The Honor able William O. Be rtelsman, United States District Court Judge for the E astern * District of Ke ntucky , 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: 07a0858n.06 F iled: Dec em ber 14, 2007 No. 07-1385 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
CH AR L ES J. D ESPI

NS, Pla int if f- Ap pe lla nt,
v. COMMI SSI ONER OF SOCI AL SECURI TY, Def endant- Appellee
. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE WES TERN DI STRI CT OF MI CHI GAN

Before: ROG ERS an d SUT TON, Circuit Judges; BERTE LSMAN, Distric t Judge. * ROGERS, Circ uit Jud ge. After the Comm i s s i o n er of Social Secur ity denied plaintiff’ s
a pp lic a tio n f

or Soc ia l Se c ur ity

Di sa bil ity B e ne fi ts, pla int if

f f ile d f o r r e vie w i n f

e de ra l c ourt . B e c a

us e the Commiss ioner’s de cision is supported by substantial evidence , we a ffirm.
I.
Pla int if f C ha rl e s J. D e sp ins is a 66 y e ar- old ma le wh o ha s bee n re tir e d sinc e 19 96 . Prio r t o
re tir e me nt, De sp ins wo rk e d f or thi rt y -s e ve n y e ars at K

raft Foo ds , for

me rl y Pos t Ce re a l, i n B a ttl e Creek, Mic higa

n. Duringhis tenure at Kraft, Despins worked primar ily as a se mi-truck drive r and Class A mecha

nic.No. 07-1385

Despins v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec

.

- 2 - A. P roce edings B elow
Th ou g h D e s p i n s r e t i r e d

i n1 9 9 6 , h e f

i l e d f o r S o c i a l S e c u r i t y

D i s a b i l i t y I n s u r an c e B e ne fi ts
on Fe bruar

y 25, 2003. The Social Sec urity Administration denied both Despins’ initial application for be nefits and his re quest fo r reconsideration. Therea fter, D espins reque sted an a dminist rative he ari ng . O n Se pte mbe r 2 9, 20 04 , a n A dmi nis tr a tive L aw Jud g e (“ AL J”) he ld a he ari ngin Coo ke vil le , T e nn e sse e . O n Jan ua ry 25 , 2 00 5, the AL J issu e d a de cis io n den y ing De sp ins ’ c la im. Th e AL J c on c lud e d that: (1 ) De sp ins ’ ins ur e d status la ps e d o n D e c e mbe r 3 1, 20 01 ; and (2 ) p ri or to that date , D e sp ins did

no t ha ve an im pa ir me nt o r i mpa ir

me nts so “ se ve re ” that he wa s si g nif ic antl y limit ed fr om perfor

ming ba sic work a ctivities. The AL J ’s dec ision became the final de cision of the Commi ssioner on January 18, 2006, when the A

ppeals Council dec lined D e s p in s ’ r e q u est for r eview.
On Mar c h 3 , 2 0 0 6 , Despins filed for

revie w of the Commissioner’s dec ision in federa l district court pursua

nt to 42 U.S.C . § 405(g ). On January 25, 20 0 7 , a mag istrate re commended tha t the district court af

firm t he C ommissi oner’ s decision. The magistrate concluded t hat t he AL J ’s dec ision was supporte d by

substantial evidence beca use the a dminist rative r ecor d contained no e vidence that Desp in s w a s s ig n if

ic an tl y li mi te d b y h is me d ic a l im p a ir me n ts p r io r to D e c e mb e r 3 1 , 2001. On Marc h 5, 2007, the district court a dopted the finding s of the ma gi s t ra t e an d aff irmed the Commi ssioner’s de cision.No. 07-1385

Despins v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec

.

