UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

EVELYN PARKER,

Plaintiff,

 Civil Action 2:10-cv-00971

v. JUDGE GREGORY L. FROST

 Magistrate Judge E.A. Preston Deavers

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

ADMINISTRATION,

Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court for consideration of the January 26, 2012 Report and

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. (ECF No. 14.) The Magistrate Judge recommended

that the Court remand this case for further consideration. On February 13, 2012, the

Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) filed his Objections to the Report and

Recommendation. Plaintiff has since responded in support of the Report and Recommendation. 

For the following reasons, the Commissioner’s Objections are OVERRULED and the Report

and Recommendation is ADOPTED.

I.

Plaintiff seeks social security disability insurance benefits due to a variety of conditions

including chronic back problems and morbid obesity. On August 28, 2009, an administrative

law judge (“ALJ”) issued a decision finding that Plaintiff was not disabled. The ALJ concluded

that Plaintiff suffered from several severe impairments including lumbar degenerative disc

disease and morbid obesity. The ALJ determined, however, that Plaintiff retained the residual

Case: 2:10-cv-00971-GLF-EPD Doc #: 16 Filed: 03/20/12 Page: 1 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>
functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform a reduced range of sedentary work. In reaching this

conclusion, the ALJ gave little weight to the restrictions Dr. John C. O’Conner, Plaintiff’s

treating physician, assigned to Plaintiff.1

 The ALJ concluded that Dr. O’Connor’s physical

examinations of Plaintiff did not support the restrictions he assigned. Additionally, the ALJ

concluded that Dr. O’Connor failed to provide sufficient justification for his conclusions on the

opinion form.

Plaintiff filed her Statement of Errors, contending that the ALJ relied on his own

expertise to supplant the opinions of Dr. O’Connor. Upon review of the record, the Magistrate

Judge concluded that substantial evidence does not support the ALJ’s decision. The Magistrate

Judge specifically found that the ALJ relied on his own medical judgment in weighing Dr.

O’Connor’s opinions and assigning Plaintiff’s RFC.

II.

If a party objects within the allotted time to a report and recommendation, the Court

“shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed

findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed.

R. Civ. P. 72(b). Upon review, the Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the

findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

The Court’s review “is limited to determining whether the Commissioner’s decision ‘is

supported by substantial evidence and was made pursuant to proper legal standards.’” Ealy v.

Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 594 F.3d 504, 512 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Rogers v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.,

1

 Dr. O’Connor assigned Plaintiff various limitations that were more restrictive than the

ALJ’s ultimate RFC.

2

Case: 2:10-cv-00971-GLF-EPD Doc #: 16 Filed: 03/20/12 Page: 2 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>
486 F.3d 234, 241 (6th Cir. 2007)); see also, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (“The findings of the

Commissioner of Social Security as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be

conclusive . . . .”). Put another way, a decision supported by substantial evidence is not subject

to reversal, even if the reviewing court might arrive at a different conclusion. Mullen v. Bowen,

800 F.2d 535, 545 (6th Cir. 1986). “Substantial evidence exists when ‘a reasonable mind could

accept the evidence as adequate to support a conclusion [and] . . . presupposes that there is a

zone of choice within which the decision-makers can go either way, without interference by the

courts.’ ” Blakley v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 581 F.3d 399, 406 (6th Cir. 2009) (internal; citation

omitted). Even if supported by substantial evidence, however, “‘a decision of the Commissioner

will not be upheld where the [Commissioner] fails to follow its own regulations and where that

error prejudices a claimant on the merits or deprives the claimant of a substantial right.’”

Rabbers v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 582 F.3d 647, 651 (6th Cir. 2009) (quoting Bowen v. Comm’r of

Soc. Sec., 478 F.3d 742, 746 (6th Cir. 2007)).

III.

In his Objections, the Commissioner contends that the ALJ reasonably evaluated the

medical opinion evidence. The Commissioner asserts that the ALJ properly balanced competing

evidence to arrive at his RFC determination. Additionally, the Commissioner indicates that the

ALJ was justified in rejecting Dr. O’Connor’s opinion because Dr. O’Connor failed to provide

adequate justification for the limitations he assigned. 

