The Honor able Judit h M. Ba rzilay , J udg e of the United S tates C ourt of International Trade , * sitti ng by desig nation. 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: 10a0673n.06 No. 08-4626 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

KA RENA. MO SES, Pla int if f- Ap pe lla nt,

v. COMMI SSI ONER OF SOCI AL SECURI TY, Def endant- Appellee

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P E AL F ROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR

TH E SO UT HE RN D IS T R IC T O F O H IO

BEF ORE: GUY and G RI FF I N, Circuit J udg es; and B ARZ I L AY, Judge. * GRI FF I N, Circuit J udg e. Plaintiff Kare n Moses appea ls the district c ourt’s judg ment in favor of the Commiss ioner of Social Security

on her c laim for Disability Insuranc e B enef

its and Supplemental Security Income. Be cause we conclude that there was substantial evide nce to support the Commissioner’s dec ision,

we a ffirm. I. On Dec ember

15, 2006, the Admi nistrative L aw Judge (“A L J ”) de nied Moses’s a pplication for be nefits. The AL J fo und that Moses’s impairments did not meet any of the re levant Social Security listi ng s. The AL J also conc luded that Moses had the residual f unctional ca

pacity to lift orNo. 08-4626

Mo se s v . Co mm iss ion e r o

f So c ial Se c ur ity

-2- car ry 25 pounds fre quently

and 50 pounds occ asionally ; she could stand or w alk for 6 hour s in a workda y and sit for 5 hours in a workda y ; she shoul d never climb ladders, r opes, or sc aff olds; and she should ne ver eng ag e in r epetitive bending , stooping, or lifting heavy objects. The A L J there fore

c on c lud e d th a t, b a se d o n th e vo cat ion a l e xpe rt ’s re sp on se s to the hy po the tic a ls, pla int if

f “ c ou ld perf o rm h er p ast rele vant work a s a dogg roomer . . . . a nd has not bee n under a

‘disability ’ as define d in the Social Security Act.” Moses filed an a

ppeal with the Appea ls Council, which was denie d. Moses then filed a

c omp la int in f e de ra l c ourt , s e e kin g jud icial re vie w o f t he fi na l de c isi on

of the Soc ia l Se c ur ity Administra t i o n . T he mag istrate judg e issued a Re port and Rec ommendation aff irming the denial of bene fits. Moses filed objections, and the district court adopte d the mag istrate judg e’s Repor t and Re c omm e nd a tio n a

nd e nte re d ju dg me nt a ff

ir min g the Com mis sio ner’s de c isi on . M os e s ti me ly appea ls. II. I n revie wing the Commiss ioner’s de termination of whether an individual is disabled, we are limit ed to e valuating whether substantial evidence supports the AL J ’s conc lusion and whether the AL J applied prope r leg al standar ds. Key v . Callahan , 109 F .3 d 2 70 , 2 73 (6 th C ir . 1 99 7) ; see als o Schuler v . Comm’r of Soc. Se c. , 109 F. App’ x 97, 99 (6th Cir. 2004). Substantial evidenc e is “such rele vant evidenc e as a rea sonable mind mig ht a cce pt a s adequate to support a conc lusion.” Heston v. Comm’r of Soc . Sec. , 2 4 5 F. 3 d 5 2 8 , 5 3 4 (6 thC i r. 2 0 0 1 ) ( qu o t i n g Richardson v. Pe rales , 4 02 U. S. 389, 401 (1971)) . To deter mine whether

substantial evid en ce exi sts, we must review theNo. 08-4626

Mo se s v . Co mm iss ion e r o

f So c ial Se c ur ity

-3- administrative record as a whole. Cut lip v . S e c ’y of H e alt h &Hu ma n S

e rv s. , 2 5 F .3 d 2 84 , 2 86 (6 th Cir . 1 99 4) . Re ve rs a l of

the Com mis sio ne r’ s fin din g s is no t app ro pr iate “ me re ly be c a us e the re e xists in the rec ord substantial evidenc e to support a diff ere nt conclusion.” Buxton v. Halter , 246 F.3d 762, 772 (6th Cir. 2001). We may not revie w the ca se de novo , resolve c onflicts in evidence , or dec ide questions of cre dibilit y . Garner v. H eck ler , 745 F.2d 383, 387 ( 6th Cir. 1984). III

. Moses argues that the AL J err ed in finding that she could perf orm her “past relevant work” ; g ave too muc h we ig ht to the op ini on s of An ton F re iho fn e r, M. D. and Jon Sta rr , M .D ., and

too little weig ht to the opinions of Georg e Gr iffin, M.D. and Phill ip Diller, M.D.; and imprope rly discounted her te stimony

that she suffe red disablingpain. We consider the arguments in turn. Moses first contends that the AL J err ed in finding she could perf orm her “past re levant wor k” beca use her “job re quired he r to sta

nd and wa lk 8 hours, to lift up to 100 pound dogs, and to stoop for 7 hours a day .” We disag ree . As the mag istrate judg e explained below, the A L J did not find that plaintiff could per form her past rele vant work a s a dogg roomer as sh e pe rfo rm e d it