- 3 - B. Despins’ Medical History
I n his application for benef its, De spins listed a disability onset date of

J uly 28, 1998. Despins claimed tha t h i s ab ility

to work bec ame sig nificantly limit ed on that date as a r esult of hea rt pr ob le ms, tr e mor s, po or e y e sig ht, and los s of he ari ng . Th e fo llo wi ng is a summa ry of Despi ns ’ medical history

as re flec ted in the administrative re cord.
1. Medica l History

Pre-De cembe r 31, 2001
Prior to Dece mber 31, 2001, Despins rec eived treatment for a ba ck fr actur e in 1965, colon
c anc e r in 19 83 , and me nin g iti s and g iard ia in 19 83
. De sp ins a lso re c e ive d tr e a tme nt f or c arc ino ma
o nh i s l e f tc h e e k i n1 9 9 4 , an d

h i s m e d i c a l r e c o r d s i n d i c a t e a h i s t o r y o f k i dn e y s t o n e r e m o va l, hy pothy roidism, and trauma to his left wrist. I n April 1997, Despins under went a c olonoscopy

that yielded no evide nce of

any lesion or poly

p. That s ame month, an e choca rdiog ram re veale d that Despins suffe red f

rom a mild to moderate de g ree of aortic stenosis, a condition wher eby a disea sed aortic va lve impedes the f low of blood throug h the hea rt. See, e .g. , Na t i o nal Institut es of He alth, National L ibrary

of Medicine , Aortic Stenosis, http:/ /www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/enc y / article/ 000178.htm (last visit ed De c. 7, 2007).
On J uly 9, 1998, Despins was admitted to St. Thomas Hospital in Nashville, Tenne ssee, a s
a re su lt of the a or

tic ste no sis dia g no se d in

19 97 . D e sp ins re po rt e d to his do c tor that he wa s “ a

bleNo. 07-1385

Despins v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec

.

- 4 - to do activities of daily

living without shortness of bre ath,” but bec ame ve ry short of breath af

ter a ny ty pe of str e nu ou s e xer

tio n. On July

28 , 1 99 8, De sp ins un de rw e nt s ur g e ry to t re a t bo th t

he a or tic stenosis a n d an asc ending aortic a neury sm. The surg ery , perf ormed by Dr. Micha el Petrac ek, consisted of aortic va lve and r oot replac ement. Dr . Petrac ek re ported that De spins tolerated the proce dure w ell and experienc ed some intermittent post-oper ative a t ri al fibrillation. Despins
rema ined in the hospital for seve n post-operative day s and wa s discharg ed on Aug ust 4, 1998. O ver the ne xt fe w ye ars , D e sp ins pa rt ic ipate d in

a se ri e s o f f

oll ow -u p e xami natio ns and ho sp ita l vi sit s. On August 10, 1998, Dr. Thomas Johnst on , De s p i n s ’ ca rdiolog ist, noted that Despins
c omp la ine d o f t ig htn e ss i n h is c he st. Ne ve rt he le ss, Dr . Joh ns ton re po rt e d th a t D e sp ins se e me d to be “doing well” and instructed De spins to “increa se his activity level.” O n Aug ust 11, 1998, Despins
was a dmitted to the hospit al for volume overloa d and an irregular heartbeat. Dr. Johnst on repor ted that Despins was “ much b et ter” by the next morning and D espins was late r dischar g ed in “g ood condition.” At an e x amination on Aug ust 14, 1998, Despins repor ted swelling and pain in his left leg . Dr. Johnst on noted ev i dence of volume over load and incr ease d Despins’ dosag e for various presc ription medications. On August 18, 1998, Despins reported “fee ling a lot better” and that he
wa s n o lo ng e r e xpe ri e nc inghe art pa l p itatio ns . T he re a ft e r, De sp ins ’ v isi ts t o th e ho sp ita l be c a me le ss fre quent.
I n Septem b er

1 9 9 8 , Dr
. J o h n s t o nre p o rt edt h at De s p i n s wa s “m u ch i mp ro v ed” a nd rec overing well from the sur g ery . I n October 1998, Despins was ag ain admit ted to the hospital. Despins had “g otten to the point where he could wa lk a mile until about 3-4 wee ks” bef ore the admission, butNo. 07-1385

Despins v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec

.

