NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL
- TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 18a0343n.06
Case No. 17

- 4158
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

ERIC L. JOSEPH , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant

- Appellee

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

BEFORE: GUY , BATCHELDER , and BUSH , Circuit Judges. JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge. Eric Joseph appeals the district court ’s judgment affirming the denial of his application for disab ility insurance benefits

. Because the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) applied the proper legal standard s and because substantial evidence supports her findings of fact, we AFFIRM

. I. Joseph served in the United St ates Arm y from 2001 to 2005. In 2004, he was operating
in an Iraq combat zone when enemies attacked his vehicle with improvised explosive devices. During the ensuing chaos, Joseph’s vehicle c rashed into the back of a bus. The impact caused
him to be severely bounced , resulting in injury

.Case No. 17

- 4158

Joseph v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.

2 After Joseph was ho norably discharged from the service , the Unite d States Department of
Veterans Affairs ( “ VA ” ) found him eligible to receive veterans’ benefits because of his service

related injuries. Joseph re ceived a 90% service disability

. Since his discharge, the VA has also provided Joseph with substantial medical care. His
medical records list the following diagnoses: depressive disorder, ankle instability, morb id obesity, tobacco dependence, hyperlipidemia, post

- traumatic stress disorder (“ PTSD ” ) , gastroesophagael reflux disorder, neck pain, migraines, alcohol abuse, and c annabis abuse. His
treatment s have included: medications; counseling; psychiatric care; anger manag ement therapy; alcohol and drug therapy ; couples therapy; resident ial PTSD re habilitation program; physical therapy; and hospitalization. 1
I n May 2015 , Joseph applied for disability insurance benefits

. 2 He claimed disability beginning on June 25, 2013, the day after the de nial of his prior application. He alleged traumatic
brain injury; bad ankles and knees ; degenerative disc disease; neck problems; tinnitus; nerve damage and numbness in his hands and legs; anxiety; depression; panic attacks; mood disord er; and breathing problems. The Social Security Administration denied Joseph’ s application , both initially and upon reconsideration

. Joseph then requested and received an administrative hearing

. He was represented by
counsel and a vocational exper t. During the hearing, Joseph test ified about his service

- related injury

. He reported many physical impairments: migraine headaches; numbness in his hands; light sensitivity; vertigo; ankle and knee instability ; ringing in both ears; and difficulty with

1 A detailed description of Joseph’s entire medical history is outlined in the magistrate j udge ’s report and recommendation, R.20, Page ID# 2420

– 28.

2 This was Joseph’s second application. He first applied i n October 2012. In that application, h e alleged disability beginning in August 2009, when he was let go from his job as an aviation mechani c because of his PTSD symptoms. After a hearing, an ALJ found Joseph not disabled.Case No. 17

- 4158

Joseph v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.

3 walking, s tanding, lifting, and gripping. He also te stified about experiencing anxiety attacks, sweating, heart palpitations, nightmares, and unpredictable changes in his emotions and behavior.
As for his recent employment, Joseph explained that in 2014 he worked at the National History Museum, where he cle aned and worked the greeter’s desk. H e explained that he
sometimes had to leave work early, however, because of his PTSD symptoms, anxiety , and panic
attacks. He also relayed his having tried to work on a family farm but explained that it did not work ou t because his family members thought he had too many problems an d did not want him to get hurt. He considered pursuing a college education but decided against it because he had memory issues and trouble focus ing

. Joseph testified that he now lives with his wife and two of his children in a two

- story house but resides on the main f loor. He spends his days helping around the house

— vacuuming, washing dishes, doing laundry , and watching his kids

. He reported being un able to lift more than
ten pounds

. Regarding medication, Joseph represented that he was taking an anxiety medicine, but only as needed. But he later testified that he no longer takes that medicine. He also testified that he goes to group therapy for combat veterans with PTSD twice a month and individual therapy twice a month as well. He stated that the last time that he saw a psychiatrist was a year ago. After the hearing, t he ALJ issued a d ecision finding Joseph was not disabled and not entitled to disab ility insurance benefits

. She followed the Social Security Administration ’s five

step evaluation process . 3 See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). She found that his claim satis fied the

3 Under this process, f

irst, the applicant must show that he is not currently engaged in substantial gainful employment at the time of the disability application. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(b). Second, the applicant must show that he suffers from a severe impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). Third, the applicant may show that his impairment meet s or equals a listed impairment; if he does, he will be considered disabled without regard to age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). Fourth, if the Commissioner cannot decide on disability based on medical evaluations and current work activity , and the applicant has a severe impairment, then the Commissioner will reviewCase No. 17

- 4158

Joseph v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.

