Honora ble Robert Holmes B ell, United States District J udg e for the Western District of * Michig an, sitting by

desig nation. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 10a0798n.06 No. 09-6328 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
EVELYN K. PERSCHKA, 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 W ES TER

N DI S TR I CT OF KENTUCKY

BEFORE: M ARTIN and S ILER, Circuit Judges; BEL L , District Judge. * SILE R , Circuit J udg e. Eve ly n K. Perschka appea ls the summary judgme nt by

the district court de nying he r application for disability insurance benef

its. Perschka

alleg es that she suff

ers f rom seizures that completely

prec lude g ainful employ

ment. The Commissioner of Social Secur ity found Pe rs c h k a n o t d i s a

b l e d w i t h i n t h e m e an i n g o f th e S o c i a l S e c ur i ty A c t b e c a u s e s h e p o s s e s s e d s kil ls transfe rable to sedentar

y employ ment and such jobs existed in sufficient numbers in the national economy . For

the following rea sons, we AF F IRM
.

I. BACKG ROUND A. P r oc e dur al B ac kgr ound Perschka filed an a

pplication fo r disability

insurance benef

its in 1999, allegingblackout sp e lls and se izur e s th a t c a

us e d h e r t o c e a se wo rk inga s a po we r p lant op erat or . Sh e un de rw e nt aNo. 09-6328

Pe rsc hk a v . Co mm iss ion e r o

f So c ial Se c ur ity

- 2 - consultative neur ologic al examination, and the examining phy sic ia n c o n c lu ded that Persc hka did not suffe r f ro m a n eurocog nitive impairment signific ant enoug h to prec lude g ainful sede ntary ty pe
e mp l o y m e n t
. In2 0 0 3 , t h e A LJ f

o u n d P e r s c h k a n o td i s a b l e d w i th i nth e m e an i n g o f

th e A c t
. T h e A LJ deter mined that she re tained the r esidual func tional capa city (“RF C”) to per form sede ntary work,
and that th e re are a

sig nif ic ant n umb e r o f s uc h jo bs in t

he natio na l e c on omy . T he Ap pe a ls C ounc il aff irmed. Perschka then appe aled to the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky . The district cour t remande d the ca se, instructing the AL J to obtain suppl e me ntal evidenc e fr om a vo c a tio na l e xpe rt

(“ VE ” ) t o d e te rm ine wh e the r P e rs c hk a po sse sse d a

ny tr ans fe ra ble sk ill s. I n compliance with t h e co u rt ’s order, a he aringbefor e anothe r AL J was set in 2006. Perschka ’s re prese ntative, attorne y Mark Pierc e, conta cted the he aringoffice on the day of the hear ing to r eport that he was sick and would not attend. As a result, the hear ing was not held, a nd the AL J instead propounde d interrog atories to a V E, Dr. Gr eenf ell. Dr. Gr enfe ll found that Perschka possessed skills tra

nsfer able to a

dispatcher

or timekee per position, i ncluding the ability to maintain rec ords and inventor ies, org anize work schedules, and
su pe rv ise , tr a in, and e va luate su bo rd inate s. He a lso de te rm ine d that the se job s are c le ri c a l, b ut e xist i nt h e s am e w o r

k s e t t i n g an d

i n d u s t r y a s P e r s c h k a

w o r k e d i np r e v i o u s l y. I n May 20 07 , the AL J f

or wa rd e d the VE ’s re sp on se s to Pe rs c hk a ’s a tto rn e y , a sk inghim to
c omm e nt o r r e sp on d w ith in 1 0 d ay s. Pie rc e re qu e ste d f iv e exten sio ns of

tim e to p re pa

re his
re sp on se , o n M ay

21 , J un e 5, June 18 , J uly 2, and July 17 , re sp e c tiv e ly
. Th e AL J g ra nte d th e fi rs t four r equests, but denied the attorney ’s fifth re quest for a dditional tim e.No. 09-6328