- 5 - b e g ane xp e r ie n c in g in c r e a s e d s h o rtn e s s o f

b r e a th
. D r . Jo h n s to nd ia g n o s e d D e s p in s w it

hb il a te r al pleura l effusions and a scites. Despins rec eived treatment f or his condition and was discha rg ed five day s later in “g ood condition.” In a follow-up visit later that month, Dr. J ohnston noted that Despins “has be en doing much better ” and r eporte d that Despins could “w alk a mile.” I n Dec ember

1998, Dr. Johnst on noted that Despins complaine d of constipati o n and dec rea sed urine output, but otherwise se emed to be “doing very well” and was “walking as far as he wants to walk.” L ater that month, Dr. Petrac ek ex amined Despins and noted that Despins’ c ardia c exam was norma l. During the same e x amination, Dr. P etra cek reporte d that Despins suffe red f rom a lef t gr oin ly mphocele that would periodica lly

swell up, causing “fa irly sever e” pain and numbness in Despins’ le ft leg . Despins
u n d erwe n tan ex ci s i o no f t h e l y mp h o ce l e a n d

Dr
. P et ra ce k

n o t edt h at De s p i n s t o l er at edt h e p roce dure well. Despins wa s discharg ed the same day
. I n Marc h 1999, Dr. Johnst on repor ted that Desp i n s h ad trouble with volume overloa d but that, in his opini on, Despins was “ doing w ell.” In May 1999, Dr. Joh nston reporte d that Despins continued to be volume overloa ded and suffe red from incre ased fluid rete ntion and dizz iness. Dr. J ohnston pr escr ibed additional medication for the volume overloa d and, in July 1999, De s p i ns repor ted to Dr. Johnst on that he wa s “fe eling g ood.” Dr. J ohnston note d that Despins’ shortne ss of breath had improved a

nd repor ted that Despins wa s “doing well.” In Au gu s t 1999, Despins complained of hear

t pa lpitations. Dr. Johnst on discussed var ious treatment options and noted that it might be n ec es s ar y t o restar t Despins on a medication called Ry thmol. I n November

1999, Dr. J ohnston ag ain noted that De spins was “fe eling well.”No. 07-1385

Despins v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec

.

- 6 - I n J anuar y 2000, Dr. Johnst on repor ted that Despins wa s “doing ver y we l l ” and “did very well” on a

rec ent cr

uise to the Caribbea

n. I n M ay 2 0 00, Dr. Johnst on repor ted that Despins
occa sionally

had che st discomf

ort, but that, othe rwise, Despins was “ doing ve ry well.” In October 2000, Dr. J ohnson repor

ted that Despins’ volume overloa d had g otten better and that De spins was walking two miles per day . He noted that Despins was “ doing ve ry well.” That same month, Dr. J ennife r L ee, D espins’ g ener al phy sician, re ported that De spins “rea lly has no problems a lthough he is having some vague che st wall discomf o rt
. ” I n Fe b ruary

2001, Dr. L ee note d that Despins was “doing fairly well.” In April 2001, Dr. J ohnston wrote to D r. L ee that Despins “continues to improve
ever y time Isee him” a

nd that Despins had only

minimal problems with fluid overloa d. Dr. Johnst on also repor ted that he be lieved De sp i n s wa s “d o i ng very well.” In November

2001, Dr. Johnst on ag ain re ported to Dr. L ee that Despins was “ doing ve ry well.”
I nad d i t i o nt o h i s h ea rt c o n d i t i o n , t h e r ec o rdi n d i ca t es t h at De s p i n s s u ff er edfr o m b en i gn
e sse nti a l tr e mor

pr ior to D e c e mbe r 3 1, 20 01
. On Au g us t 3, 19 98 , Dr . M ic ha e l K a min sk i, D e sp ins ’ neurolog ist, noted that D espins had a history of benig n essential tremor since ear ly adulthood. Dr. Ka min sk i r e po rt e d th at D e sp ins ’ t re mor wa s p re sent wi th m ov e me nt a nd dis a pp e are d w ithre st. De sp ins ha d n ot p re vio us ly be e n o n me dic a tio n f

or the tr e mor

and Dr . K a min sk i de sc ri be d D e sp ins ’ g ait as “c autious but stable.” At the administrative hear ing, Despins testified that the tremor w as not “as se vere [i n 1998] as [ it is] now,” but that the tre mor was s ev ere enoug h to preve nt him from pu tti ngnu ts a

nd bo lts tog e the r. De sp ins a lso te sti fi e d th a t th e tr e mor ma de it d iff

ic ult to s ig n h isNo. 07-1385

Despins v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec

.

