We d o n ot f ind it n ecessa

ry to r e c ount e ve ry

ph y sic ian v isi t and

dia g no sis , s o w e on ly 1 rec ount the fac ts most relevant to the AL J ’s dec ision.

NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 10a0345n.06 No. 09-3500 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
DAVI D SWAI

N, Pla int if f - Ap pe lla

nt,
v. COMMI SSI ONER OF SOCI AL SECURI TY, Def endant - Appellee
. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON A PP E A L FROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT COURT FOR T H E NOR THERN DI STRI CT OF O H IO

BEF ORE: MARTI

N, SUHRHEI

NRI CH, and WHI TE, Circuit J udg es . HELE NE N. WHITE, Circuit Jud ge. David Swai n appea ls from the district court’ s aff irmance of the Commissioner of Social Secur ity ’s dec ision deny ing his a ppli ca t i o n for Social Security Disability

I nsuranc e Be n ef

i t s (DI B) on the basis that he wa s not disabled prior to the
e xpir a tio n o f h is i ns ur e d s ta tus in M arc h 2 00 2. We a ff ir m. I Swain alleg es that h e b ec am e disabled in August 2000, when he a g g ravated a pr ior bac k injury while lifting a

heavy pot. His insured status expi red on Ma rch 31, 2002. S wa in has an extens iv e r e c o r d o f p h y s ic ia n v is it s . H e f

ir s t s o u g h t tr e a tm e n t f

o r h is in ju r y in D e cembe r 2001 1 fr om D r. Ne ri e l Be rn

blum, to who m he re po rt e d pa in ra diatin g fr om h is l e ft bu tto c k to his le ft

fo ot,No. 09-3500

Swain v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec

.

- 2 - and lef t foot numbness. Dr. B ernblum orde red a mag netic re sonance imag ing sc an (MRI ) of Swain’ s lumbar spine, which r evea led disc her niation at L 5-S1. Swa in w a s r e fe rr e d to Dr . T ho mas O’Ha ra, w ho perf orm ed m icr od is cect om y

su rgery to r e pa ir the her niated disc in January

2002. I n a Fe bruar

y followup visit, an MRI showed no displace ment of the le ft S1 n e rv e ro ot, and

Dr . O ’H ara

pr e sc ri be d p hy sic a l th e ra py and a dv ise d Swa in t o r e su me normal ac tiviti es if he w as doing well. Following the expirat i o n o f his insured status, Swain visited a number of phy sicians. On April 2, 2002, he saw

Dr. B rian Hoe fling er, c omplaining of continued left leg pain and a dditional pain in his right leg. Swain ref used an epidural steroid injec tion. He re turned to Dr. H oefling er on May 14, 2002, and re ported that his l ef t leg pain had improve d, but that he continued to have signific ant pain in his rig ht leg . I n J une and July 2002, Swain saw two diff ere nt pain specia lists, Dr. Ashok Salvi and Dr. James Ba ssett, J r., for continued pain in his right leg , back, buttocks, a nd hip. Howeve r, he r efuse d rec ommended injections for his pa i n an d repor

ted that he wa s taking no medicines. I n October 2002, Swain saw a neurolog ist, Dr. Duane Gainsburg
. Swain repor ted t hat he was pain-fr ee f

or a wee k afte r back surg ery , but he had subseque ntly rede veloped low ba ck pain a nd rig ht leg pain, with pain ag ain sprea ding to his left si d e. Dr . Gainsburgdiag nosed Swain as having chronic lumbosacra l sprain sy nd ro m e int era cting with depre ssion. Dr. Gainsburgalso order ed
ano the r MRI , whi c h sho we d expe c te d pos top e rativ e c ha ng e s. At a No ve mbe r a

pp oin tme nt, Swa in repor ted that the medicine s he wa s taking wer e “sig nificantly beneficial” f

or his pain and mood.No. 09-3500

Swain v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec

.

