Case Name in Social Security Case - Unavailable

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
KARA W., 	: 	Case No. 2:24-cv-04294
:
Plaintiff, 	:
: 	Judge Algenon L. Marbley
v. 	:
: 	Magistrate Judge Peter B. Silvain, Jr.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 	:
SECURITY, 	:
:
Defendant. 	:
OPINION & ORDER
This matter is before this Court on Plaintiff Kara W.’s Objection (ECF No. 13) to the
Magistrate Judge’s December 30, 2025, Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). (ECF No. 12).
Upon independent review and for the reasons stated below, the R&R (ECF No. 12) is
ADOPTED, Plaintiff’s Objection (ECF No. 13) is OVERRULED, and this Court DIRECTS
the Clerk of Court to TERMINATE this case.
I. 	BACKGROUND
In September 2021, Plaintiff Kara W., applied for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”)
and Supplementary Security Income (“SSI”). (ECF No. 12 at 2). Plaintiff alleged that her disability
began on July 1, 2021, and was caused by bipolar disorder, social anxiety disorder, post-traumatic
stress disorder, and carpal tunnel syndrome. Id. Plaintiff’s applications were initially denied. Id.
Plaintiff requested a hearing before Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Jason P. Tepley, which
was held on May 14, 2024. Id.
On June 25, 2025, the ALJ issued a decision, finding that Plaintiff does not meet the Social
Security Act’s definition of disabled. (ECF No. 7-2 at 29). The ALJ’s decision followed the five-
step sequential evaluation process outlined in the Social Security Regulations. Id. at 18–19; 20
Case: 2:24-cv-04294-ALM-PBS Doc #: 15 Filed: 03/11/26 Page: 1 of 10 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. Step one considers work activity, steps two and three assess medical
severity, step four requires an evaluation of residual functional capacity (RFC), and step five
examines RFC, age, education, and work experience to determine if the applicant can adapt to
other work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4). The Magistrate Judge summarized the
ALJ’s determinations:
Step 1: 	Plaintiff 	has 	not 	engaged 	in 	substantial 	gainful
activity since June 1, 2021, the alleged onset date.
Step 2: 	She has the following severe impairments: history of
opioid 	use 	disorder; 	bipolar 	disorder; 	major
depressive disorder; generalized anxiety disorder;
post-traumatic stress disorder; bilateral carpal tunnel
syndrome, status post release surgery; neuropathy;
and right knee ACL and meniscal tear, status post-
surgical repair.
Step 3: 	She does not have an impairment or combination of
impairments that meets or medically equals the
severity of one in the Commissioner’s Listing of
Impairments, 	20 	C.F.R. 	Part 	404, 	Subpart 	P,
Appendix 1.
Step 4: 	Her residual functional capacity (“RFC”), or the
most 	she can 	do, 	despite her 	impairments, see
Howard v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 276 F.3d 235, 239
(6th Cir. 2002), consists of “light work… except
limited to frequent use of foot pedals with the right
lower extremity; Occasional climbing ramps/stairs,
stooping, 	kneeling, 	crouching, 	crawling; 	No
climbing ladders/ropes/scaffolds; Frequent handling,
fingering, 	and 	feeling 	with 	the 	bilateral 	upper
extremities; occasional exposure to vibration; no
exposure to moving mechanical parts or unprotected
heights. No commercial driving. She is able to
understand, remember, and carry out simple tasks;
with 	occasional 	interaction 	with 	coworkers 	and
supervisors, but no interaction with the general
public; can make simple work-related decisions; can
deal with occasional changes in a routine work
setting explained in advance; can perform no work
that requires satisfaction of production quotas or
Case: 2:24-cv-04294-ALM-PBS Doc #: 15 Filed: 03/11/26 Page: 2 of 10 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
involves assembly line pace.” She has 	no past
relevant work.
Step 5: 	Considering her age, education, work experience,
and RFC, there are jobs that exist in significant
numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff can
perform.
(ECF No. 12 at 2–3). Accordingly, the ALJ held that Plaintiff was not disabled between July 1,
2021, and June 25, 2024, the date of the decision. (ECF No. 7-2 at 29). Therefore, Plaintiff’s
application for benefits was denied. Id.
Plaintiff appealed from the decision, claiming that the ALJ’s denial of her claim seeking
Period of Disability, Disability Insurance Benefits, and Supplemental Security Income benefits
was contrary to law and regulation. (ECF No. 6 at 1–2). The contentions in Plaintiff’s complaint
included that: (1) the ALJ improperly evaluated the evidence of the record; (2) the ALJ made an
improper residual functional capacity determination; and (3) the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff could
perform work existing in a significant number is not supported by substantial evidence. Id.
The Magistrate Judge recommended that the ALJ’s non-disability finding be affirmed and
the case be terminated. (ECF No. 12 at 8). The Magistrate Judge found that the ALJ appropriately
considered the record as a whole, and the ALJ’s findings regarding the social interaction
limitations in the RFC assessment were sufficiently supported. Id. at 4–8.
Plaintiff objected, asserting that the ALJ failed to account for her marked social interaction
limitation, the ALJ’s findings were not supported by substantial evidence, and the ALJ’s decision
is impossible to review. (ECF No. 13 at 2–4). Based on this objection, the Plaintiff argued that the
Magistrate Judge should reverse and award disability benefits, or, in the alternative, remand to the
Commissioner for an appropriate consideration of the evidence under the law. Id. at 4. The
Defendant, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, filed a response to Plaintiff’s
Case: 2:24-cv-04294-ALM-PBS Doc #: 15 Filed: 03/11/26 Page: 3 of 10 PAGEID #: <pageID>

