NOT RECOMMENDED F OR P UBLICATION File Na me: 13a0866n.06 No. 12-2405 UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS F OR THE S IXTH CIRCUIT RANDA LL S COTT RITCHI E, P laintif f-App ellant,

v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendan t-Appellee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DI STRI CT OF MI CHI GAN

BEFORE: M ERRITT, GIBBONS and McKEAG UE, Circuit Judges

. MERRITT, Circuit Judge. Randall Ritchie appea ls a district court judgme nt aff irming the Commi ssioner’s denial of his application for social secur ity disability benef its pursuan t to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)

. Ritchie was born on J une 11, 1966. Plaintiff suffe rs from para pleg ia, spinal cord injury , posttraumatic stress disorder, anxiety disorder and para ly sis of bowel and bladder stemming from the spinal cord injury

. Plaintiff broke two verte brae and suffe red lumbar spinal cord compre ssion afte r falling approximately 25 fee t in Aug ust of 1986 while serving in the arm y . T h e injury cause d temporar y para ly sis in both leg s and perma nent bladder and bowel i m pairment. He continues to have loss of sensation over the pelvic g irdle and in portions of his lower extremiti es. As a result of the bowel and bladder impairment, plaintiff m u st self-c atheter ize to urinate and use digital stimul ation to move his bowels.Ritchie v. Comm’ r of Soc. Sec

.

No. 12-2405 Plaintiff rec eived a 100% total and perma nent disa b il it y r a ting by the Depa

rtment of Veter ans Affa irs (for

merly the Veter ans Administration) in 1987 and a medical discharg e from the army afte r his acc ident. He continued reha bilitation aft er leaving the army , obtained his bache lor’s deg ree , marrie d and had two children. He worke d as a teac her, correc t i o n s o ff i ce r and consultant to an

au t o m o b ile supplier. He last worke d as a corr ections office r for the Michig an Depa rtment o f Correc tions but left in 2004 due to his mental and phy sical condition. He has not worke d since that time. P laintiff filed for disability benef its in J anuar

y 2008, citing an onset of disability d at e o f J anuar y 31, 2004. On J une 22, 2010, an administrative law judge denied benef its, finding that plaintiff could perf

orm a substantial number of light or sedenta ry jobs in the economy . That decision beca me the final decision of the Co m m i ssioner afte r the Appea ls Council approve d the denial. Plaintiff then filed for revie w in the district court. The Opinion and Orde r of the district court dated Aug ust 27, 2012, adopted the Report and Recommen d at i o n of the mag istrate judge to aff irm the denial of be nefits by

the administrative law judg e. This timely appea l followed. Plaintiff’s main arg

ument on appea l is that the administrative l aw judge failed to g ive adequate weight to the 100% disability rating plaintiff re ceive d from the Vetera ns Administration in 1987 and, additionally , failed to ex p l ai n t he rea son for not g iving it more weig ht. The ad m i n i s t ra t ive law judge was not bound to acc ept the disability rating made by the Veter ans Administration. The social sec urity disability rules ar e cle ar: A decision b y an y . . . other g overnme ntal ag ency about whether y ou are disabled

. . . is based upon its rules and is not our decision about whet h er y ou are disabled

. . . . We must make a disability

. . . deter mination based on social secur ity 2Ritchie v. Comm’ r of Soc. Sec

.

No. 12-2405 law. The ref

ore, a deter mination made by

another ag ency that y ou are disabled . . . is not bindi ng on us. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1504. We have held that a disability rating from the Veter ans Administration is entitled to considera

tion, but we have not specifie d the weig ht such a deter mination sh o u l d car

ry when deter

mining social secur ity disability elig ibilit y . Stewart v. Hec kler , 730 F.2d 1065, 1068 (6th Cir. 1984). The rec ord ref lects that the administrative law judge g ave consideration to the Veter ans Administration disabili ty deter mination: “[T] he VA deter mined the claimant wa s medically unfit for active duty in 1988 and rate d him 100% disabled from April 1987.

. . . I am not bound by their deci s i o n ; b u t I d i d consider [i t] .” AL J Dec ision at 12. Although not citing to the social secur ity reg ulations, the administrative law judge clea rly stated a proper understanding of the law when she stated she wa s not bound by the Vete rans Administration finding

. Plaintiff also claims that the administrative law judge did not adequately explain her rea sons for not acc epting the Veter ans Administration’s disability rating

. Plaintiff fails to look at the entire decision. The administrative law judge descr ibed some of the medical finding s made by the Veter ans Administration in 1987 and 1988 to demonstrate that they are not compatible with a finding of disability under the social secur ity reg ulations. The decision analy zed in detail plaintiff’s curr ent medical and psy cholog ical condition, the opinions of plaintiff’s curr ent trea ting phy sicians, his work history and his daily living habits. The 1987 disability rating by the Veter ans Administration is only

one fac tor to be consid er ed in making a social secur ity disability finding

. As such, and g iven the long time span si nce the rating was render ed, the administrative l aw judge was not re q u i re d to g o into detail about a medica l finding f rom 1987 in her de cision.