Dr . M or ton did no t in dic a te wh e the r S wa in h a d p us h/p ull lim itatio ns . 2 - 3 - Swain also beg an to re ceive treat m ent from Dr . J ohn Pierce , a fa mily prac titioner, in November 2002. Dr s. Pie rc e and Ga ins burg bo th c omp le te d re sid ua l fu nc tio na l c a

pa c ity ana ly se s o f S wa in i n
ear ly 2003. Dr. Ga insburg found that S wain could sit for up to one hour at a time and for f

our hours per da y , stand for f

ifteen minutes at a

time, walk for thirty

minutes at a time, a

nd stand and walk for two hours per day
. His assessment stated that Swain could lift one to two pounds freque ntly and five pounds occa sionally , but not more than five pounds. Dr. Gainsburgalso wrote that Swain had seve re fatig ue, could not per form re petitive pushing a nd pulling of a

rm controls, could no t p erf orm fine manipulation, and was sometimes unable to g rip things a nd dropped the m. Dr. Pierce ’s assessment fo un d th a t Sw a in w a s a

ble to s tand

and sit fo r n o mo re tha

n th ir ty min ut es, and lif

t up to t e n to fi ft ee np o u n d s , b u twa s u n ab l e t o gra s p i f i twa s as s o ci at edwi t h p u l l i n g o r p u s h i n g. Swain’s m edica l rec ords wer e re viewed f or the Social Sec urity

Administration in Decembe r 2002 by Dr. Mar ia Cong balay

and in May

2003 by Dr. P aul M orton. Drs. C ong balay and Morton p er ce i v edS wa i nt o h av e gr ea t er re s i d u al fu n ct i o n al cap ac i ty t h an ei t h er Dr s . P i er ce o r G ai n s b u rg. Dr . Co ngba lay

fo un d th a t Swa in co uld oc c a sio na lly lif t 20 poun ds and fr e qu e ntl y lif t ten ; stand , w a lk
an d sit up to si x hours per day ; and had no push/pull or manipulative limitations. Dr. Morton repor ted similar, but slightly

more re strictive limitations , finding that Swain could occa sionally lift 20 po un ds and

fr e qu e ntl y

lif t te n; w a lk u

p to tw o h ours pe r d ay

and sta nd up to f our; sit a bo ut s ix ho ur s a da y ; and ha d n o ma

nip ulativ e lim itatio ns . 2No. 09-3500

Swain v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec

.

Swain has past re levant wor k experience as an auto and truck mecha nic, sec urity

g uard, a nd 3 woodworke r. - 4 - Swa in f ile d a n a pp lic a tio n f

or di s a bil ity ins ur anc e be ne fi ts o n Se pte mbe r 3 0, 20 02 . H is c la im
wa s d e nie d, a s w a s h is r e qu e st f or re c on sid e ratio n. Swa in r e qu e ste d a he ari ng , whi ch wa s h e ld befor e an A L J on November 4, 2004. At the hea

ring , Swain and voca

tional expert Chris Young te sti fi e d. Th e AL J iss ue d a dec isi on on F e br ua ry 16 , 200 5, de nying Swa in’ s app lic a tio n f or be ne fi ts. Swa in a pp e a le d to the dis tr ic t c ourt and , p ur su ant to a join t stipu la tio n, the ma tte r wa s r e mand e d to the Ag ency

for a new he aring , with instructions that the AL J expressly articulate the we ight g iven to the opinions of Drs. Pierce and Gainsbourg
. The AL J held a se cond hea ring on J une 22, at whic h Swain, his wife, and voc ational expert J oseph Thompson te stified. The testimony and exhibi ts from the prior he aringwer e also incor porate d into the rec ord. Swain testified that he ha d been una ble t o work since his back injury in Aug ust 2000 and that he did not seek me dical attention un t i l De ce m b er 2001 be cause he wa s uninsured and c ould not aff ord to do so. He stated that his injury had worsened after Dr. O’Hara perf ormed surg ery

and that he wa s in constant pain that was not a lleviated by medication. At the 2004 hea

ring , the AL J asked voc ational expert Young to evaluate the ability to work of a hy pothetical individual with Swain’s prior experience , who could per form lig ht work with the 3 following additional limit ations: no climbing of ladde rs, rope s, or sca ffo l d s ; no working around unprotec ted heig hts; no squatting, stooping, or cra wling. T he hy

potheti ca l al s o assumed that the ind ivi du a l w ou ld h a ve to h a ve a sit /st and op tio n a nd c ou ld s it o r s tand

fo r u p to thir ty min ute s at a time. Young stated that t h e i n d ividual could not perfor m any of Swain’s pa st releva

nt work, butNo. 09-3500

Swain v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec

.