. R a th e r , th e A LJ found, re ly ing on the vocational ex pert’s answer s to the hy potheticals, t hat M oses could perform he r pa st r e le va

nt w or k a s it is usually performed

in the natio na l e c on omy , i.e ., re qu ir inghe r t o f re qu e ntl y lift 25 pounds or more and oc casiona lly lift 50 pounds or more. See M oses v. Astrue , No. 1:07-cv40 7, 20 08 WL 44 25 54 1, *1 0- 11 (S .D . O hio Se pt. 30 , 2 00 8) (u np ub lis he d) ; cf. Studaway v. Se c’y of He alt h & Hu ma n S

e rv s. , 815 F.2d 1074, 1076 (6th Cir. 1987) (ex plaining that if a plaintiff re tains the re sidual functional capac ity to perf orm the phy sical and me ntal require ments of work pe rfor medNo. 08-4626

Mo se s v . Co mm iss ion e r o

f So c ial Se c ur ity

-4- in the past, plaintiff is not disabled; rather , plaintiff must prove a n inability to return to his or her former ty pe of work and not just t o his or her pa rticular f ormer job) (citation omitted). The que stion is whether the re w as substantial evidenc e to support the AL J ’s decision that Moses could per form that job. Moses contends that ther e wa s not and that the AL J ’s contra ry deter mination resulted from an improper

weig hing of the opinions of Drs. F reihofne r, Starr, G riffin, a nd Diller. Drs. F reihofne r and Starr r eviewe d the re cord a nd opined that plaintiff could f reque ntl y l i ft 2 5 pounds and

o cc as i o n al l y l i ft 50 pounds. Dr. F reihofne r also opined that plaintiff c ould stand for 6 hours in a workda y and also sit for 6 hour s in a workda y . After treating Moses extensively , Dr. Gr iffin twice conclude d that Moses was “ totally disabled,” but otherwise merely opined t hat s he should perf orm “no re petitive bending , stooping, or heavy lifting.” Dr. Diller tr eate d Moses minimally and opined that she could lift no more tha n 5 pounds; that she could stand or wa lk for only 15 minutes and would need to shift positions; a nd that she could fre quently balanc e, occ asionally stoop, and neve r

c lim b, kn e e l, or c ra

wl

. Dr

. Di lle r a lso state d that Mo se s’ s a bil ity to r e a c h, pu sh , a

nd pu ll w e re a ll

a ff e c te d b y he r i nju ry , a nd that sh e sh ou ld a

vo id he ig hts , mov ing ma c hin e ry , te mpe ratur e e xtre me s, humid ity , a

nd vib ratio n. Th e AL J g ave “ sig nif ic ant w e ig ht” to D r. F re iho fn e r’ s o pin ion , “ so me weig ht” to Dr. Gr iffin’s opinion, and “little weig ht” to Dr. Diller’ s opinion. We f ind no e rr or . T he AL J’s d e c isi on to g ive Dr . F re iho fn e r’ s o pin ion “ sig nif ic ant w e ig ht” is supported by

Dr. Gr iffin’s tre atment notes which show that on numerous occ asions Moses’s str a ig ht l e g ra isi ngte sts we re ne g a tiv e fo r bot h leg s, wh ile on

jus t on e oc c a sio n h e r s tr a ig ht l e g ra iseNo. 08-4626

Mo se s v . Co mm iss ion e r o

f So c ial Se c ur ity

Moses also ar g ues that the AL J err ed in her assessment of D r. Diller’ s opinion because the 1 A LJ d i d n o t f

i n d t h a t M o s e s h a d a h e r

n i a t e d d i s c a s r e v e a l e d

b y th e 2 0 0 4 M R I. H o w e v e r , th e A LJ descr ibed Moses’s objec tive medical f indings in de tail, inc luding the results of the MRI , and ther e i s n o rea son to think t hat the AL J did not consider all of the rec ord evide nce in e valuatingDr. Diller’s opinion. -5- te st w a s p os iti ve on

the ri g ht, but ne g a tiv e on the le ft ; th a t Mo se s so me tim e s ha d a n a nta lg ic g a it, which Dr . Griff

in describe d as mild or occa sional, while on numerous other occa sions Moses had

a norma l ga it; that Moses had normal m uscle streng th and no los s of sensation; and that while Mose s sometimes had a decr ease d rang e of motion, the degr ee of that limit ation was fa irly

mild. The AL J ’s decision to g ive sig nificant we ight to D r. F reihofne r’s opinion is also supported by the fa ct that Dr. Starr essentially concur

red with D r. Fr eihofne r’s opinion a nd by the fac t that D r. Fr eihofne r’s specific restric tions were c on s i s t en t with Dr. Grif fin’s more g ener al re commendation that Moses should avoid “re petitive bending , stooping, or he avy lifting.” There is also substantial evidence to support the AL J ’s decision to g ive “little weig ht” to Dr. Di lle r’ s o pin ion

that Mo se s c ou ld oc c a sio na lly lif t no mor e tha

n fi ve po un ds and fr e qu e ntl y lif t le ss tha n that amo un t. Th e AL J c or re c tly ob se rv e d th at D r. Di lle r’ s p ro po se d r e str ic tio ns c on fl ic te d w ith the objective f