- 7 - name a nd cre ated diff

iculty with his ga it. Mrs. Despins testified that, by 1996, the t remor w as seve re enoug h that it interfer ed with Despins’ a bility to do simpl e tasks ar ound the house.
Me dic a l r e c or ds do not in di cate tha t D e sp ins re c e ive d me dic a tio n f or his tr e mor

pr ior to Dec ember

31, 2001. Dr. Ka

minski’s report of August 3, 1998 indicates that Despins was “ started on Tenormin” a

nd that the co u rs e of Tenor min treatment would be monitored be fore other medications we re a dded. Howe ver, D espi n s ’ m edica l rec ords betwe en August 3, 1998 and No ve mbe r 1 2, 20 02 do no t in dic a te tha t D e sp ins too k T e no rm in o r a ny oth e r m e dic a tio n to tr e a t hi s t r e m o r . A tt h e a dm i n i s t r a t i v e h e ar i n g , D e s p i n s d i d n o tr e f e r t o a t r e m o r m e d i c a t i o nw h e nt h e A LJ questioned him about the medications he took in 1998. Despins t estified that he was not treate d for tremors in 1998 bec ause doc tors wer e busy addre ssing his heart pr oblems. Mrs. Despins testified that Despins was not plac ed on tre mor medication in the past beca use of c onfl i ct s wi t h h i s hear t medication. De spins’ medical re cords do not shed a ny light on a c on fl i ct between his hea rt medication and tr emor medic ations. Finally , evidenc e in t he record indicates t hat Despins rec eived medical t reatment for ba sal cell ca rcinoma a nd suffe red from acute hear ing loss pr ior to D ece mber 31, 2001. I n J uly 1998, Dr. Pe tr a c e k n ote d th a t De sp ins su ff e re d fr om se ve re ly de c re a sin g he ari ng in his ri g ht e ar a nd mod e rate decr ease d hear ing in his left e ar. In Aug ust 1998, Dr. Kaminski repor ted diminished hearingon Despins’ right si de. The recor d does not indicate the extent to which Despins rec eived tre atment for the hear ing loss. I n September 2000, Despins underw ent microg raphic surg ery to r emove t he
car cinoma fr om his left chee k.No. 07-1385

Despins v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec

.

- 8 - 2. Medica l History

Post-Dece mber 31, 2001
The a dminist rative r ecor d contains t he followingevidenc e of D espins’ medica l history afte r De c e mbe r 3 1, 20 01 . With r e sp e c t to De sp ins ’ h e art c on dit ion , Dr
. John sto n e xami ne d D e sp ins in Fe bruar y 2002 and conc luded t hat Despins “has be en doing fairly well” de spite fleetingepisodes of chest pa in. I n May

2002, Dr. J ohnston c oncluded that Despins was “doingvery well.” In November 20 02 , Dr
. John sto n wr ote to Dr
. L e e that De sp ins “ ha s b e e n d oin g re lativ e ly we ll e xce pt f

or e de ma on and off

.” I n M ay 2 0 0 3 , Dr. Johnst on repor ted that Despins wa s “doing well from a hear t standpoint.” I n J uly

2003, Despins complained of chest discomfor

t. A wee k l ater, Dr. Johnst on noted t hat Despins had no rec urre nt episodes of the chest pain and that, in his opinion, Despins was doing quite w ell overa ll. I n Aug ust 2003, Dr. J ohnston r eporte d that Despins complained of fatig ue but seemed to be doing “be t t er ” o v era ll. I n Fe bruar y 2004, Dr. Johnst on noted that Despins wa s “doing well from a

car diac standpoint.” In Aug ust 2004, Dr. J ohnston re p o rt ed t h at Despins had “bee n fee ling wor se than be fore .” Despins was e x perie ncingmore pa lpitations, som e peda l edema, and che st pain. Reg ardingDespins’ tre mor, Dr. Ka minski not ed in Novembe r 2002 that De spins “ has bee n somewhat limited by his e ssential tremor.” Dr. Ka minski reported that De spins’ motor power w as g ood and his g ait was stable, a nd place d Despins on P rimidone to treat the t remor. I n May 2003, Dr. Kaminski repor

ted a he ad nodding tremor a nd moderate kinetic and a ction t re m o r. De spins
rema ined on P rimidone. I n Aug ust 2003, Dr. Kaminski repor ted t hat Despins’ tre mor was pe rsistent despite the Primidone and that De spins “rema in[ ed] somewhat unsteady afoot.” I n Aug ust 2004, Dr.No. 07-1385

Despins v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec

.