- 5 - could perform a number of unskilled jobs available in the loc al and national economies, including elec tronics assembler , mail clerk, a nd elec tronics inspector. At the 2007 he aring , vocational e x pert Th omp so n w a s q

ue sti on e d b y

Swa in’ s atto rn e y . T ho mps on te sti fi e d th a t an ind ivi du a l wh o c ou ld only sit, stand, and walk a total of one and three -quar ter hours in a

n eig ht-hour day could not do any job. I na d ec i s i o nd at edAu gu s t1 0 , 2 0 0 7 , t h e A L J fo u n d t h at S wa i nwa s n o td i s ab l edt h ro u gh Marc h 31, 2002, when his insured st atus expired, and wa s theref ore ine ligible f

or bene fits pursuant to 4 2 U .S. C. § § 4 23 (a )( 1) (D ); 42 3( d) (1 )( A) . T he AL J fol lo wed th e se qu e nti a l f ive -s te p a na ly sis de ta ile d in

20 C.F .R. § 4 04 .1 52 0. Th e AL J found tha t Sw a in’ s d e g e ne ra

tiv e disc di seas e wa s a
sever e im pediment t hat l eft him unable to perf orm past rele vant work. The AL J found, howe ver, that S wa i n was still capable of per forming unskilled light work with the limitations included in the hy po t h e t i c a l p o s e d

t o t h e v o c a t i o n a l e xp e rta tt h e 2 0 0 4 h e ar i n g . T h e A L J c o n c l u d e d t h a tS wa in could perform work available in signific ant num bers in the national economy and wa s not disabled for the pur

poses of the Socia l Security Act. I n rea ching this de cision, the AL J deter mined that Swain was “ not entirely cre dible.” The AL J als o f

ound that th e op ini on s o f D rs . Pi e rc e and Ga ins burgwe re e nti tle d to le ss w e ig ht b e c a us e they did not see Swain prior to the expiration of his insure d status a nd beca use they relied on Swa in’s unreliable , subje ct i ve ac counts of his medica l history . After the Appea ls Council denied revie w, Swa in s o u g h t ju d ic ia l r e v ie w in th e d is tr ic t c o u rt. A d o p ti n g th e ma g is tr a te ju d g e ’ s repor t and
re c omm e nd a tio n, the dis tr ic t c ourt a ff ir me d th e AL J’s d e c isi on . Sw a in a pp e a ls. IINo. 09-3500

Swain v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec

.

- 6 - This court r ev i ews a

district court’s de cision in a social sec urity case de novo. Ealy v. C o mm’r of Soc. Sec. 5 9 4 F
. 3 d 5 0 4 , 5 1 2 ( 6 th Ci r . 2 0 1 0 )
. T h is r e v ie w “ is li mi te d to determining whether the Commiss ioner' s decision ‘is supported by substantial evidence and wa s made pursua nt to proper le g al standar ds.’” Id. (q u o t i n g Rogers v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec

. , 486 F.3d 234, 241 ( 6th Cir. 20 07 )) ; se e als o 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (“The finding s of the Commi ssioner of Social Security as to any fac t, if supported by

substantial evidence , shall be conc lusive”). “ The substantial-e vidence standard is met if a re asonable mind might ac cept the r eleva nt evidence as ade quate to support a c onclusion [and] . . . presuppose s that there is a zone of choice within which the dec isionmakers ca n g o either way , without interfer ence by the cour ts.” Blakley

v. Comm’r of Soc . Sec. , 581 F.3d 399, 406 (6th Cir. 2009) (inter

nal citation omitted). Howe ver, “ even if supported by substantial evidence , ‘a de cision of the Commissioner will not be upheld where the SSA fails to follow its own re g ulations and wher e that err or pre

judices a c laimant on the merits or de prives the c laimant of a substantial rig ht.’” Rabbers v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec

. , 5 8 2 F. 3 d 6 4 7 , 6 5 1 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 9 ) ( qu o t i n g Bowen v. Comm’ r of Soc. Sec

. , 478 F.3d 742, 746 ( 6th Cir. 2007)). III Swain’s ar g ument on appea l is premised almost entirely on the alleg ed er

rors c ommitt ed by the ma g istra

te jud g e and the dis tr ic t c ourt
. I n p art ic ula r, Swa in f a ult s th e dis tr ic t c ourt

fo r f a ili ngto identify how materia l inc onsistencies in the rec ord wer e considere d and resolved, as require d of an adjudicator

in SS R 96-8p. Howeve r, the rele vant adjudicator for the purposes of SSR96-8p is the AL J, no t th e dist ri ct c ourt or the ma g ist

rate jud g e . T he ir

re vie w, lik e thi s c ourt ’s , is lim ite d to whether the re cord c ontains substantial evidence in support of the AL J ’s ex p l anation of howNo. 09-3500

Swain v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec

.

