NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 19a0297n.06

Case No. 18-2300

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

MELISSA SUE TUCKER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant-Appellee.

____________________________________/

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED 

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 

THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF 

MICHIGAN

Before: MERRITT, THAPAR, and READLER, Circuit Judges.

MERRITT, Circuit Judge. Melissa Sue Tucker, now 38 years of age, challenges the 

decision of an administrative law judge of the Social Security Administration denying her

applications for social security disability benefits. Because the decision of the administrative law 

judge is supported by substantial evidence, we affirm the judgment of the district court affirming 

the administrative law judge’s decision.

I.

Tucker underwent hip surgeries at ages 12 and 14, and she has experienced pain and other 

physical difficulties from those procedures since that time. She had further surgery in 2014 to 

remove the “pins” or hardware from her hips. She walks without a cane or other assistance, 

although she complains of pain, for which she takes over-the-counter pain relievers. Hr’g Tr. 7-8. 
Case No. 18-2300, Tucker v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.

- 2 -

Starting in 2012, Tucker also began to experience mental and psychological problems as well, 

including anxiety and depression. She successfully completed high school by obtaining a GED, 

but has no past relevant work experience. ALJ Decision at 14. She testified that she cannot work 

because she misses too many days due to pain from her hips, as well as issues with her bipolar 

disorder and anxiety. Id. On December 5, 2013, and March 17, 2014, Tucker filed applications 

for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income, respectively, alleging that she 

has been disabled since October 15, 1992, due to a hip impairment, bipolar disorder, anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder, and suicidal tendencies.

1

 

After Tucker’s latest applications were denied in 2014, she requested a hearing before an 

administrative law judge. On December 16, 2015, Tucker, who was represented by counsel, 

appeared before an administrative law judge for a hearing. Tucker and an independent vocational 

expert testified. In a written decision dated February 9, 2016, the administrative law judge denied

Tucker’s claim. The Appeals Council declined to review the administrative law judge’s

determination and that decision became the Commissioner’s final decision. Tucker subsequently 

initiated an action in federal court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of the 

administrative law judge’s decision. A magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation 

recommending that the district court affirm the administrative law judge’s decision. Tucker v. 

Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 17-cv-480, 2018 WL 4290465 (W.D. Mich. Apr. 6, 2018). The district 

court adopted the Report and Recommendation. Tucker v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 17-cv-480, 

2018 WL 4286395 (W.D. Mich. Sept. 7, 2018), and this timely appeal followed.

 

1 Tucker previously filed applications that were denied on November 25, 2009. She did not appeal the denials. 

Consequently, the administrative law judge limited her decision to Tucker’s current claims for the period beginning 

on November 26, 2009, through that date of the administrative decision on February 9, 2016.
Case No. 18-2300, Tucker v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.

- 3 -

II.

Disability benefits are available only to those with a “disability.” Colvin v. Barnhart, 475 

F.3d 727, 730 (6th Cir. 2007). “Disability” means the inability

to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically 

determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in 

death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not 

less than [twelve] months. 

42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(A). 

In finding that Tucker was not disabled, the administrative law judge performed the 

required five-step analysis.2 See Heston v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 245 F.3d 528, 534 (6th Cir. 2001). 

If the administrative law judge makes a dispositive finding at any point in the review, no further 

finding is required. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a). The regulations also provide 

that if a claimant, such as Tucker, suffers from a nonexertional impairment as well as an exertional 

impairment, both are considered in determining her residual functional capacity at the fourth step. 

 

2The five-step sequential analysis states:

(i) At the first step, we consider your work activity, if any. If you are doing substantial gainful 

activity, we will find that you are not disabled.

(ii) At the second step, we consider the medical severity of your impairment(s). If you do not have 

a severe medically determinable physical or mental impairment that meets the duration requirement 

... or a combination of impairments that is severe and meets the duration requirement, we will find 

that you are not disabled.

(iii) At the third step, we also consider the medical severity of your impairment(s). If you have an 

impairment(s) that meets or equals one of our listings in appendix 1 of this subpart and meets the 

duration requirement, we will find that you are disabled.

(iv) At the fourth step, we consider our assessment of your residual functional capacity and your 

past relevant work. If you can still do your past relevant work, we will find that you are not disabled.