- 9 - Kaminski noted that Despins had discontinued use of Primidone and continued to f e e l more unsteady afoot.
I n a dd iti on

to h is h e art

and tr e mor tr ou ble s, De sp ins re po rt ed prob le ms w ithhis vis ion in M ay 2 0 0 2
. De s p i n s h adex p er i en ce d v i s i o nl o s s t o t h e po i n t wh er e he co u l d “o n l y m ak e o u tl ar ge shapes or shadows.” T here afte r, Dr. Way ne Cornblath diag nosed De spins with a bilat eral retrobulba

r optic neur itis. After treatment, Desp i ns’ vision improved notably over the next few months and, by

Aug ust 2002, Dr. Cornblath cha rac terized Despins’ rec overy as “e x cellent.” The
reco rd refl e c ts tha

t D e sp ins a lso vis ite d D r. Jame s K e lle r f or me dic a l c a

re re la te d to his vis ion

in 2002 and 2003.
F ina lly , in

June 20 02 , D e sp ins un de rw e nt a c olo no sc op y

tha t yie lde d n o a

bn or ma lities. Despins also receive d treatment for lesions and warts in April 2002, for ba ck and hip pa in in March and Nove mber 2002, a

nd for f oot pain in Aug ust 2002, October 2003, a nd April 2004.
II.
Be cause the AL J applied the corr ect leg al standards and issued a de cision that is supported by substantial evidence , we a ffirm. See42 U.S.C. § 405(g) ; Brainard v. Sec ’y of He alth & Human Se rv s. , 889 F.2d 679, 681 ( 6th Cir. 1989). Although the administrative re cord indicates that Despins suffe red f rom medica lly

deter minable impairments prior to D e c e mb e r 3 1 , 2001, substantial evidence in t he re c or d s up po rt s th e c on c lus ion tha t D e sp ins wa s n ot s ig nif

ic antl y lim ite d b y

tho se imp a ir

me nts for pur poses of Social Sec urity

Disability

Be nefits.No. 07-1385

Despins v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec

.

The proc ess is descr ibed in Heston v. Comm’r of Soc. Se c. , 245 F.3d 528, 534 ( 6th Cir. 1 20 01 ) a s f

oll ow s: First, plain t i ff m u st demonstrate that she is not cur rently eng ag ed in “substantial g ainful activity ” at the time she see ks disability benef its. S econd, pla intiff must show t h a ts h e s u f

f e r s f r o m a “ s e v e r e i mp a i r

m e n t ” i no r d e r

t o w ar r an ta f i n d i n g o f d i s a b i l i t y. A “se vere impairment” is one whic h “sig nificantly li m i t s . . . phy sical or menta l ability to do basic work a cti v i t ies.” Third, if pla intiff is not performingsubstantial g ainful ac tivity , has a se vere impairment that is expected to last for at least twelve months, and the impairment meets a listed impairment, plaintiff is presumed to be d i s a b l e d r ega rd l es s o f a ge, edu ca t i o no r w o rkex p er i en ce . Fo u rt h , i f t h e p l ai n t i ff 's impairment does not pre vent her from doingher pa st releva nt work, plaintiff is not disabled. F or the fif

th and final step, e ven if the plaintiff’s im pairment doe s preve nt he r f ro m do inghe r p a st re le va nt wo rk , if oth e r wo rk e xists in the natio na l e c on omy that plaintiff ca

n perf orm, plaintiff is not disabled. (citations omitted). - 10 - Disability claims under the Social Security Act (“ Act”) are evalua t ed u s ing a five-ste p sequential proc ess. Se e ge ne ra lly 20 C.F .R. § 4 04 .1 52 0. I f, a t any st ep du ri ng the pr oc e ss, it i s 1 deter mined t h at t h e claimant is or is not di sabled, the pr ocess is terminate d. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4 ). De spins arg ues that the AL J prematurely terminated the five-ste p proce ss at step two afte r dete rmining that Despins did not suffer f rom a “sever e” impairment. That dete rmination, Despins contends, is not supported by substantial evidence
. I t is true that this court has cha rac terized step two of the disability deter mination proce ss as a “ de m in imis hurdle.” See, e .g. , Higgs v. Bowen , 8 8 0 F
. 2 d 8 6 0 , 8 6 2 ( 6 t hC i r . 1 9 8 8 )
. “ [A ]n impairment ca

n be considered not severe only if it is a slight abnorma lity that minimally

aff ects wor k ability reg ardle ss of ag e, educ ation, and experienc e.” Id. Neve rtheless, a claim may

be dismissed at step two if it is determined that the c laim is “‘totally g roundless’ solely

from a me dicalNo. 07-1385

Despins v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec

.