4 first two requirements because he last met the insured st atus requirements of the Social Se curity
Act on December 31, 2015 , and he did not engage in substantial gainful activity from his alleged
onset date through the date he was last insured. She then proceeded to the third step. She noted the following sever e impairments: [H] istory of cervical spondylosis / cervical degenerative disc disease; chronic back pain due to degenerative arthritis with radiculopathy; history of right ankle fracture, currently stable; reported knee and ankle pain; migraine headaches; tinnitus; episodic mood disorder / depression; [ PTSD ] ; anxiety; history of alcohol dependence with episodic abuse pattern; cannabis abuse currently in remission; obesity; mild thoracic degenerative changes; and severe opioid use disorder, currently in remission. R.9, Page ID# 59. S he compared these impairments with those listed i n 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 , and found that Joseph’s impairments did not meet or equal the severity of
the listed ones

. 4 Based on this, s he concluded that Jo seph did not au tomatically qualify as disabled.
See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), (d)

. Next , the ALJ evaluated Joseph’s residual functional capacity ( “ RFC ” ). In doing so, s he
first explained that she was bound by the prior ALJ’s findings and determinations under Social Security Acquiescence Rulings 98

- 3(6) and 98

- 4(6) because although there was new evidence in
the record, the new evidence showed no substantial change in Joseph’s conditions. She found that the prior ALJ’s RFC analysis remained consistent with the objective medical evidence of
record. With respect to Joseph’s testimony about his physical and mental impairments, the ALJ

ma de a credibility determination, explaining that she found that Joseph’s medical impairments

the applicant’s residual functional capacity (“ RFC ”) and relevant past work to determine if he can do past work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e), (f

). And fifth , if the applican t cannot do his past work, the Commissioner will consider his RFC, age, education and past w ork experience to determine if he can perform other work. If he cannot perform other w o rk, the Commissioner will find him disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f) , (g)

.

4 She specifically reviewed Listing 1.02 for major dysfunction of a joint, Listing 1.04 for disorders of the spine, Listing 11.03 for epilepsy

- nonconvulsive epilepsy, Listing 12.0 4 for affective disorders, Listing 12.07 for somatoform disorders, Listing 12.08 for personality disorders, and Listing 12.09 for substance addiction disorders.Case No. 17

- 4158

Joseph v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.

5 “ could reasonabl y be expected to cause some of the alleged symptoms; however, [his] statements concerning the intensity, persistence [,] and limiting effects of these symptoms are not entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence in the record

. . . . ” R.9, Page ID # 64

. She found that despite his impairments, Joseph could lift, carry, push , and pull up to 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds often ; sit up to six hours in an eight

- hour workday; and walk/stand, in combination, up to six hours in an eight

- hour work day

– with the following limitations: The claimant requires a sit/stand option that allows for alternating between sitting and standing up to every 30 minutes if needed, but the p ositional change will not render the individual off task. The claimant can never climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds and can occasionally climb ramps and stairs, balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, and crawl. The claimant cannot perform any forceful grasping or gripping with the hands. He requires the ability to avoid concentrated exposure to wetness and hazards (such as wet/slippery surfaces, dangerous moving machinery, and unprotected heights [)] . He can have no concentrated exposure to bright/flashing lights an d loud noise. Mentally, the claimant cannot understand, remember, or carry out detailed or complex job instructions but can perform simple, repetitive tasks on a sustained basis (meaning 8 hours a day, five days a week, or an equivalent work schedule) with no sudden or unpredictable workplace changes. The claimant cannot perform tasks requiring intense/focused attention for prolonged periods of time and must have work at a flexible pace (where the employee is allowed some independence in determining the tim ing of different work activities or the pace of work). The claimant can have only casual/superficial interactions with others, including supervisors, coworkers, and the general public with no exposure to intense or critical supervision. Id. at 62. Based on this, t he ALJ concluded that Joseph could perform the requirements of representative occupations: electronics worker, electrical accessories assembler, and folder. Thus, she found Joseph was not under a disability

. Joseph appealed, but th e Appeals Cou ncil denied his request for r eview

. Joseph then filed a complaint in the district court seeking review of the ALJ’s decision. The magistrate judge issued

a report and recommendation to affirm

. Joseph objected , asserting three errors. First, he argued that the ALJ improperly failed to consider that the VA assigned him a 90% service disability rating.Case No. 17

- 4158

Joseph v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.