A claimant’s RFC is an administrative determination ultimately reserved to the

Commissioner and is not equivalent to opinions of medical sources. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2);

SSR 96-5p, 1996 WL 374183, at *4 (July 2, 1996). Nonetheless, an ALJ’s conclusions must still

3

Case: 2:10-cv-00971-GLF-EPD Doc #: 16 Filed: 03/20/12 Page: 3 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>
be supported by substantial evidence. Bowen v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 478 F.3d 742, 745–46 (6th

Cir. 2007). Furthermore, in determining a claimant’s RFC an ALJ must consider all relevant

evidence, including medical source statements regarding the nature and severity of impairments

and a claimant’s physical restrictions. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b). Finally, as the Magistrate

Judge noted, in reaching disability determinations, an ALJ must not substitute his or her own lay

medical judgment in place of a treating physician’s opinions. Bledsoe v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.,

No. 1:09cv564, 2011 WL 549861, at *7 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 8, 2011) (citing Simpson v. Comm'r of

Soc. Sec., 344 F. App’x 181, 194 (6th Cir. 2009)). Nor may an ALJ “make her own independent

medical findings.” Id.

Upon review of the record and briefing, the Court agrees with, and adopts, the reasoning

and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. The ALJ, relying apparently on his own medical

judgment and evaluation of Plaintiff’s treatment notes, concluded that the medical evidence did

not support the restrictions Dr. O’Connor assigned Plaintiff. Such a conclusion, however, is not

obvious from the record. As the Magistrate Judge detailed:

The record in this case documents Plaintiff’s extensive medical history, including

over three years of examination notes describing Dr. O’Connor’s regular treatment

of Plaintiff. Plaintiff has received treatment for various conditions including back

and shoulder complications. She is also morbidly obese. A January 2007 MRI,

which Dr. O’Connor ordered, revealed “[l]eft paramidline and foraminal disc

herniation at L4-5 impinging on the left L4 nerve root and the foramen” as well as

“[d]egenerative changes in the facet joints . . . bilaterally at L4-5 and L5-S1.” (R. at

277.)

(Report & Recommendation 21, ECF No. 13.) Furthermore, contrary to the Commissioner’s

implication, normal findings do not predominate Dr. O’Connor’s treatment and examination

notes. Rather, Dr. O’Connor’s notes reflect a mixture of normal and abnormal findings. In light

of Plaintiff medical history, the ALJ was not entitled to rely on his own judgment that the

4

Case: 2:10-cv-00971-GLF-EPD Doc #: 16 Filed: 03/20/12 Page: 4 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>
medical evidence did not support the restrictions Dr. O’Connor assigned.

Furthermore, given the circumstances of this case, the ALJ was not justified in dismissing

Dr. O’Connor’s opinions as conclusory. The Commissioner is certainly correct, and cites

various authority to support the notion, that an ALJ need not accept opinions that are conclusory. 

The Commissioner, however, fails to address the Magistrate Judge’s observation that Dr.

O’Connor’s opinions must be read in the context of the entire record. Dr. O’Connor indicated

that he assigned the restrictions at issue based on his findings of pain and obesity. (R. at

338–39.) Dr. O’Connor’s treatment notes and opinions indicate that Plaintiff is morbidly obese

and experiences pain associated with a chronic lower back condition. (See, e.g., R. at 272.) 

Furthermore, Dr. O’Connor’s treatment records reflect objective evidence of Plaintiff’s back

condition. For example, a January MRI of Plaintiff’s lumbar spine, which Dr. O’Connor

ordered, revealed disc herniation and degenerative changes. (R. at 277.) Considering these

factors, the ALJ could not simply dismiss Dr. O’Connor’s opinions as conclusory.

Even if the ALJ had correctly assigned little weight to Dr. O’Connor’s opinions,

substantial evidence does not support the ALJ’s RFC assessment. From the current record, it is

unclear that the ALJ adequately accounted for the medical evidence in assigning Plaintiff’s

physical RFC. The ALJ rejected or gave little weight to all of the medical opinions concerning

Plaintiff’s physical RFC. In outlining the evidentiary basis for his RFC determination, however,

the ALJ did not rely on non-medical evidence to determine Plaintiff’s abilities. Instead, the ALJ

based his physical RFC conclusions on his own step-by-step analysis of what limitations should

result from Plaintiff’s medical conditions. (R. at 17.) As the Magistrate Judge recognized,

“given the relative complexity of Plaintiff’s conditions and the medical record in this case, the

5

Case: 2:10-cv-00971-GLF-EPD Doc #: 16 Filed: 03/20/12 Page: 5 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>
ALJ erred in relying on his own medical interpretations to reach his RFC determination.” 

(Report & Recommendation 23, ECF No. 13.)

IV.

For the above reasons, as well as the reasoning articulated by the Magistrate Judge, the

Commissioner’s Objections (ECF No. 14) are OVERRULED and the Report and

Recommendation (ECF No. 13) is ADOPTED. This case is REMANDED to the Commissioner

for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ Gregory L. Frost 

GREGORY L. FROST

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6

Case: 2:10-cv-00971-GLF-EPD Doc #: 16 Filed: 03/20/12 Page: 6 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>