4
objections. 	(ECF No. 	14). 	Defendant 	urged 	this 	Court 	to 	adopt 	the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation, asserting that the Magistrate Judge adequately addressed all of Plaintiff’s
arguments, and this Court should affirm the denial of benefits and terminate the case. Id. at 1, 4.
II. 	STANDARD OF REVIEW
When reviewing a party’s objections to a Report and Recommendation, a district judge
“shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings
or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed R. Civ. P.
72(b)(3) (“The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition
that has been properly objected to.”). Upon review, the district judge “may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c); see also Fed R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
Judicial review of the ALJ’s decision requires the Court to “determine whether the record
as a whole contains substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s decision” and to “determine whether
the ALJ applied the correct legal criteria.” Inman v. Astrue, 920 F.Supp. 2d 861, 863 (S.D. Ohio
2013). Substantial evidence means relevant evidence that “a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion.” Ealy v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 594 F.3d 504, 512 (6th Cir. 2010)
(quotation omitted). Substantial evidence is “more than a scintilla of evidence but less than a
preponderance.” Rogers v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 486 F.3d 234, 241 (6th Cir. 2007). If the ALJ’s
decision is supported by substantial evidence, then “this Court defers to that finding even if there
is substantial evidence in the record that would have supported the opposite conclusion. Blakley v.
Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 581 F.3d 399, 406 (6th Cir. 2009) (quotation omitted).
An ALJ’s failure to apply the correct legal criteria, including appropriate rules and
regulations, will result in a reversal even if the decision is otherwise supported by the evidence in
Case: 2:24-cv-04294-ALM-PBS Doc #: 15 Filed: 03/11/26 Page: 4 of 10 PAGEID #: <pageID>

5
the record. Id. at 407; see also Bowen v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 741 F.3d 708, 746 (6th Cir. 2007)
(citing Wilson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 378 F.3d 541, 546-47 (6th Cir. 2004)). Failure to follow the
legal requirements “denotes a lack of substantial evidence, even where the conclusion of the ALJ
may be justified based upon the record.” Blakley, 581 F.3d at 407 (quoting Rogers, 486 F.3d at
243).
III. 	LAW AND ANALYSIS
Plaintiff urges this Court to reject the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation, reverse the
claim, and award benefits. (ECF No. 13 at 4). In her objection, Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ’s RFC
determination was erroneous because the ALJ found Plaintiff was markedly limited in her ability
to interact with others, and yet only limited her to occasional interactions with coworkers and
supervisors. Id. at 3. Plaintiff objects because she finds the ALJ’s determinations inconsistent. Id.
Plaintiff states that at first, the ALJ found a moderate limitation “was equivalent to a limitation to
occasional interaction.” Id. Plaintiff argues that later, the ALJ implies that “a marked limitation
was also equivalent to a limitation to occasional interaction.” Id. Plaintiff claims that this
discrepancy was the ALJ’s responsibility to clarify, and therefore, it is impossible to adequately
review 	the 	decision. 	Id. 	at 	4. 	Plaintiff 	accordingly 	objects 	to 	the 	Magistrate 	Judge’s
recommendation that the denial of benefits be affirmed. Id. at 2.
This Court finds that the Magistrate Judge properly found that the ALJ applied the correct
legal criteria, and his determinations were supported by substantial evidence. (ECF No. 12 at 4, 8.
Someone’s RFC is the most they can do despite their limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a); Howard
v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 276 F.3d 235, 239 (6th Cir. 2002). At an administrative law judge hearing,
the ALJ is responsible for assessing RFC. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1546(c). This assessment must be
“based on all the relevant evidence” in the applicant’s case record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a).
Case: 2:24-cv-04294-ALM-PBS Doc #: 15 Filed: 03/11/26 Page: 5 of 10 PAGEID #: <pageID>

