to perform her work as a Hospital Admitting Clerk (DOT
205.362-018), both as actually performed by the claimant, and as
generally performed in the national economy. The claimant can
perform her work as a Sales Attendant (DOT 299.677- 010), only
as it is generally performed in the national economy, as claimant
performed such work at a medium level. She can perform the work
as Cashier II (DOT 211.462-010), only as she actually performed
it, as per her testimony, for the most part, she could sit and stand as
needed.
Case: 1:25-cv-01022-DCN Doc #: 16 Filed: 01/12/26 9 of 17. PageID #: <pageID>

10
(ECF No. 9, PageID #: 142).
Based on the ALJ’s findings, the Court need not conclusively resolve whether the new
five-year definition of past relevant work applies to Hunt’s claims because even if the Court
were to disregard the hospital admitting clerk and sales attendant positions, Hunt does not
contest that she performed the cashier position in the past five years. Rather, citing 20 C.F.R. §
404.1573(c), she argues that the ALJ did not properly consider whether this position required an
accommodation such that it might not constitute substantial gainful activity. 	This provision
addresses consideration of work done under special conditions, explaining that when work is
done under special conditions, an ALJ “may find that it does not show that you have the ability
to do substantial gainful activity.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1573(c). “However, work done under special
conditions may show that you have the necessary skills and ability to work at the substantial
gainful activity level.” 	20 C.F.R. § 4014.1573(c). 	Thus, an ALJ is required to consider any
special conditions but is not required to find that the presence of special conditions means that a
claimant’s work does not amount to substantial gainful activity.
Here, by finding that Plaintiff’s cashier position was past relevant work, the ALJ
implicitly found that it amounted to substantial gainful activity. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1560(b)(1)
(definition of past relevant work requires that the work amounted to substantial gainful activity).
The ALJ’s discussion—which specifically references Plaintiff’s ability to sit and stand as
needed—indicates that she considered any special conditions and concluded even with these
special conditions, Plaintiff’s position still amounted to substantial gainful activity. 	This
conclusion is consistent with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1573(c), which specifically allows an ALJ to find
that work done under special conditions is still substantial gainful activity. 	Further, while the
special conditions were not included in the RFC, the ALJ found that Plaintiff could perform her
Case: 1:25-cv-01022-DCN Doc #: 16 Filed: 01/12/26 10 of 17. PageID #: <pageID>

11
past relevant work as a cashier only as actually performed or, in other words, with the ability to
sit and stand as needed. (ECF No. 9, PageID #: 143).
Overall, any error by considering Hunt’s past work beyond the new five-year timeframe
was harmless because the ALJ found that Plaintiff retained the RFC to perform her prior work as
a cashier as actually performed, which included the ability to sit and stand as needed. 	See
Hernandez v. Astrue, 277 F. App’x 617, 625 (7th Cir. 2008) (ALJ’s decision that plaintiff was
not disabled because she could perform her past relevant work as actually performed was
supported by substantial evidence where the ALJ relied on vocational expert testimony that
considered previous limitations on standing). Thus, Plaintiff’s first argument fails.
2. 	Consideration of Medical Opinions
Plaintiff next argues the ALJ’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence because
the ALJ failed to properly evaluate the medical opinions of Dr. Matheiu and Dr. Zaika. 	(ECF
No. 11 at 17-22).
Before proceeding to 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 [she] 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 she considered the supportability
Case: 1:25-cv-01022-DCN Doc #: 16 Filed: 01/12/26 11 of 17. PageID #: <pageID>

12
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
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).
a. 	Dr. Matheiu
The ALJ provided the following explanation of how she considered Dr. Matheiu’s
opinion:
I have considered the opinion of Nancy Mathieu, M.D., one of the
claimant’s treating physicians who completed a “work note” in
October 2022 (13F). Dr. Mathieu found that the claimant should
reduce work hours to twenty hours per week. I find that this
opinion 	is 	unpersuasive 	because 	it 	contains 	no 	function-by-
function limitations. This opinion is conclusory with little to no
probative value, as no support or explanation is given. While Dr.
Mathieu wrote this note with at claimant’s request, no evidence
suggest claimant could not work more than 20 hours per week with
some limitations.
(ECF No. 9, PageID #: 141).
Plaintiff argues that “the ALJ failed to compare this opinion to any portion of the record,
and Dr. Matheiu’s treatment notes explain the basis of the opinion. 	(ECF No. 11 at 19).
Specifically, Plaintiff points to an October 17, 2022 treatment note as supporting the opinion.
(Id. at 20). 	Additionally, Plaintiff argues that “Dr. Matheiu was available to clarify the reasons
why Plaintiff was limited to 20 hours of work per week if it was not clear, and the ALJ did not
seek clarification of the opinion,” such that rejection of the opinion was improper. (Id. at 21).
Case: 1:25-cv-01022-DCN Doc #: 16 Filed: 01/12/26 12 of 17. PageID #: <pageID>