Ba sic work a ctivities are de fined in t he Social Secur ity regulations as “the a

biliti es and 2 aptitudes nec essar

y to do most j obs. Ex amples of these incl u d e— (1) Phy sical func tions such as walking , standing , sitti ng , lifting, pushing , pulling, re aching , car rying, or handling ; (2) Capa cities fo r seei ng, he ari ng , a

nd sp e akin g ; ( 3) Un de rs tand ing , c arr yingout, a

nd re me mbe ri ngsim

ple instructions; (4) Use of

judgme nt; (5) Re s p o n d in g a p p r o p r ia te ly to supe rvision, co-wor

kers a nd usual work situations; and (6) D ealingwith chang es in a routine wor k setting.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1521(b). - 11 - standpoint.” Id. at 8 6 3 (q u o t i n g Fa rri s v . S e c ’y of He alt

h & Hu ma n S

e rv s. , 7 73 F .2 d 8 5, 89 n. 1 ( 6th Cir. 1985)). To surmount the step two hur dle, the applica nt be ars the ultimate burden of e stablishing that the administrative rec ord conta ins objective medica l evidence sug g esting that the applica nt was “disabled,” as define d by the Act, on or prior to the date that the a pplicant was la st insured. See id. The Ac t defines “ disability ” as the “inability to eng ag e in any substantial ga inful activity by rea son of any me dic a lly

de te rm ina

ble ph y sic a l or

me nta l im

pa ir me nt whic h c an b e e xpe c te d to resul t in death or which has la sted or ca

n be expected to last for

a continuous pe ri o d o f not less than 12
mon ths .” 42 U. S.C. § 4 23 (d )( 1) (A ). Th e Soc ia l Se c ur ity re g ulatio ns int e rp re t § 4 23 (d )( 1) (A ) t o require the exist ence of a “ sever e” impair ment—that is, “any

impairment or combination of impairments which sig nificantly limit s [t he cla imant’s] abili ty to do b as i c wo rk activities.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c)
. 2
Her e, the AL J conclude d that, prior to Dec ember 31, 2001, the date on which Despins wa s last insured, see 42 U.S .C . § 42 3( a ) & (c )( 1) ; 20 C.F .R. § 4 04 .1 01 , D e sp ins did no t su ff e r f ro m a “seve re” impairment as define d in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c) . After consideringthe medica l evidence in the rec ord and the testimony of De spins and his wife, the AL J acknowl ed g ed that De spins had suffe red f rom various medic ally

deter minable impairments, including aortic stenosis, aor tic valveNo. 07-1385

Despins v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec

.

- 12 - and root re place ment, hy

pothy roidism, benign e ssential tremor, and residuals of colon ca ncer . The AL J con c lud e d, ho we ve r, that D e sp ins ’ m e dic a l r e c or ds fa ile d to e sta bli sh that th os e imp a ir

me nts signific antly limit ed Despins’ ability to pe rfor m ba sic work activities. The AL J noted t h at the medical r ecor ds showed no sustained use of medication or treatment f or Despins’ tre mor disorder betwee n J uly

1998 and De cembe r 31, 2001. The A L J deter mined that medical rec ords indicated that by October 1998, Despins ac knowledg ed that he w as wa lking a mile per da y and, by October 2000, Despins re ported wa lking two miles per day . The AL J also noted that Des p i n s’ doctors did not descr ibe any

work-r elated limi tations attributable to his tremor or he art c ondition. Additi onally , the AL J co n cl u d ed t hat the medica l evidence did not support a finding that Despins’ he aringloss or vision problems supported a findingof a “ sever e” impairment on or prior to De cembe r 31, 2001.
The re cord indicates that the AL J ’s dec ision is s upported by substantial evidence
. To be sure , Despins suffe red f