indings of Dr

. Gr i ff

i n , including the conclusion that Moses had a normal g ait and neg ative straig ht leg t es ts on many occa sions, with the far less e x treme r estrictions rec ommended by Drs. Griff

in, F reihofne r, and Starr, and with Mose s’s own testimony that she could lift and ca rry up to 10 pounds, drive, wash dishes, a nd g o g roce ry

shopping a

nd wash l aundry

with help. 1 Moreove r, t h e re cord r efle cts that Dr. Diller treated Moses on only

three occa sions between Se pte mbe r 2 00 5 a

nd Janu ary 20 06 , mo stl y

fo r r e sp ir a tor

y pr ob le ms, high c ho le ste r o l , a nd a PAP te st;No. 08-4626

Mo se s v . Co mm iss ion e r o

f So c ial Se c ur ity

-6- and Dr . D ill e r a lso c and idl y a c kn ow le dg e d that he did no t have Mo se s’ s “ fu ll e va luatio n” a t th e tim e he re ndere d his opinion about her phy sical limitations. The AL J ’s dec ision to reject Dr . Griff in’s conclusion that Moses wa s “Totally Disabled” was proper too. An AL J “is not bound by conclusory

statements of doc tors, particula rly wher e they

are unsupported by

detailed objec tive criter ia and d o c u menta ti on.” Cohen v. Se c’y

of Health and Human Se rv s. , 96 4 F .2 d 52 4, 52 8 (6 th Cir . 1 99 2) (c itatio ns omi tte d) ; Harris v. Hec kler , 756 F.2d 431, 435 (6th Cir. 1985) (e x plaining that whether a claimant is totally disabled i s a question re serve d for the Commi ssioner). He re, the AL J rig htly pointed out that Dr. Grif

fin not only

“off ere d no explanation as to why the claimant was disabled,” his tre atment notes “f rom Marc h of 2004 throug h Aug ust of 20 05 , are re lativ e ly

no rm a l . .

. . str a ig ht- le g ra isi ngte sts we re ne g a tiv e ; mo tor and mus c le str e ng th

was norma l; her pain intensity was de cre asing with phy sical thera py and pain medic ation; and there

was no e vidence of decr ease d sensation, numbness, or pare sthesia.” Acc ording ly , we c onclude that the AL J did not err

in declining to acc ept Dr. G riffin’s c onclusion that Moses was totally disabled. This leaves Moses’s argument that the AL J err ed by failingto cre dit her testimony that she suffe red f rom disabling pa in. The AL J was skeptica l of Moses’s testimony about the disabling eff ects of he r pain be cause Dr. Gr iffin’s tre atment notes showed t h at , especially by the end of Moses’s treatme n t , h er p ai n was we ll-controlled with medication: in J une 2004, Moses ra ted her pain as a five on a scale of one to ten; in July 2004, she rated her pain as a three ; in October 2004, she rated her

pain as a five or six; i n November

2004, she rate d her pa in as a thre e; in J anuar y 2005, she rated her

pain as a five to a se ven; in Fe bruar y 2005, she rated her

pain as be tween a

four a nd aNo. 08-4626

Mo se s v . Co mm iss ion e r o

f So c ial Se c ur ity

-7- six ; in March 2005, she rate d her pa in as a thre e to f our; in A pril 2005, she rate d her pain as a zero to f our; in M ay , Jun e , a

nd July of 20 05 sh e ra

te d h e r p a in a s a

thr e e ; and

a t he r l a st a

pp ointme nt w ith Dr. Gr iffin in Aug ust 2005, she rate d her pa in as betwe en a zer o and a thr ee. The AL J also found that Moses’s a ssertion that she suff ere d from dis abling pain conf licted with the objective f

indings of Dr. Griffin that on many occa sions she had a nor

mal g ait and neg ative straig ht leg tests, as we l l as wit h Dr. Gr iffin’s notes showingthat Moses regularly denied motor

weakness or difficulty walking

. I n addition, the AL J deter mined that Moses’s asse rtions of disabling pain w e r e u n d e r

mi n e d b y h e r te s ti mo n y

th a t, w it hh e lp , s h e s o me ti me s w a s h e d th e d is h e s , went g r o c e r y s h o p p in g , d

u s te d , w a s h e d th e la

un dr y , w e n t to b e d ar o un d n in e o r te n a t n igh t, got up a t seven in the morning , did not nap during the day , drove about three miles once a wee k, and did not experience any side eff

ects from her medications. Cf. Bogle v. Sullivan , 998 F.2d 342, 348 ( 6th Cir. 1993) (notingthat an AL J may consider house hold and social a ctivities in evaluatingcomplaints of dis a bli ngpa in o r o the r s y

mpt oms ) ( c itatio n o mitte d) . B e c a us e we fi nd

the AL J’s d e c isi on

to discount Moses’s testimony rea sonable and supported by substantial e vidence , it will be upheld. See Jones v . Comm’r of Soc. Se c. , 336 F.3d 469, 476 ( 6th Cir. 2003). I V. For these re asons, we a ffirm.