3Ritchie v. Comm’ r of Soc. Sec

.

No. 12-2405 Plaintiff a lso a

rg ues that beca

use he would have rec eived social secur ity disability benef its had he applied for them in 1987, but instead chose to work, he should be compensa ted now and not penalized for the y ear s he worke d afte r his injury . He c ontends that his 17 y ear s of work afte r t he 1987 total disability rating should not be considere d in deter mining his elig ibilit y for social secur ity benef its now. Howeve r, social secur ity disability benef its a re premised on the claimant’s phy sical and mental c ondition, ag e, educa tion a nd work experience during the per iod of claimed disability , which in this case commence s on J anuar y 31, 2004, and g oes throug h Dec emb er 3 1 , 2009. Plaintiff’s elig ibilit y or i n eli g ibilit y for social secur ity benef its in 1987 is not deter

minative of hi s

curr ent elig ibilit y . W e ar e s y mpathetic to plaintiff’s challeng es, but the administrative law judge made de tailed finding s about his abilities during the 2004 to 2009 pe riod at issue her e. She re lied

on plaintiff’s own assessment of his work and leisure activities in conjunction with medical rec ords and opinion and we find that substantial evidenc e supports her finding s. Plaintiff also mentions in the arg ument section of his brief that the administrative law judge

err ed in failing to find that plaintiff’s spinal disorder equals L isting 1.04B (spinal disorders) set forth at 20 C.F.R., Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, and benef its should be awa

rded. Pl. Br

. at 2 4 -25. Plaintiff a lso inc ludes a brief para g raph in his Statement in Support of Ora l A rg ument challeng ing the administrative law judge ’s finding that plaintiff’s testimony as to pain and functional limit ations

was not c redible beca

use it was not supported by the medical evidenc e in the rec ord. Pl. B r. at ix

. The Commi ssioner contends that both these arg uments are waived on appea l beca use plaintiff failed to prese nt any analy sis or point to evidenc e to support either issue. Altho u gh p l aintiff failed to prese nt either arg ument as a separ ate issue to be revi ew ed on appea l and failed to provide any 4Ritchie v. Comm’ r of Soc. Sec

.

No. 12-2405 analy sis in his brief, we have revie wed these issues and find them to be withou t m er i t

. Br iefly , L isting 1.04B require s medical evidenc e of compre ssion of a nerve root or the spinal cord or the inability to ambulate eff

ectively

. The plaintiff has not de monstrated either require ment. To meet

a listed impairment, a claimant must point to specific medical evidenc e that satisfies all the criter ia in the listi ng . 20 C.F.R. § 4 0 4 .1525(d). Whil e plaintiff may have met the listi ng in 1986 immediately afte r his acc ident, we ag ree with the analy s i s i n t h e m ag istrate judge ’s Report and Recommenda tion that he has not prese nted medical opinion to establish that his condition meets or is equivalent to L isting 1.04B during the re l ev an t t i m e fra me of 2004 to 2009. Report and Recommenda tion at pp.5-8. As to the cre dibilit y issue, plaintiff conce des that the administrative law judge ’s cre dibilit y finding s may not be disturbed absent “compe lling rea son.” We have held that an administrative law judge ’s cre dibilit y finding s are virtually “uncha lleng eable .” Payne v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. , No.08- 4706, 2010 WL 4810212, at *3 (6th Cir. Nov. 1 8 , 2010). The Report and Recommenda tion thoroug hly analy

zes plaintiff’s challeng es to the administrative law judge ’s cre dibilit y d e terminations. I t found that the administrative law judge articula ted her rea sons for finding plaintiff not cre dible, citing extensive l y t o b o t h the medical rec ord and plaintiff’s own assessment of his abilities and limit ations. Report and Recommenda tion at pp. 11-16. We ag ree with the mag istrate j u d ge’s deter

mination that no “compe lling” rea son exis ts to disturb the credibility finding s by the administrative law judg e.

5Ritchie v. Comm’ r of Soc. Sec

.

No. 12-2405 For the rea sons sta ted above a nd the re asons g iven in the thoroug h repor t of the mag istrate judge rende red on J une 15, 2012, and adopted by the district court on Aug

. 27, 2012, we aff irm the judgme nt of the district court.

6