6
Here, the ALJ considered the whole record and adequately accounted for Plaintiff’s social
interaction limitations in his RFC determination. First, the ALJ noted Plaintiff’s testimony that her
anxiety was severe, and considered her treatment records, which stated that it was difficult for her
to leave her home. (ECF No. 7-2 at 20). He also contemplated that her function report listed she
walked or took the bus every day. Id. In addition, the ALJ found that Plaintiff lived in a sober
living facility in a dorm setting with roommates and reported missing the facility. Id. at 20, 24; see
Cruse v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 502 F.3d 532, 542–43 (6th Cir. 2007) (finding it is proper for ALJs
to 	consider 	nonmedical 	evidence 	of 	plaintiff’s 	daily 	activities 	and 	assess 	evidence 	for
inconsistencies in establishing the plaintiff’s RFC).
The ALJ also considered the opinion of state agency psychologist, Karla Delcour, Ph.D.,
who found that Plaintiff had mild-to-moderate limitations in interacting with others, and that she
could perform work with occasional superficial interactions. (ECF No. 7-2 at 27). Additionally,
the ALJ considered the opinion of another state agency psychologist, Jennifer Swain, Psy.D., who
also found Plaintiff could work in a setting with superficial and occasional interactions with the
public. Id. The ALJ found these opinions persuasive but explained that they used non-policy
compliant language, like “superficial,” and this non-compliant language demonstrated some
inconsistency with the overall record. Id.; see Reeves v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 618 F. App’x. 267,
275 (6th Cir. 2015) (ruling that “there is no requirement that an ALJ adopt a state agency
psychologist’s opinion verbatim; nor is the ALJ required to adopt the state agency psychologist’s
limitations wholesale.”); Coldiron v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 391 F.App’x 435, 439 (6th Cir. 2010)
(“The Social Security Act instructs that the ALJ––not a physician––ultimately determines a
claimant’s RFC.”). The ALJ considered these opinions along with the entire record, and used
“more specific, vocationally defined and policy compliant” language to express Plaintiff’s
Case: 2:24-cv-04294-ALM-PBS Doc #: 15 Filed: 03/11/26 Page: 6 of 10 PAGEID #: <pageID>

7
limitations in his findings. (ECF No. 7-2 at 27); see Modro v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 2019 WL
1986522, *8 (S.D. Ohio May 6, 2019) (“[T]he ALJ reasonably converted Dr. Sarver’s findings
into vocationally relevant terms.”).
Therefore, based on the record, the ALJ found that although Plaintiff suffered from
“significant impairment” in social interactions, Plaintiff did demonstrate that she was able to
handle a work setting “with occasional interaction with coworkers and supervisors.” Id.
Accordingly, the ALJ found that, based on the record, Plaintiff’s RFC was limited to no interaction
with the general public, but that Plaintiff was able to interact occasionally with co-workers and
supervisors. Id. The ALJ’s determination was not erroneous because he applied the correct legal
criteria, and the findings were supported by substantial evidence.
This determination of Plaintiff’s social interaction limitations in the RFC assessment is not
inconsistent with the ALJ’s findings of Plaintiff’s limitations. See id. at 20; see Friend v. Comm’r
Soc. Sec., 375 F.App’x 543, 553 (6th Cir. 2010) (unpublished) (concluding an RFC determination
is supported where the ALJ “address[es] directly the reasons set forth” for the impairment and
where the limitations accurately portray the applicant’s condition). The ALJ found that Plaintiff
had a marked social interaction limitation based on the record evidence that Plaintiff was unable
to interact with the general public. (ECF No. 7-2 at 20). The ALJ made this finding based on
evidence, including Plaintiff’s severe anxiety and difficulty leaving the home. Id. Therefore, the
ALJ limited the RFC determination to no interaction solely with the general public. Id. at 22. By
contrast, the ALJ found based on the record that Plaintiff was able interact somewhat with known
individuals, implying that Plaintiffs social interaction limitation with known individuals is more
consistent with a moderate limitation. Id. at 24, 27. This finding was based on evidence including
the Plaintiffs report that she missed living at a sober living facility with roommates and evidence
Case: 2:24-cv-04294-ALM-PBS Doc #: 15 Filed: 03/11/26 Page: 7 of 10 PAGEID #: <pageID>