6 Second, he contended that the ALJ failed to consider the effect of Joseph’s impa irments in combination. And third, he argued that the AL J should have grant ed Joseph ’s testimony greater weight based on his military service.
T he district court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation over Joseph’s objections and affirmed the ALJ’s decision. T he district court held that the A LJ considered the VA’s disability rating and adequately articulated her reasons for discounting its weight in her analysis

. T he district court held that the ALJ clearly considered Joseph’s impairments in
combination and found that he waived any argument that the ALJ erred in her RFC determination
because he failed to address the magistrate judge’s findings

. And the district court determined that the ALJ had no duty to a fford greater credibility to his testimony just because of his st atus as a military veteran

. Joseph appealed.
II.
I n social security cases , w e review a district court ’s decision de novo. See Jordan v. Comm’ r of Soc. Sec. , 548 F.3d 417, 422 (6th Cir. 2008). That said, o ur review is limited to deciding whether the Commissioner applied the correct legal standards and whether its factual
determinations are “ supported by substantial evidence

. ” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) ; see Jordan , 548 F.3d
at 422

. “Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might a ccept as adequate to support a con clusion.” Jordan , 548 F.3d at 422 (citation and internal quotations marks omitted). If substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s conclusion , w e will affirm , even if substantial evidence also exists in the record supporting a different conclusion. Ealy v. Comm’ r of Soc. Sec. , 594 F.3d 504, 512 (6th Cir. 2010)

.Case No. 17

- 4158

Joseph v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.

7 On appeal, Joseph asserts the same three objections to the ALJ’s decision that he asserted
below. We find al l three arguments unpersuasive. Turning first to Joseph’s argument about the ALJ’s treatment of the VA’s disability decision, we find no error. Though other agencies ma ke their own decisions about benefits eligibility , the Social Security Administration’s regulations clearly instruct that the Commissioner
is not bound by those decisions. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1504 (“Other governmental agencies . . . such as the Department of Veterans Affairs

. . . make

. . . benefits deci sions for their own programs using their own rules. [Such] a decision by any other governmental agency

. . . about

. . . entitle[ment] to any benefits is based on its rules, [and] is not binding on us. ”). The basis for this regulation is sound : different rules applied by other agencies “ may limit the relevance of a
determination of disabi lity made by another agency.” LaRiccia v. Comm’ r of Soc. Sec. , 549 F. App’ x 377, 388 (6th Cir. 2013) (quoting SSR 06

– 03p, 2006 WL 2329939, at *7 (August 9, 2006) ). Still, we have clarified that an ALJ must at least consider a VA’s disability decision and explain

reasons for the weight she assigns to it

. LaRiccia , 549 F. App’ x at 388

. The ALJ appropriately addressed the VA’s finding here . She acknowledged the VA’s disability rating and outlined each percentage of service related disability

. 5 See R.9, Page ID# 67

. She also afforded “ some weight

. . . to the se ratings ,” deciding that they “ show that the claimant
has limitations in his ability to perform work

- related tasks as set forth in the assigned residual functional capacity. ” Id. at Page ID# 68. And importantly, she explained why Joseph’s impairments led her to a different determination than the one that the VA reached. Specific ally,

5 In October 2013, the VA assessed Joseph’s disability rating: 10% for limited motion of the an kle; 10% for inflammation of sciatic nerve; 20% for degenerative arthritis of the spine; 10% for limited flexion of the knee; 10% for lumbosacral or cervical strain; 10% for tinnitus; 30% for migraine headaches; 20% for inflammation of lower radicular nerv es; and 30% for PTSD.Case No. 17

- 4158

Joseph v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.

8 she explained the difference between the VA’s disability system and Social Security’s : the VA expresses disability as a percentage of diminished earning capacity “ applied to a hypothetical average person’s ability to earn income ,” whereas Social Sec urity “ does not assess degrees of disability ” and determines whether the applicant can make an adjustment that allows him to perform “ any other substantial gainful work that exists in the national economy .” Id. In sum, the ALJ weighed the VA’s determination in deciding the extent of Joseph’s impairments and how they caused him limitations in his ability to perform work

- related tasks. But she ultimately distinguished her decision from the VA’s on grounds that “ accurately reflect the
ap proaches taken in the two systems .” LaRiccia , 549 F. App’ x at 388 . Thus, Joseph has not shown
that the ALJ’s decision lacked substantial evidence.
We also reject Joseph’s contention that the ALJ failed to evaluate Joseph’s impairments in
combination. Du ring s tep three in the ALJ’s evaluation process, the applicant may show that his impairment meet s or equals a listed impairment, in which case , he will be considered disabled without regard to age, education, and work exper ience. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d); see Turner v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. , 381 F . App ’x 488, 491 (6th Cir. 2010). The Listing of Impairments define s impairments that the agency considers “ severe enough to prevent an individual from doing any gainful activity .” 20 C.F.R. § 416.925 (a); see Sulli van v. Zebley , 493 U.S. 521, 531