Pe rsc hk a v . Co mm iss ion e r o

f So c ial Se c ur ity

- 3 - I n J uly 2007, the AL J deter

mined that Perschka was not disabled within the meaningof the Act. She re counted the medica l rec ords from the va rious phy sicians who examined Perschka and the finding s of the VE, a

nd conclude d that sh e wa s ca p ab l e o f succ essfully adjusting to a

job that exis ts in significa

nt numbers in the national ec onomy . When Perschka a g ain soug ht relief in the district court, the cour t affir med the dec ision of the Commi ssioner. B. P ersc hka’s Relevant Me dical His tory I n May 1999, Dr. Walker be g an tre ating Perschka for mig raine heada ches. Per schka told Dr. Walker that she had experience d sever al blackouts, “ by which she me ans she loses a ll visi on.” She stated that “she does not allow her heada ches to ke ep her from work,” and “she a nd her husba

nd are
a c tiv e ru nn ing a re sta

ur ant wh ic h th e y

bo ug ht i n D e c e mbe r 1 99 8. ” B e tw e e n M ay 19 99 and Ap ri l 2000, she re ported “ small blackouts” to her primary car e phy sician, Dr. Ma estas. She stated that she did not fall during these blac kouts, but lost vision and experience d a “pounding ” in her head. I n May 2000, Persch ka complaine d of “br iefly passing out with lit tle war ning” to Dr. Sommers at the Arizona Hea

rt I nstitut e. Dr. S ommers not ed that, acc ording to descr iptions of these episodes, “ there is no jerking sensation that would sug g est any g rand ma l seizure.” Dr. Walker at the Scottsdale Hea dache and Pain Ce nter evaluated Perschka in May and June of 19 99 , a nd a g a in in July 20 00
. Dr
. Wal ke r pr e sc ri be d Ne ur on tin in 1 99 9. I n h e r Jul y 20 00 vis it, Perschka told Dr. Walker “she has h ad a marked improvement in her heada ches a s well as her ‘b la c k- outs’ sin c e sta

rt ingthe Ne ur on tin .” She state d th a t “ he r b la c ko uts are mu c h le ss f re qu e nt. Th e y are no w a

bo ut o ne pe r m on th. ” Dr . Wa lke r o rd e re d a br a in M RI , w hic h r evea le d “ a sma llNo. 09-6328

Pe rsc hk a v . Co mm iss ion e r o

f So c ial Se c ur ity

- 4 - abnorma l are a of e nhance ment involving the lef t si d e” of the bra in stem. The ra diologist who perf ormed the MRI

rec ommended “[c]lose follow-up.” A t a follow-up v i s i t in Dece mber 2000, Pe rs c hk a tol d D r. Wal ke r t

hat “ ov e ra ll s he fe e ls b e tte r. ” She re po rt ed going“ out” a pp ro xima te ly four times per

month without warning
. Dr
. W alker rec ommended that she se e Dr . Dra zkowski, a neurolog ist in t he epilepsy division at the Bar

row Ne urolog y

Institut e. I n F e br ua ry 20 01 , D r. S r i v a s t a

v a c o n s u l t a t i v e l y e va luate d Pe rs c hk a

fo r t he Ar izon a

Di sa bil ity Deter mination Service. He noted t hat P ersc hka had never been injure d during these blac kouts, and had “no history

of biting of

tongue or incontinenc e.” T h e d o ct o r reviewed the br ain MRI , which

“ re ve a le d
. . . [a] le sio n of do ub tf ul c lin ic a l sig nif

ic anc e .” Pe rs c hk a state d that she res po nd ed to Neur ontin, but “the eff

ect ha s worn awa

y .” She also repor

ted responding positively to Darvon a

nd clonazepam. Dr . Srivastava noted that Perschka “ takes a ct i v e part in day -to-day activities like cooki n g , c le an in g , v a c uu mi n g , la u n dr y , u te n s il s , e tc
. ” H e c o n c lu d e d th a t s h e d id

n o t show

“ ob je c tiv e e vid e nc e of

ph y sic a l di sa

bil ity” and re c omm e nd e d a ps y c hiatr ic e va luatio n f

or po stt r a u m a t i c s t r e s s d i s o r d e r

an d an x i e t y. Dr. Dr azkowski at the Ba rrow N eurolog ical Gr oup evaluated Perschka in May 2001. Perschka descr ibed her

blackout episode s as “g oing down” and e ventually pas s ing out f

or 30 sec onds to 30 minutes. P ersc hka’s da ug hter a nd husband re p o rted witnessingthese e pisodes, which “a re
e xac e rb a te d b y

str e ss. ” F oll ow ingan ev alu ati on , D r. Dr a zko ws ki d e sc ri be d Pe rs c hk a a s a “ we lldevelope d, well-nourishe d . . . fema le in no appar ent distress.” He noted a “tre mor of the he ad which is broug ht out by

stress. This is intermittent and appear s rea l.” The doc tor sug g ested that Persc hka ha s “ many

fe a tur e s o f O CD and

may be so me mil d de pr e ssi on . She ha s ris k fa c tor s f or no ne pil e pti cNo. 09-6328