Swain states that he would be entitled to disability benef its if the evidence in the case w ere 4 viewed in the lig ht most favorable to his posit ion. Even if corr ect, the AL J was not required to view the evidenc e in hi s favor , and this court is prohibited from doing so on review of a de cision denying be ne fi ts. - 7 - inc on sis t e n c i e s w e r e r e s o l v e d
. T h e y ar e n o tr e qu i r e d

o r p e r m i t t e d t o c o n d u c tt h e i r o w ns e p a r a te
ana ly sis . T he dis tr ic t c ourt ’s or de r p ro perly con sid e re d th e e vid e nc e in t he re c or d r e le va

nt t o deter mining if substantial evide nce suppor ted the AL J ’s dec ision and corr ectly conclude d that it did. Swain does appe ar to challeng e, at least i ndirec tly , the failure of the AL J to acc ord sig nificant
or c on tr oll ingwe ig ht t o th e op ini on s o f D rs . Pi e rc e and Ga ins bu rgand the AL J’s fin din g that Sw a in was not entire ly

cre dible. Swain does n o t point to any particula r er ror in the AL J ’s dec ision, but
rathe r s ta tes reas on s why the AL J shou ld h a ve fo un d in his fa vo r. Ho we ve r, thi s c ourt on ly 4 de te rm ine s w he the r t

he AL J’s d e c isi on

is s up po rt e d b y

su bs tanti a l e vid e nc e . We fi nd that it is. Swa in s ta te s th a t th e re are no inc on sis te nc ie s in the re c or d t hat warra nt the AL J’s a dv e rs e
cre dibilit y

finding , but he fa ils to m ention or re spond t o t h e li tany of inconsistent statements and actions noted by

the AL J in its decision. Swain does not contest that he g ave multiple, conf licting
acc ounts of his treatment history , sy mptoms, and use of m edication to various phy sicians. We g ive defe renc e to the cr edibility deter minations of an AL J provided that they are supported by substantial evidenc e. W

hite v. Comm’r of Soc . Sec. , 5 72 F .3 d 2 72 , 2 87 (6 th C ir . 2 00 9) (c itatio n o mit te d) . Sw a in has fa iled to demonstrate that the A L J ’s cr edibility deter mination wa s not suppor

ted by substantial evidenc e. Swain’s claim that the opinions of Drs. Pierc e and G ainsburgshould have be en g iven more
we ig ht i s si mil arl y wi tho ut m e ri t. We have he ld t hat, a lth ou g h a

tr e a tin g ph y sic ian’ s o pin ion isNo. 09-3500

Swain v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec

.

I n W arner , th is c ourt

a lso no te d th a t it wa s signif ic ant that the AL J “di d n ot r e je c t w ho le sa le 5 the conc lusions” of the treating phy sician, and incorporated some of his conclusions in formulating the hy pothetical pre sented to the voc at i o n al expert. The AL J in the instant case did the sa me, incorpora ting Dr . Pierce ’s assessment that Swain c ould sit/ stand for thirty minutes at a time in the residual f unctional ca

pacity deter mination and the hy

pothetical to vocational expert Young
. - 8 - g ener ally g iven “substantial, if not controlling, d ef er ence ,” it is “only

g iven such de fer ence when supported by

objective medic al evidenc e.” W arner v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec

