NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 17a0342n.06

No. 16-4213 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

JERRY A. GLASGOW, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

BEFORE: KEITH, BATCHELDER, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. Jerry A. Glasgow appeals th e district court’s judgment affirming the denial of his applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income

benefits. In 2011, Glasgow filed applications for disabi lity insurance benef its and supplemental security income benefits, alleging that he b ecame disabled on April 15, 2006. After the Social Security Administration denied the applicati ons, Glasgow requested a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ). The ALJ conducte d a hearing and denied Glasgow relief. The Appeals Council remanded for further considera tion. The ALJ conducted a second hearing and again denied Glasgow relief. The Appeals Council declined to review th e case. The district

court affirmed the denial of Glasgow’s applications.No. 16-4213, Glasgow v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.

- 2 - On appeal, Glasgow makes two arguments: (1) the ALJ erred by discounting the opinions of three examining psychologists a nd crediting the opinions of two reviewing psychologists and the testimony of a medical e xpert; and (2) the ALJ erred in assessing the medical opinion of an examining physician. “Our review of the ALJ’s decision is limited to whether the ALJ applied the correct legal stan dards and whether the findings of the ALJ are supported by substantial evidence.” Blakley v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. , 581 F.3d 399, 405 (6th Cir. 2009). Substantial evidence exists if a reasona ble mind might accept the relevant evidence as adequate to suppor t a conclusion. Id. at 406. We review de novo the district court’s conclusions

on each issue. Id

. Glasgow first argues that the ALJ erred by discounting the medical opinions of examining psychologists Dr. Gary Wolfgang, Dr. James Spindler, and Dr. Elvin Coblentz and crediting the opinions of revi ewing psychologists Dr. Paul Ta ngeman and Dr. Tonnie Hoyle and the testimony of Dr. Douglas Pawlarczyk, an impartial medical expert. The examining psychologists opined that Glas gow has numerous work-precl usive functional limitations, including impairments to his ability to understand and carry out instructions , interact with others, maintain concentration and pace, and respond to pr essure in a work setting. In contrast, the reviewing psychologists c oncluded that Glasgow could perfor m simple, repetitive tasks in a

static work environment where interaction with ot hers is superficial. Dr. Pawlarczyk similarly testified that Glasgow could pe rform simple, low-stress work that involves no more than

occasional interaction with coworkers and s upervisors and no interaction with the public. Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s wei ghing of the opinions at issue. The ALJ reasonably gave little weight to the opinions of Dr. Wo lfgang and Dr. Spindler on the basis that nothing in their examination notes supported the se verity of their proposedlimitations aside fromNo. 16-4213, Glasgow v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.

- 3 - Glasgow’s subjective complaints, which the ALJ found to be unrelia ble given the inconsistencies between Glasgow’s statements a nd other evidence concerning his prior drug use, his legal and educational history, and his daily activities. In addition, the severi ty of the proposed restrictions

conflicted with the conclusion of a vocational evaluator, who determined that Glasgow was prepared for community employment based on his performance of several jobs over an eight-day assessment period. The ALJ also reasonably disc ounted Dr. Coblentz’s opi nion on the basis that he relied in part on Glasgow’s unreliable s ubjective complaints, Glas gow was not taking his psychiatric medication at the time of the exam ination, and Glasgow was able to testify and answer questions at his heari ng without any of the psychological symptoms that were present during his interview with Dr. Coblentz. And th e ALJ reasonably credited the testimony of Dr. Pawlarczyk and the opinions of th e reviewing psychologists, despit e the fact that they did not have access to the entire record, because their conclusion that Glas gow retained the capacity to work was supported by the totali ty of the medical and vocati onal evidence in the record. See McGrew v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. , 343 F. App’x 26, 32 (6th Cir. 2009) (concluding that an ALJ may rely on a state agency physicia n’s opinion that is no t based on all of the medical evidence in the record if the ALJ takes into account any evidence that the physician did not consider). Glasgow also argues that the ALJ erred in assessing the op inion of examining physician Judith Brown. Dr. Brown reported that Glasgow was unable to stand on hi s right leg alone, walk on his heels, walk on his toes, walk heel-to-toe, or squat and that Gl asgow’s muscle testing

results were unreliable because of “too much va riation.” Dr. Brown opined that, based on her findings, Glasgow’s ability to perform work-related activities such as squatting would be at least mildly affected and that Glasgow could probabl y perform sedentary work. Glasgow contends that the ALJ failed to adequately explain the ex tent to which he credit ed Dr. Brown’s opinionNo. 16-4213, Glasgow v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.

- 4 - and erred by failing to take into account Dr. Br own’s determination that Glasgow is limited to sedentary work and cannot squat. Despite Glasgow’s argument to the contrary, the ALJ adequately explained that he was accepting Dr. Brown’s personal observations during the examination but discounting her opinion because it was based in part on Glasgow’s unreliable subjective complaints and his inconsistent effort during the examination. And substantial ev idence supports the ALJ’s decision. Given Dr. Brown’s determination that Glasgow’s muscle te sting results were unreliable due to too much variation, the ALJ could reasonably conclude that Glasgow was not putting forth a consistent effort during the examination, thereby under mining Dr. Brown’s conclusions concerning Glasgow’s functional limitations. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.