Pe rsc hk a v . Co mm iss ion e r o

f So c ial Se c ur ity

- 5 - spells.” He r ecommende d an MRIof the he ad and ne ck and an EEG “ to rule out seizure.” The EEG returne d “norma l” wit hout any “epileptifor m discharg es.” The doc tor revie wing the EEG noted that the “a bsence of epileptifor

m abnormality

does not exclude t h e clinica l diag nosis of a seizure disorder.” I n Se pte mbe r 2 00 2, Dr . Z ola n c on su ltativ e ly

e va luate d Pe rs c hk a

fo r t he Ar izon a

Di sa bil ity De te rm inatio n Se rv ic e . H e e c ho e d D r. Sr iva sta va ’s de te rm inatio n th a t th e br a in abnor mal ity
reve aled by

the MRIwas “ of doubtful cli n i ca l significa nce.” Perschka

repor ted seve n to eig ht episodes since J anuar

y 2002. Dr Z olan found “suff icient evidenc e to sug g est a sei z u re d i s o rder ,” but c on c lud e d th a t Pe rs c hk a did no t ha ve “ any sig nif ic ant n e ur oc og nit ive imp a ir me nt” that w ou ld prec lude g ainful employ

ment. Dr. Z olan deter

mined that she should not operate a motor ve hicle or heavy machiner y , or per form wor

k that require s repe titive motion, stooping, kneeling , balanc ing, or
wo rk inga t he ig hts . H e su g g e ste d s e de nta ry ty pe e mpl oy

me nt. Dr. Dr azkowski ex amined Perschka ag ain in D ece mber 2002. Perschka had incr ease d her
me dic a tio n d os a g e , r e su lti ngin a n im pr ov e me nt a

nd on ly “ on e sp e ll p e r month o r s o. ” She “ c le arl y state[d] that if she missed the medication the spells return f airly quickly within the next day

or two.” I n September 2003, D r. Dra zkowski evaluated Persc hka in a n ep i l epsy monitoring unit. An off

medicine c ontinuous EEG video monitoring session showed “fr equent sha rp waves and oc casiona l spike with a fterc oming slow wave .” Perschka “had an elec trog raphic seizure duringher monitoring session emanating f

rom the left c entra l head r eg ion
. ” Dr. Dr azkowski confirmed a diag nosis of “par tial seizure disorder,” and noted that it was “ unclea r whe ther a ll of her events are epilepsy .” He de te rm ine d it

“ lik e ly sh e ha s h a d pa

rt ia l se izur e s wi th o c c a sio na l se c on da ry g e ne ra lizatio n. ” At

aNo. 09-6328

Pe rsc hk a v . Co mm iss ion e r o

f So c ial Se c ur ity

- 6 - neurolog ic follow-up in Oc tober 2003, Dr . Dra zkowski wrote that Pers ch k a “h as had no fur ther seizures since we have se en her last. She has had no blackouts or disorientation
. . . . [she] does have partial seizures a

nd will likely

have r ecur

renc e if she is not on anticonvulsant medic ation.” Duringa func tional capa ci ty evaluation by

a phy sical thera

pist in J anuar

y 2004, Perschka exhibi ted an a

bility for pr olonge d sitti ng activities, and scor ed in the sed entary cate g ory for wor k activities. Howe ver, Perschka was unable to complete the two-da y testing be cause she experienc ed

“ t w o g r an d m a l s e i z u r e s , ” a c c o r d i n g t o th e p h ys i c a l th e r a p i s t , a tth e b e g i n n i n g o f

th e s e c o n d

d ay. The phy sical t hera

pist did not rec ommend “any ty pe of e mploy

ment” until her seizures we re unde r
c on tr ol.Perschka ’s insured status expired in Ma rch 2004. In April 2004, Dr. Mae stas completed a n “Attending Hea lthcare Provider’s Statement of Disability ” supplied by Perschka ’s forme r employ er. Dr. Mae stas descr ibed her as “totally

disabled,” w ith “chronic pain and ne w seizure disorder .” The doctor a lso concluded, how ever , that she is “ca pable of cler ical/administrative (se dentar y ) ac tivity .” C. P e r sc hka’ s P sy c hol og ic al E va lua ti ons I n Fe bruar

y 2000, Perschka

attended a

psy cholog ical consultation wi t h Dr. Ge nera l. Dr. Gene ral noted that Perschka dr ove 160 miles by herse lf to the appointment. Dr. Gene ral c oncluded that her “prog nosis f

or returning to the work for ce is fa ir.” He char acte rized her a bility to perfor m work-r elated tasks as “g ood,” with “ fair” short-term memory . He r ecommende d medication for her bipolar condition. Perschka saw a nother psycholog ist, Dr. Rose, in Dece mber 2000. Dr . Rose descr ibed Perschka as “quite ma

nic” with a “ head tr emor.” Dr. R o s e d i s agr eed w ith Dr. Gene ral’s bipolarNo. 09-6328

