Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca6-24-03385/USCOURTS-ca6-24-03385-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 

---

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION

File Name: 24a0498n.06

No. 24-3385

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

BROOKE TOLAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant-Appellee.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED 

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

OPINION

Before: KETHLEDGE, THAPAR, and LARSEN, Circuit Judges.

KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. Brooke Tolan appeals the district court’s decision to affirm 

the denial of her latest application for social-security disability benefits. We affirm.

Brooke Tolan previously worked as an administrative clerk. In 2004, Tolan filed the first 

of several unsuccessful applications for disability benefits and supplemental-security income 

based on her growing number of physical and mental impairments. In 2016, at age 37, Tolan filed 

her current application for disability benefits. An ALJ held two hearings, ordered physical and 

mental evaluations, and, in 2020, concluded that Tolan was not disabled. Tolan challenged that 

decision and, after she sought judicial review, the parties stipulated to a remand to the agency for 

further proceedings under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

The Appeals Council, in turn, directed the ALJ to reevaluate the medical-source opinion 

of B.T. Onamusi, M.D., and to reconsider Tolan’s residual functional capacity when determining 

Case: 24-3385 Document: 12-2 Filed: 12/06/2024 Page: 1
No. 24-3385, Tolan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.

-2-

anew whether Tolan was disabled under the five-step sequential analysis required by the 

regulations. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a), 416.920(a). The ALJ did so and again found that 

Tolan had the following severe impairments: “diabetes mellitus, status/post bilateral carpal tunnel 

release, cubital tunnel syndrome, status/post brain tumor, obesity with status/post gastric bypass, 

depression, [and] bipolar disorder.” Tolan also had non-severe impairments of “sleep apnea, 

hypersomnia, migraines, hypothyroidism, medial and lateral epicondylitis, and peripheral 

neuralgia.” But those impairments—considered individually or together—did not meet or equal 

the severity of any “listed” impairment. Tolan’s non-exertional limitations—including to work 

that involves only simple, routine, and repetitive tasks and decisions—prevent her from returning 

to her prior semi-skilled work. None of those findings are contested here.

The ALJ also found that Tolan could perform a “reduced range” of light work with 

restrictions that included “lifting up to 15 pounds occasionally.” That restriction made Tolan’s 

capacity for work less than “light work,” which “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), 

416.967(b). But Tolan argued that she could not do even that reduced range of light work because, 

according to Dr. Onamusi, she could not lift or carry any amount of weight on a frequent basis.

Specifically, as part of the consultative examination report, Onamusi completed a checkthe-box form on which Onamusi indicated that Tolan could lift or carry up to 20 pounds 

occasionally but did not indicate that she could lift or carry any amount of weight “frequently.” 

The ALJ did not adopt either of those limitations. Instead, the ALJ placed “significant weight” on 

the narrative portion of Onamusi’s report, because that portion (a letter) provided “a more openended opportunity for Dr. Onamusi to give clear and specific recommendations.” The letter 

described some of Tolan’s medical history; noted that Tolan’s shoulders, elbows, and wrists were 

Case: 24-3385 Document: 12-2 Filed: 12/06/2024 Page: 2
No. 24-3385, Tolan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.

-3-

“doing fine”; reported that Tolan could “do housework, laundry, and grocery shop”; and 

concluded, in part, that Tolan could “lift up to 15 pounds occasionally [and] use the upper 

extremities for gross and fine motor tasks frequently.” The ALJ adopted 15 pounds as the most 

Tolan could be required to lift on an occasional basis, but the ALJ also found nothing in the letter 

that clearly contradicted Tolan’s capacity to lift or carry up to 10 pounds frequently. A vocational 

expert testified that 100,000 unskilled jobs existed in the national economy that can be performed 

by a person with Tolan’s age, education, experience, and work capacity. The ALJ therefore 

concluded that Tolan was not disabled. The Appeals Council declined to review that decision, and 

Tolan appealed to federal court. A magistrate judge recommended that the district court affirm 

the ALJ’s decision. Over Tolan’s objections, the district court adopted the magistrate judge’s 

recommendation. This appeal followed.

We review only whether the ALJ applied the correct legal standards and reached a 

conclusion supported by substantial evidence. See Kyle v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 609 F.3d 847, 854 

(6th Cir. 2010). Tolan argues that the ALJ erroneously disregarded Onamusi’s recommended 

limitation that she not lift or carry any amount of weight frequently. But “controlling weight” is 

reserved for treating sources, which Onamusi was not. See Gayheart v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 710 

F.3d 365, 376 (6th Cir. 2013). And the effect of Tolan’s condition on her capacity to work is a 

determination expressly reserved for the ALJ. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); Social Security

Ruling 96-5P, 1996 WL 374183, at *5 (July 2, 1996). Nor must an ALJ incorporate every 

limitation from a medical source’s recommendation whenever it finds that source persuasive in 

some respects. Kinney v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 23-3889, 2024 WL 2273365, at *3 (6th Cir. 

May 20, 2024). Instead, when an ALJ’s work-capacity finding conflicts with an opinion from a 

medical source, the ALJ must explain why that recommended limitation was not adopted. See id. 

Case: 24-3385 Document: 12-2 Filed: 12/06/2024 Page: 3
No. 24-3385, Tolan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.

-4-

(quoting Social Security Ruling 96-8P, 1996 WL 374184, at *7 (July 2, 1996)). The ALJ did so 

here.

The district court’s judgment is affirmed.

Case: 24-3385 Document: 12-2 Filed: 12/06/2024 Page: 4