(v) At the fifth and last step, we consider our assessment of your residual functional capacity and 

your age, education, and work experience to see if you can make an adjustment to other work. If 

you can make an adjustment to other work, we will find that you are not disabled. If you cannot 

make an adjustment to other work, we will find that you are disabled. 

20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). 
Case No. 18-2300, Tucker v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.

- 4 -

See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 416.945. Residual functional capacity is defined as the “maximum 

degree to which the individual retains the capacity for sustained performance of the physicalmental requirements of jobs.” 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 2 § 200.00(c). 

“Through step four, the claimant bears the burden of proving the existence and severity of 

limitations caused by her impairments and the fact that she is precluded from performing her past 

relevant work.” Jones v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 336 F.3d 469, 474 (6th Cir. 2003). At step five, 

the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show that other jobs in significant numbers exist in the 

national economy that the claimant could perform given her residual functional capacity and 

considering other relevant vocational factors. Id. 

Applying the five-step analysis in this case, the administrative law judge first found that 

Tucker has not engaged in any substantial gainful activity since her disability onset date. Second, 

the administrative law judge determined that Tucker suffered from the following severe 

impairments: (1) status post remote bilateral hip percutaneous screw fixation for slipped capital 

femoral epiphysis; (2) bilateral hardware removal; (3) trochanteric bursitis of the bilateral hips; (4) 

bilateral knee patellofemoral syndrome; (5) asthma; (6) obesity; (7) bipolar disorder; (8) anxiety 

disorder; (9) post-traumatic stress disorder; (10) social phobia; and (11) a history of cannabis abuse 

presently in remission per the claimant’s reports. ALJ Decision at 4. 

Third, the administrative law judge concluded that Tucker’s impairments did not meet or 

medically equal any of the listed impairments. In addition to addressing Tucker’s physical 

impairments with her hips and knees, asthma and obesity, the administrative law judge specifically 

considered the severity of Tucker’s mental impairments singly and in combination, and found that 

they did not meet the listed criteria. 20 C.F.R., Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. Id. at 5-7. 
Case No. 18-2300, Tucker v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.

- 5 -

At the next step, the administrative law judge must determine the claimant’s “residual 

functional capacity.” When assessing a claimant’s residual functional capacity, the regulations 

require consideration of the physical, mental, and sensory requirements of work. 20 C.F.R. § 

404.1545(a)(4).3 With regard to the administrative law judge’s evaluation of mental abilities in 

determining a claimant’s residual functional capacity, the regulations state:

When we assess your mental abilities, we first assess the nature and extent of your 

mental limitations and restrictions and then determine your residual functional 

capacity for work activity on a regular and continuing basis. A limited ability to 

carry out certain mental activities such as limitations in understanding, 

remembering, and carrying out instructions, and in responding appropriately to 

supervision, co-workers, and work pressures in a work setting may reduce your 

ability to do past work and other work. 

20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(c). The administrative law judge in her decision detailed Tucker’s medical 

history concerning her mental and psychological disorders. ALJ Decision at 10-13. She also 

considered Tucker’s own account of her condition at the hearing, as well as the observations of

Tucker’s father whom Tucker saw regularly. The administrative law judge recognized Tucker’s 

occasional bouts with depression and anxiety, but noted that her mental status examinations have 

been largely normal and she had minimal or no impairment of memory, concentration, attention 

or judgment. Id. at 5-6. The administrative law judge also found that Tucker attends to daily 

living activities, including childcare and housework. Id. at 10-13. 

Given this evidence, the administrative law judge found that Tucker retained the residual 

functional capacity to perform a significant range of unskilled light work, subject to the following 

 

3 The mental residual functional capacity assessment used at steps 4 and 5 of the sequential evaluation process requires 

a more detailed assessment by itemizing various functions contained in the broad categories found in paragraph B of 

the adult mental disorders listings in the Listing of Impairments. The residual functional capacity assessment reflects 

the degree of limitation the administrative law judge found in the “paragraph B” mental function analysis. To meet 

the stated “paragraph B” criteria, the mental impairments must result in at least two of the following: marked restriction 

of activities of daily living; marked difficulties in maintaining social functioning; marked difficulties in maintaining 

concentration, persistence, or pace; or repeated episodes of decompensation, each of extended duration. A marked 

limitation means more than moderate but less than extreme. Repeated episodes of decompensation, each of extended 

duration, means three episodes within 1 year, or an average of once every 4 months, each lasting for at least 2 weeks. 
Case No. 18-2300, Tucker v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.