. , 37 5 F .3 d 38 7, 39 0 ( 6th Cir. 2004) (holding that the Commi ssioner proper ly reje cted c laimant’s treating phy sician’s opinion wher e th e o p in io n

w a s “ in c o n s is te n t w it

h th e s u b s ta n ti a l e v id e n c e in

th e r e c o r d

in d ic a ti ng otherwise.” ). 5 Her e, the AL J explained that the doctors wer e not treating phy sicians prior to the e x piration of Swa in’ s in sure d s ta tus
. F ur the r, the AL J note d th a t th e ir op ini on s w e re ma de wi tho ut t he be ne fi t of Swain’s c omplete medica l rec ords, wer e base d on Swain’s own subj ective a ccounts, a nd wer e inc on sis te nt w ithme dic a l r e c or ds g e ne rate d at the re le va nt time . A g a in, Swa in f

a ils to a dd re ss t he se issue s o na

p p e a l. Rath e r , h e s tate s th a t t h e A L J f a il e d to g iv e “ g o o d

r e a s o n s ” f

o r th e weig ht
acc orded to the phy sicians’ opinions, as re quired by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)( 2). We conclude that the AL J g a ve su ff

ic ie nt r e a so ns fo r i ts d e c isi on no t to g ive c on tr oll ing we ig ht to the op ini on s of Dr s. Pierce and Ga insburg
. See, e .g. , Smith v. Comm’r of Soc. Se c. , 482 F.3d 873, 875-77 (6th Cir. 2007) (a ff ir min g the AL J’s d e c isi on no t to g ive c on tr ol li ng wei g ht t o tr e a tin g ph y sic ians wh e re the ir opinions conflicted with other substantial e vidence in the rec ord and w ere based on the claimant’s
un re lia ble re po rt s) . F ur

the r, thi s c ourt

ha s h e ld t

hat a tr e a tin g ph y si cia n’s op ini on is “ min ima lly pr ob a tiv e ” wh e n th e ph y sic ian be g an tre a tme nt af te r the e xpir a tio n of the c la ima nt’ s in sure d s ta tus
.No. 09-3500

Swain v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec

.

- 9 - Sit e rle t v . S

e c ’y of H e alt h &Hu ma n S

e rv s. , 8 2 3 F
. 2 d 9 1 8 , 9 2 0 ( 6 t h C i r . 1 9 8 7 )
. T h u s , t h e A LJ pr op e rl y state d “ g oo d r e a so ns ” su

pp or te d b y su bs tanti a l e vid e nc e to e xpla in the we ig ht a c c or de d to Dr s . P i er ce an d

Ga i n s b u rg. IV Swa in b ri e fl y

argue s that th e distr ic t c ourt e rr e d w he n it

de te rm ine d th a t he wa ive d h is argument conce rning the AL J ’s trea tment of his psy cholog ical claims. In his merits brief be fore the dis tr ict cou rt , S wai n a

rgue d o nly

that th e AL J g a ve imp ro pe r w e ig ht t o th e tr e a tin g ph y sic ians ’ op ini on, th a t th e AL J emp loy e d th e wr on g pa in s tand ard , a nd tha t th e Com mis sio ne r f

a ile d to establish that Swain could per form other work in the national ec o nomy . He did not ra ise the psy cholog ical disability ar gu m ent until his obj ections to the mag istrate judg e’s r eport a nd
rec ommendation. Even then, Swain’s argument consisted only of his a ssertion that the issue had not been pr operly

addre ssed by

the AL J or mag istrate judg e. The district court found that Swain f ailed to provide support for

his claim and that the c laim was wa ived, re g ardle ss. The district cour

t’s assessment was corr ect. “[A] claim ra ised for the first time in objections to a mag istrate judge ' s repor t is deeme d waived.” See, e .g. , W ard v. United States , 208 F.3d 216, 216 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 0 ) ( u np u

b l i s h edt ab l e de ci s i o n ) ( ci t i n g Marshall v. Chater , 7 5 F .3 d 1 42 1, 14 26 -2 7 ( 10 th Cir. 1996)). F urther, Swa in has not made any attempt at any level to deve lop an ar g ument as to how the AL J ’s tr eat ment

of his ps y c ho log ic a l is su e s w a s im pr op e r. Th e AL J found

that Sw a in’ s p a in interfe red w ith his abili ty to conce ntrate a

nd sleep a nd that he ther efor e could not per form deta iled
or c omp le x tas ks . T he AL J note d, ho we ve r, that th e re wa s n o in dic ati on in t he re c or d th a t Sw a inNo. 09-3500

Swain v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec

.

- 10 - h a d e v e r b e e n d ia g n o s e d w it h a me n ta l im

p a ir me n t. Sw a in n e it

h e r d is p u te s th is f

in d ing, nor advanc es any

argument as to how the AL J ’s t reatment of hi s mental residua l function was in er ror. V For the re asons set for

th above, we AF F IRM the jud g me nt o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt
.