– 32 (1990)

. S tep three requires t he ALJ “ to actually evaluate the evidence, compare it to [the applicable] Listing, and give an explained conclusion, in order to facilitate meaningful judicial review. ” Reynolds v. Comm’ r of Soc. Sec. , 424 F. App’ x 411, 416 (6th Cir. 2011)

. The ALJ properly considered whether Joseph had an impairment or combination of impairments that met or me dically equaled th e listings. The ALJ assessed the medical evidence

on Joseph’s physical and ment al impairments, R.9, Page ID# 59 , and compared them (inCase No. 17

- 4158

Joseph v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.

9 combination) to the listed impairments, id. at Page ID# 60

– 62. Specifically, she considered Listing 1.02 for major dysfunction of a joint, Listing 1.04 for disorders of the spine, Listing 11.03 for epilepsy

- nonconvulsive epilepsy, Listing 12.04 for affective disorders, Listing 12.07 for somatoform disorders, Listing 12.08 for personality disorders, and Listing 12.09 for substance
addiction disorders. Moreover, t he record plainly disproves Joseph’s a ssertion that the ALJ failed to consider his impairments in combination

. See, e .g. , id. at Page ID# 60 (“ [W]hen considered individually or in combi nation, the claimant’s physical impairments did not meet or equal the level of severity set forth in any of the listed impairments. ”); id. (“ The severity of the claimant’s mental impairments, considered singly and in combination, did not meet or medically equal the criteria of listings . . . . ”). Thus, the ALJ applied the correct legal standards , and her findin gs were supported by substantial evidence. 6 Finally, Joseph argues that the ALJ erred in failing to hold his testimony in higher regard because of “ his work record in the service.” Appellant’s Br. at 18. “[A] n ALJ is no t required to accept a claimant’ s su bjective complaints and may . . . consider the credibility of a claimant when making a d etermination of disability.” Cruse v. Comm’ r of Soc. Sec. , 502 F.3d 532, 542 (6th Cir. 2007) (alteration in original) (quoting Jones v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. , 336 F.3d 469, 476 (6th Cir. 2003) ). “[S] ince the ALJ is char ged with observing the claimant’ s demeanor and credibil ity,” we afford “great weight” to an ALJ’ s credibility de terminations about the claimant. Id. (quoting Walters v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. , 127 F.3d 525 , 531 (6th Cir. 1997) ).

6 The district court determined that Joseph waived any challenge to the ALJ’s RFC finding because he failed to articulate any objection to th e magistrate judge’s findings in that regard . R.24, Page ID# 2487

– 89. Joseph did not address the district court’s waiver holding in his appellate brief. Thus, he has forfeited any challenge to the district court’s decision on waiver. See Hollon ex rel. Hollon v. Comm’ r of Soc. Sec. , 447 F.3d 477 , 491 (6th Cir. 2006) (“[W] e limit our consideration to the particular points that Hollon appears to raise in her brief on appeal. ”); United States v. Abboud , 438 F.3d 554, 589 (6th Cir. 2006) (“ An argument first presented to the Court in a reply brief is [forfeited]

. ”).Case No. 17

- 4158

Joseph v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.

10 Here, the ALJ appropriately considered the regulatory factors of objective medical evidence, medical opinions, treatment history, and evidence of daily activities in assessing Joseph’s subjective complaints. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 ; R.9, Page ID# 64

– 68. She explained
that b ased on her review of this evidence, she d id not find Joseph’s testimony on the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of his symptoms fully credible. R.9, Page ID# 64. We have upheld ALJ decisions based on similar d iscounting of the reliability of a claimant’ s testimony
about disabling pain when an ALJ finds contradictions between medical reports and claimant’ s testimony. See Walters , 127 F.3d at 531

. And Joseph puts forth no case l aw supporting his argument that military service requires a heightened level of deference . “ [ W ] ork history”

— even commendable military service

— “ is just one factor among many, and it is not dispositive. ” Loveless v. Colvin , 810 F.3d 502, 508 (7th Cir. 2016)

. Thus, because the ALJ’s credibility determination was based on her comparison of the medical evidence with Joseph’s testimony, we
do not find that it lacked substantial evidence.

II I

. For the reasons set forth above, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.