rom a host of medic al impairments prior to De cembe r 31, 2 0 0 1
. The mer e exis tence of those impairments, howe ver, doe s not establish that D espins was signific antly limit ed from performing basic work activities for a continuous period of time. Cf. Higgs , 880 F.2d at 863; Foster v. Bowen , 853 F.2d 483, 489 ( 6th Cir. 198 8 ). W e h av e previously noted, albeit in an unpublished decision, that “[w]hen doc tors’ repor ts c ontain no information reg ardi n g phy sical limit ations or the intensity , fre quency , and duration of pain associated with a condition, this court h as re gu l arly

found substantial evidenc e to support a f inding of no sever e impairment.” Long v. Apfel , 1 F. Ap p ’x 3 2 6 , 3 3 1 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 1 ) ( ci t i n g Higgs v. Bowen , 880 F.2d 860 ( 6th Cir. 1988); Maloney v. Apfel , N o. 99 -3 08 1, 20 00 WL42 07 000 (6t h Ci r. Ap r. 14 , 2 00 0) ; Foster v. Se c’y ofNo. 07-1385

Despins v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec

.

- 13 - Health &Human Serv

s ., No. 88-1644, 1990 WL 41835 (6th Cir. A pr. 11, 1990)). Her e, De spins underw ent a se rious hear t proce dure in July 1 9 98. But the r ecor d indicates that be tween O ctober 19 98 and Oc tober 2000 , D e sp ins re po rt e d th a t he wa s w a lki ng a mil e pe r d ay , “ a s f

ar a s h e wa

nts to walk,” and two miles per day . Despins had va rying pr oblems with fluid overload a nd intermittent chest pa in and palpitations during the re levant time per iod, but the m edica l evidence in the rec ord d o e s n o ti n d i c a t e t h a tt h o s e p r o b l e m s l i m i t e d D e s p i n s ’ a b i l i t y t o p e r f o r mb a s i c w o r

k a c t i v i t i e s . In fac t, as t h e ALJ n oted, the administrative r ecor d contains no medica l evidence indicating workrelated limitations attributable to his hear t condition.
The rec ord also indicate s that Despins suffe red f rom a progressive be nign e ssential tremor prior to D ece mber 31, 2001. At the a dminist rative he aring , Despins and his wife testified that the tremor impaired his ability to put nuts and bolt s toge ther, sign hi s name, a nd perf orm tasks around the hous e. Howeve r, t he administrative r ecor d contains no medica l evidence that the tremor c aused work-r elated limitations or that Despins re ceive d medication or significa nt treatment for

the tremor prior to N ovember 2002. Although D espins and his wife te stified that Despins was not tre ated f or the tremor in 1998 be cause tremor medic ation would have c onflicted wi th Despins’ hea rt medication, De s p i ns’ extensive medical re cords do not mention such a conflict, a

nd no other objective medic al evidenc e in the rec ord addr esses this issue. Moreove r, as late as Nove mber 2002, Dr. Kaminski assessed D espins’ motor power as g ood and his g ait as stable. Althoug h Dr. Ka minski
a lso no te d in

No ve mbe r 200 2 that De sp ins wa s “so me wh a t limite d by his e sse nti a l tr e mor ,” thi s f a ils to establish a limitation prior to Decembe r 31, 2001.No. 07-1385

Despins v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec

.

- 14 - Finally , the re cord indicates that Despins suffe red f rom ac ute hea

ri n g l o s s i n his right e ar prior to Dec ember

31, 2001. Howeve r, as the A L J explained, the rec ord conta ins no evidence sug g esting that this im pairment sig nificantly limit ed De spins’ ability to perfor m b asic wor

k activities. The re cord doe s not refle ct that Despins re ceive d treatment for hea ring loss, nor does the
r e c o r d s h e d l i g h to nan y l i m i t a t i o nD e s p i n s e x p e r i e n c e d d u e t o h i s h e ar i n g i mp a i r

m e n t
. S i m i l ar l y, Despins did not report a

loss of vision until May

2002. The vision impairment there fore cannot be used to establish disability prior to Dec ember

31, 2001.
I n sum, the rec ord indicate s that Despin s h as indeed suff ere d from var ious medical impairments throug hout his li fetime. How ever , there is no objective medica l e vidence in the rec ord
su ff ic ie nt t o o ve rt