13
The Commissioner responds that the ALJ properly found the opinion unpersuasive
because it contained no function-by-function limitations; was conclusory and did not include
support or explanation; and “there was no evidence to suggest she could not work more than 20
hours per week with some limitations.” (ECF No. 14 at 6-7). The Commissioner argues the ALJ
considered Dr. Mathieu’s notes in reaching her decision. (Id. at 7). Further, the Commissioner
argues Dr. Matheiu’s opinion addressed an issue that was reserved to the Commissioner such
that the ALJ was not required to consider it at all. (Id. at 8).
In reply, Plaintiff again asserts that the ALJ did not compare Dr. Matheiu’s opinion with
the October 17, 2022 treatment note and argues the ALJ’s review of the evidence supports Dr.
Matheiu’s opinion. 	(ECF No. 15 at 1-2). 	Additionally, Plaintiff argues the ALJ did not reject
the opinion as addressing an issue reserved to the Commissioner such that this is an improper
post hoc argument. (Id. at 2-3).
The Commissioner’s argument is persuasive, and the undersigned agrees that the ALJ
considered Dr. Matheiu’s opinion in accordance with the regulations. 	The ALJ’s discussion
makes clear that she found Dr. Matheiu’s opinion that Plaintiff should reduce her work hours
unpersuasive because it was conclusory and failed to provide support or explanation for the
conclusion. 	(ECF No. 9, PageID #: 141, 697). 	This is sufficient articulation of how the ALJ
considered the supportability factor. 	See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(c)(1) (“The more relevant the
objective medical evidence and supporting explanations presented by a medical source are to
support his or her medical opinion(s) …, the more persuasive the medical opinions … will be.”)
(emphasis added). While Plaintiff highlights notes from a single visit with Dr. Matheiu that she
asserts support the opined limitation, Dr. Matheiu did not cite any of Plaintiff’s conditions,
subjective complaints, or medical findings as supporting her opinion. 	(Id. at PageID #: 697).
Case: 1:25-cv-01022-DCN Doc #: 16 Filed: 01/12/26 13 of 17. PageID #: <pageID>

14
Nor at any point in these notes did Dr. Matheiu make any finding that Plaintiff would benefit
from working reduced hours. (Id. at PageID #: 673-96). Critically, as indicated by the ALJ, Dr.
Matheiu issued the opinion at Plaintiff’s specific request to lower her work hours. (Id. at PageID
#: 956). The ALJ also considered consistency when she noted that “no evidence” suggested that
Plaintiff could not work more than 20 hours per week with the limitations included in the RFC.
(Id. at PageID #: 141).
Even if the Court were to conclude that the ALJ erred in her consideration of the
consistency and supportability factors, any such error was harmless. 	The opinion—in its
entirety—states: “It is my medical opinion that Elizabeth Hunt should reduce work hours to 20
hours per week until further notice. If you have any questions or concerns, please don’t hesitate
to call.” (ECF No. 9, PageID #: 697). However, this “is the kind of vague and unhelpful opinion
that is patently deficient and could not have been credited by the Commissioner.” 	Dollinger v.
Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. No. 22-3359, 2023 WL 1777386, at *4 (6th Cir. 2023) (finding any
error by ALJ in consideration of opinion that failed to include medical findings to support the
opinion was harmless) (collecting cases).
b. 	Dr. Zaika
The ALJ provided the following explanation regarding her consideration of Dr. Zaika’s
opinion:
I have considered the opinion of Jeff Zaika, DC, one of the
claimant’s treating chiropractors who completed a medical source
statement in October 2022 (13F). This chiropractor indicated that
the claimant was not advised to perform heavy manual labor but
could perform seated or light duty jobs without issue. The opinion
has little persuasive value because the doctor provides no support
or 	explanation 	for 	his 	given 	limitations. 	An opinion 	without
explanation or reference to the medical evidence on which such an
opinion is based, has little value when crafting an RFC. I cannot
infer or guess on the reasons for a source’s opinion, or on which
Case: 1:25-cv-01022-DCN Doc #: 16 Filed: 01/12/26 14 of 17. PageID #: <pageID>