- 6 -

limitations: (1) during an 8-hour workday, she can stand/walk for 4 hours; (2) she can occasionally 

balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, crawl, and climb ramps/stairs; (3) she can never climb ladders, ropes, 

or scaffolds; (4) she should avoid concentrated exposure to fumes, odors, dusts, gases, and other 

like respiratory irritants; (5) she can understand, remember, and carry out simple instructions; 

(6) she can make judgments on simple work-related decisions; (7) she can tolerate occasional 

interactions with supervisors and co-workers; (8) she should avoid work activity involving direct 

contact with the general public; (9) she can tolerate usual work situations and deal with changes 

in a routine work setting. Id. at 7. 

The administrative law judge found that Tucker had no past relevant work experience, so 

the burden of proof shifted to the Commissioner to establish by substantial evidence that a 

significant number of jobs exist in the national economy that Tucker could perform given her 

limitations. The vocational expert testified that there existed approximately 225,000 jobs in the 

national economy, 7,000 of them in Indiana where Tucker resided at the time of the hearing, that 

an individual with Tucker’s residual functional capacity could perform, including with the 

limitations noted. These include mail sorter, assembler and photocopier operator. Id. at 14-15; 

see also Hr’g Tr. at 40-43. The administrative law judge determined that given Tucker’s residual 

functional capacity and vocational profile, there were a significant number of jobs in the national 

economy that Tucker could perform. Based on this last finding, the administrative law judge 

concluded that Tucker was not “disabled.”

III.

The scope of judicial review in a social security case is limited to determining whether the 

Commissioner applied the proper legal standards and whether there exists in the record substantial 

evidence supporting that decision. See Brainard v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 889 F.2d 
Case No. 18-2300, Tucker v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.

- 7 -

679, 681 (6th Cir. 1989). Our jurisdiction in this case is confined to a review of the 

Commissioner’s decision and of the record made in the administrative hearing process. See 

Willbanks v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 847 F.2d 301, 303 (6th Cir. 1988). 

Tucker’s arguments on appeal are limited to challenging the administrative law judge’s 

findings of her mental residual functional capacity, focusing particularly on the weight given the 

opinion of one-time consultative examiner Dr. Boen. She contends that the amount of weight 

afforded by the administrative law judge to his opinion was “defective and vague.” Plaintiff’s Br. 

at 17. She argues that Dr. Boen’s statement in his opinion that Tucker “could understand what she 

was asked to do on a job but she would have difficulty remembering it” was “work-preclusive,” 

id., interpreting the statement to mean that she could not work at all at any job. Tucker argues, 

therefore, that the statement is inconsistent with the administrative law judge’s mental residual 

functional capacity finding. Tucker also generally challenges the terms used by the administrative 

law judge to accord differing levels of deference to the medical evidence, such as “little weight,” 

“some weight,” “partial weight,” and “limited weight” as “vague and ambiguous,” rendering the 

decision incapable of being “meaningfully reviewed.” Id. Tucker also argues that the 

administrative law judge improperly “cherry picked” limitations from Dr. Boen’s opinion in 

making the mental residual functional capacity finding.

The administrative law judge must “consider all evidence available” in the record when 

making a disability decision. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(5)(B). The regulations require the administrative 

law judge to weigh the value of “medical opinions” pursuant to a multi-factor test. 20 C.F.R. § 

404.1527. Excluded from the definition of “medical opinions” are various decisions reserved to 

the Commissioner, such as whether the claimant meets the statutory definition of disability and 

how to measure his or her residual functional capacity. Id. § 404.1527(d). The administrative law 
Case No. 18-2300, Tucker v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.

- 8 -

judge must use a balancing test to determine the probative value of all medical opinions from 

acceptable sources, using six listed factors. Id. § 404.1527(c). The administrative law judge must 

consider whether the source examined the claimant, if the source is a “treating source” and, if so, 

look at the length and frequency of the treatment relationship and the nature and extent of the 

treatment relationship, the supportability of the opinion, the consistency of the opinion with the 

record as a whole, any specialization of the treating source, and any other factors that tend to 

support or contradict the opinion of the source. Id.