8
of social activities. Id. at 25, 26. The RFC findings reflected this by finding that Plaintiff was able
to interact occasionally with supervisors and coworkers at work. Id. at 45. The ALJ’s RFC findings
are consistent because he accurately portrayed the Plaintiff’s condition and appropriately tailored
the RFC to the specific evidence in the record. Friend, 375 F.App’x at 553.
The ALJ did appropriately clarify and explain his reasoning for the RFC determinations of
social interaction limitations. See Tricia H. V. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 2:23-CV-02090, 2024 WL
4010389, *13–14 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 30, 2024), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Tricia
H. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 2:23-CV-2090, 2024 WL 4216493 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 17, 2024)
(concluding that an ALJ’s RFC evaluation was appropriate where the ALJ provided a summary of
the relevant evidence and explained how they balanced and considered the evidence to make the
plaintiff’s RFC determination). The ALJ distinguished Plaintiff’s ability to interact with the
general public from her ability to interact with known individuals. Id. at 22, 24. This distinction
was supported by substantial evidence in the record. The ALJ explained the finding of a marked
social interaction limitation by noting that Plaintiff testified that she has severe social anxiety, and
treatment records demonstrate that Plaintiff finds it difficult to leave her home. Id. at 20. The ALJ
also explained that Plaintiff stated she had gotten off the bus when she believed there were too
many people on. Id. at 22. However, the ALJ clarified that Plaintiff could occasionally interact
with coworkers and supervisors, explaining that other evidence suggests “a comfort and ability to
be around known individuals.” Id. at 24. Distinguishing types of social interaction was appropriate
because the ALJ found that Plaintiff responded differently to social interaction with known versus
unknown individuals. Id. at 27. The ALJ reflected this determination in his findings and explained
this reasoning in his decision. Id. at 19–28.
Case: 2:24-cv-04294-ALM-PBS Doc #: 15 Filed: 03/11/26 Page: 8 of 10 PAGEID #: <pageID>

9
The applicant carries the burden of proving she is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1512(a). The
Magistrate Judge correctly pointed out that Plaintiff failed to indicate any evidence that would
support additional constraints on Plaintiff’s social interaction limitations. (ECF No. 12 at 7–8);
Modro, 2019 WL 1986522, *8 (finding that plaintiff’s challenge lacked merit where they failed
to “point to any evidence in the record that supports additional limitations”). Plaintiff also fails to
specify any such evidence in her subsequent objection. (ECF No. 13). In fact, Plaintiff suggests
that the evidence in the record, specifically the state agency psychologists’ opinions, indicates
that Plaintiff has only a moderate social interaction limitation, and that this limitation only
supports a limit of occasional and superficial social interactions, nothing more constrained. See
id. at 3. Plaintiff has not pointed to any evidence in the record that suggests she requires
additional constraints on her social ability beyond limiting frequency to occasional social
interactions.
This Court finds that the ALJ applied the correct legal standard and the ALJ’s
determinations are supported by substantial evidence. This Court finds no evidence that the ALJ’s
determinations were erroneous, inconsistent, or unexplained. Accordingly, this Court finds that the
Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to affirm the ALJ’s findings, deny benefits, and terminate this
case must be ADOPTED.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff's Objection to the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation (ECF No. 13) is OVERRULED. This Court hereby ADOPTS the Magistrate
Case: 2:24-cv-04294-ALM-PBS Doc #: 15 Filed: 03/11/26 Page: 9 of 10 PAGEID #: <pageID>

10
Judge's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 12) and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to
TERMINATE this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ALGENON L. MARBLEY
DATED: March 11, 2026 	UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 2:24-cv-04294-ALM-PBS Doc #: 15 Filed: 03/11/26 Page: 10 of 10 PAGEID #: <pageID>