15
evidence the source relied. While I may ultimately agree with the
conclusions 	of 	the 	examiner, 	limitations 	without 	support 	or
explanation have little persuasive value in my assessment of the
claimant’s abilities. Moreover, it is not clear whether the doctor’s
reference 	to 	heavy 	and 	light 	jobs 	corresponds 	to 	the 	DOT
definitions of such terms.
(ECF No. 9, PageID #: 141).
Contrary to the ALJ’s explanation, Plaintiff argues “Dr. Zaika did provide explanations
for the limitations and included objective findings supporting his opinion.” (ECF No. 10 at 21).
Additionally, Plaintiff argues Dr. Zaika’s opinion is consistent with the treatment notes in the
record. (Id.). She argues “[t]he errors are not harmless given that Plaintiff’s past work would be
eliminated if Plaintiff was limited to sedentary work.” (Id.).
In response, the Commissioner acknowledges that Dr. Zaika listed clinical findings from
his treatment records to support his opinion but argues that “any error the ALJ made by noting
the lack of support for the opinion, was harmless because the RFC was consistent with
Chiropractor Zaika’s opinion.” (ECF No. 14 at 10). Specifically, the Commissioner argues that
Dr. Zaika “advised against heavy manual labor and stated that Plaintiff could perform seated or
lite duty jobs without issue” and, consistent with Dr. Zaika’s opinion, the RFC adopted included
“no heavy manual labor” and a limited range of light work. 	(Id.). 	Further, the Commissioner
argues the ALJ considered the clinical findings referenced in the opinion but also cited other
examinations showing normal findings and accommodated Plaintiff’s limitations (and Dr.
Zaika’s opinion) by limiting Plaintiff to a reduced range of light work. (Id. at 10-11).
Plaintiff replies that “Dr. Zaika did not specify any limitations other than limiting
Plaintiff to a seated job, and it is improper to speculate that Dr. Zaika intended to limit Plaintiff
to the full range of light work, which ‘requires standing or walking, off and on, for a total of
approximately 6 hours of an 8-hour workday.’” 	(ECF No. 15 at 3-4). 	Additionally, Plaintiff
Case: 1:25-cv-01022-DCN Doc #: 16 Filed: 01/12/26 15 of 17. PageID #: <pageID>

16
argues the ALJ’s summation of the evidence is insufficient to explain the ALJ’s consistency
finding because the summation contained multiple abnormal findings. (Id. at 5).
Here, there can be no genuine dispute that the ALJ erred in finding Dr. Zaika provided
“no support or explanation for his given limitations.” (ECF No. 9, PageID #: 141). Contrary to
this finding and as the Commissioner concedes, Dr. Zaika specifically cited MRI findings of
“grade I anterolisthesis L3-4 with disc bulge/protrusion, L4-5-S1 disc bulge” and examination
findings including muscle spasm, tenderness, and fixation in the low back; low back pain in
response to multiple tests; and restricted and painful lumbar range of motion. (Id. at PageID #:
698). Compounding the issue, the ALJ’s discussion—which focuses on the lack explanation or
reference to medical evidence—does not provide any discussion of the opinion’s consistency
except to note that the ALJ “may ultimately agree with the conclusions of the examiner.” (Id. at
PageID #: 141). 	Thus, the ALJ erred, and the question becomes whether these errors require
reversal.
While “[t]he Sixth Circuit has not yet addressed if or when an ALJ’s failure to properly
analyze a medical opinion for supportability and consistency under the revised § 404.1520c(b)(2)
can be excused as harmless error,” “[c]ourts in this district … have applied the harmless error
standard when evaluating an ALJ’s treatment of an expert medical opinion for applications after
the revision.” 	Hamm v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:25-cv-00423, 2025 WL 3687383, at *6
(N.D. Ohio Dec. 19, 2025) (collecting cases). Failure to consider an opinion in accordance with
the regulations is harmless error “if the ALJ adopted the opinion or made findings consistent
with the opinion” or if the opinion is so patently deficient that the Commissioner could not
possibly credit it. Id.
The undersigned agrees with the Commissioner that the ALJ’s error was harmless
Case: 1:25-cv-01022-DCN Doc #: 16 Filed: 01/12/26 16 of 17. PageID #: <pageID>

17
because the ALJ made findings consistent with the opinion. 	Although the opinion referenced
“heavy manual labor” and “seated or lite jobs,” the ALJ explained that it was unclear whether
these references corresponded to the definitions of these terms under the regulations. (ECF No.
9, PageID #: 141). While the opinion indicated seated or lite jobs could be performed “without
issue,” an RFC “is the most [a claimant] can still do despite [her] limitations,” not what the
claimant could best do. 	20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). 	Nothing in the opinion indicates that
Plaintiff could only perform “seated or lite jobs” or that Plaintiff would be unable to perform any
work that required standing. (ECF No. 9, PageID #: 698). At best, the only limitation included
in the opinion was that heavy manual labor was not advised. (Id. at PageID #: 698). Consistent
with this conclusion, the ALJ limited Plaintiff to light work, which by definition “involves lifting
no more than 20 pounds at a time with frequent lifting or carrying of objects weighing up to 10
pounds.” 	20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(b). 	Because the ALJ ultimately made findings consistent with
the only limitation in Dr. Zaika’s opinion, any error in her consideration of the opinion was
harmless and does not warrant reversal.
VI. Recommendation
Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Court OVERRULE Hunt’s
Statement of Errors and AFFIRM the Commissioner’s decision.
Dated: January 12, 2026
_______________________________________________________
OBJECTIONS
Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed with the Clerk of
Courts within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this document. Failure to file
objections within the specified time may forfeit the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See
Berkshire v. Beauvais, 928 F. 3d 520, 530-31 (6th Cir. 2019).
Case: 1:25-cv-01022-DCN Doc #: 16 Filed: 01/12/26 17 of 17. PageID #: <pageID>