Tucker challenges the weight given to the opinion of one-time consultative examiner Dan 

Boen, Ph.D. On May 6, 2014, Tucker underwent a consultative examination by Dr. Boen, 

reporting to him that she was feeling “sad and depressed, has trouble concentrating and focusing, 

is nervous and shaky in social situations, and has anxiety and panic attacks.” Dr. Boen Report at 

1-2. She reported that she had taken psychotropic medications on and off for several years, and 

had been hospitalized briefly for suicidal thoughts. She reported that her medication regimen was 

recently modified with beneficial effect on her symptoms with no side effects. Specifically, Dr. 

Boen reported:

She was oriented to time, place, and person. She can handle her own money. She 

was responsive in her speech and cooperative with the examiner. Her mood and 

affect were normal. She is on psychotropic medication. She has had suicidal and 

auditory hallucinations. Her consciousness was normal. Her concentration was 

normal. Her memory was moderately deficient. Her fund of information and level 

of intelligence were normal. Her judgment was mildly deficient. Her level of insight 

was normal.

Id. at 4. Dr. Boen diagnosed Tucker with bipolar disorder, social phobia, and cannabis abuse. Id. 

He concluded that Tucker “could understand what she was asked to do on a job but she would 

have difficulty remembering it.” Id. Dr. Boen further concluded that Tucker “could concentrate 

and stay on task,” but “would have trouble relating to both coworkers and her boss.” Id.
Case No. 18-2300, Tucker v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.

- 9 -

While the administrative law judge characterized Dr. Boen’s opinion as “rather vague,” 

she found it “broadly consistent with the evidence of record as a whole showing the claimant’s 

residual mood difficulties and occasional cognitive impairments.” ALJ Decision at 13. The 

administrative law judge noted that Dr. Boen was not a treating physician for Tucker, and she

afforded his opinion “some weight.” Because Dr. Boen examined Tucker only once, his opinion 

is entitled to no special deference. See Barker v. Shalala, 40 F.3d 789, 794 (6th Cir. 1994); 

Atterberry v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 871 F.2d 567, 571-72 (6th Cir. 1989). 

Additionally, the administrative law judge’s residual functional capacity finding does not need to 

correspond to a particular physician’s opinion. Rudd v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 531 F. App’x 719, 

728 (6th Cir. 2013) (rejecting the argument that the administrative law judge is required to base 

her determination on a physician’s opinion). No bright-line rule exists in our circuit directing that 

medical opinions must be the building blocks of the residual functional capacity finding, but the

administrative law judge must make a connection between the evidence relied on and the 

conclusion reached. The administrative law judge made that connection here. 

Dr. Boen’s opinion articulates no specific functional limitations from which Tucker suffers, 

and his opinion is consistent with the mental residual functional capacity finding of the 

administrative law judge. Tucker interprets Dr. Boen’s statement that she would experience 

“difficulty” remembering instructions as a complete inability to remember instructions. Tucker’s

contention that this statement in the opinion renders her unable to work at all is a 

mischaracterization of his report as a whole and takes one isolated statement out of context. 

Furthermore, to the extent that Tucker interprets Dr. Boen’s opinion as asserting that Tucker is 

more limited than the administrative law judge’s mental residual functional capacity finding 

recognized, that interpretation is contradicted by the medical evidence as a whole in the record. 
Case No. 18-2300, Tucker v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.

- 10 -

The administrative law judge articulated her rationale for discounting Dr. Boen’s opinion and that 

rationale is supported by substantial evidence. 

Relatedly, Tucker also complains that the administrative law judge “cherry picked” certain 

observations from Dr. Boen’s report, pointing to Tucker’s less-severe mental limitations, while 

arguing in the same breath that the administrative law judge failed to place sufficient reliance on 

his opinion. The administrative law judge’s reliance on Dr. Boen’s report was consistent with the 

regulations and our precedent because he reviewed all the medical evidence, and, as the 

administrative law judge found, his report was consistent with that evidence. He properly cited 

abnormal as well as normal examination findings, as noted by the administrative law judge. 

Tucker’s argument that the administrative law judge should have found that Dr. Boen’s finding 

that Tucker “could not remember instructions” was “work-preclusive” is unsupported by the 

record evidence as a whole.

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court upholding the 

Commissioner’s decision.