ur n th e Com mis sio ne r’ s d e te rm inatio n th a t th os e imp a ir m e nts d id n ot s ig nif

ic antl y limit his ability

to perfor m basic work a ctivities prior to Dec ember 31, 2001.
III . Despins asser

ts on appea l various other g rounds for ove rturningthe AL J ’s dec ision. None is persuasive. F irst, Despins ar gu es that the “e ntire [administ rative] proce ss was devoid of fundame ntal fairne ss” because the AL J improperly truncated the hea

ring and “c herr

y picked” and

“ ho p s c otc he d” thr ou g h th e re c or d. Despi ns also su g g e sts that th e AL J fa ile d to c on sid e r h is impairments in combination. T here is no evidence in the rec ord, howe ver, that Despins did not
rec eive a full or fa ir hea

ring . The re cord indicates that the AL J did not lim it Despins’ counsel f rom
a sk ingqu e sti on s, c a lli ng wi tn esses , o r o the rw ise int ro du c inge vid e nc e re le va nt t o th e dis a

bil ityNo. 07-1385

Despins v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec

.

- 15 - de te rm inatio n. F ur

the r, the AL J’s d e c isi on

re fl e c ts a

c omp re he ns ive e xami natio n o f D e sp ins ’ med ic a l im

p a ir me n ts an d e xp li c it ly c o n c lu d e s th at D e s p in s “ d id n o t h a v e an y im p a ir me n t or impairments that signific antly limit ed his a bility to pe rfor

m ba sic work related activities.” That the AL J may have disc ussed Despins’ impairme nts indivi dually “har dly sug g ests that the t otality

of the
rec ord wa s not considere d.” See G ooch v. Se c’y of Health & Human Servic es , 833 F.2d 589, 592 (6th Cir. 1987). Second, De s p i n s argue s that the AL J failed to follow Social Sec urity regulations by disreg arding“the reg ulations and proce dures de aling with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c) a nd the deter mination of sever [e] impairments.” His ar g ument has two compone nts. D e s p in s in it ia ll y a r g ues that the AL J should not have terminate d the proc ess at step two be cause t h e re co rd supports the conclusion that De spins suffere d from “se vere ” impairments. T h is argument fails bec ause, a s discussed above , substantial evidenc e supports t he AL J ’s dec ision at step two. Next, Despins arg ues that th e “ Com mis sio ne r s ho uld pr ov ide a

mor e c omp re he ns ive re vie w o f t he evi den c e and

a we ll
rea soned opinion” and “must conduct a more detailed evaluation of the medi ca l d o cumentation.” This argument is also unavailing . The AL J ’s opi nion ref lects a compre hensive ex amination of the
rec ord and pr operly

follows the per

tinent law and r egulations.
L a stl y , De sp ins argue s tha t the de c isi on of the AL J c on ta ins tw o sig nif ic ant f a c tua l e rr or s. Despins first ar g ues that the AL J misint erpr eted Mrs. Despins’ testim ony reg ardingDespins’ re turn to w or k a ft e r his pr e -1 99 6 me dic a l pr ob le ms. B ut e ve n if the AL J’s int e rp re tatio n o f M rs . D e sp ins ’ te sti mony wa s in c or

re c t, t he AL J did n ot r e ly

in f or mul a tin g his de c isi on

on the tim ingof

De sp ins ’No. 07-1385

Despins v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec

.

- 16 - return to wor

k afte r his pre- 1996 m ed ical proble ms. Bec ause the AL J would have a rrived at the
same dis a bil ity de te rm inatio n r e g ard le ss o f a ny mis int e rp re tatio n o f the te sti mony , any e rr or in t his reg ard w as har

mless. Cf. Kobetic v. Comm’r of Soc. Se c. , 114 F. App’x 171, 173 (6th Cir. 2004). Despins also argues that the AL J minimi zed Despins’ tremor problem by

pointing out that Despins did no t take me dic a tio n o r s e e k tr e a tme nt f or his tr e mor a ft e r 19 98
. Th is a rgume nt a lso la c ks me ri t. The AL J proper ly

considere d as re levant the fac t that D espins’ medica l rec ords did not indicate that Despins re ceive d signific ant treatment or medication for his tre mor during the re levant time per iod.
IV.
For the fore g oing r easons, the judg ment of the district cour t is affirmed.