Pe rsc hk a v . Co mm iss ion e r o

f So c ial Se c ur ity

- 7 - diag nosis, but concluded that Perschka experience d “hy

perne ss.” Dr. Rose de termined that Pe rs c hk a ’s “ hy

po mania sh ou ld n ot n e c e ssa

ri ly po se an o bs ta c le to p e r f

o r m i n g w o r k r e l a t e d a c t i vit ie s, althoug h gi v en her hy

pomania, she should conside r less dang erous jobs than wor king at power plants.” II . DI SCU SSIO N A. We determine whether

substantial evidence supports the Commis sioner’s f indings. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) . A claimant ha s the burden of provin g h er entitlement to benef its prior to the expiration of her insured status. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)( 5)(A) . She must provide competent e vidence to authenti ca t e a me dical or psycholog ical condition that pre vented he r fr om eng ag ing in g ainful
wo rk a c tiv ity . 2 0 C. F .R. § 4 04 .1 51 2( a ) ( 20 09 ); Bo y es v. Se c ’y of He alt

h a nd Hu ma n S e rv s. , 46 F.3d 51 0, 51 2 ( 6th

Cir . 1 99 4) . E ve n if

the c la ima

nt c a nn ot p e rf or m he r p ri or

wo rk , s he is no t dis a

ble d if her RF C and vocational abiliti es allow her to perf orm work that exis ts in signific ant num bers in the national ec onomy . Od

le v . Se c ’y of H

e alt h a nd Hu ma n S e rv s. , 788 F.2d 1158, 1161 ( 6th Cir. 1985). He r e mpl oy a

bil ity is no t a fa c tor in de te rm ini ng dis a bil ity
. 20 C.F .R. § 4 04 .1 56 6( c )( 1) ; Od le , 788 F.3d at 1161

. Social Security

Disability

Evaluation L isting 11.02 provides the require ments for showing a “c onvulsive epilepsy ” disability under the Act. 20 C.F.R. § 404, Subpart P, App. 1. The cla imant must show a documented g rand mal or psy chomotor seizure patter n “occ urringmore fr equently than
once a month in spite of at lea st 3 months of prescribe d treatment.” Id. The c laimant must present specific medical e vidence to satisfy all of the c riteria. 20 C.F .R. § 416.925.No. 09-6328

Pe rsc hk a v . Co mm iss ion e r o

f So c ial Se c ur ity

- 8 - Perschka argues that the AL J ’s deter mination was n o t based on substantial e vidence . She contends that she me t the L isting 11.02 require ments for c onvulsive epilepsy , and that the AL J err ed in h e r RF C a sse ssm e nt. She fu rt he r c on te sts the AL J’s de te rm inatio n that sh e ha s tr ans fe ra ble sk ill s for a dispatcher

or timekee per position , as we l l as the findingthat those jobs exi st in significa nt
nu mb e r s i nt h e n a t i o n a l e c o n o m y. Con tr ary to Per sc hk a ’s argume nts , sub sta nti a l evi de nc e su

pp or ts the AL J’s d e c isi on . F ir st, there is substantial medical evidenc e supportingthe AL J ’s conc lusion that P ersc hka did not meet L isting 11.02. Two state medical e x perts conc luded that she did not suffe r fr om a sig n i fi cant
neuroc og nit iv e im

p a ir me n t a n d c o u ld p e r f o r m s e d e n ta

r y w o r k
. O th e r p h y s ic ia n s n o te d th at Pe rs c hk a ’s de sc ri pti on

of her epis od e s la c ke d th e sy mpt oms of

g ra nd ma l se izur e s. Mu lti ple phy sicians commented that her e pisodes occur red le ss freque ntly

with medication. There is evidence that Perschka suffe rs from s o me level of seizure ac tivity . Indeed, she experience d a seiz ure in the epilepsy monitoring unit in September 2003. How ever , this seiz ure le d Dr. Dr azkowski to a diag nosis of only “par tial seizures with occa sional seconda ry g ener alization.” He a lso no te d th a t it

wa s “ un c le ar whe the r a ll o f he r ev e nts are e pil e ps y .” Th is i s n ot c on sis te nt w ith
co n v u l s i ve epilepsy

in L isting 11.02, which r equire s documentation of g ener alized or g rand ma l seizures occur

ring at least once per month. See Sullivan v . Zebley , 493 U.S. 521, 530 (1990) (“ An impairment that manifests only some of those c riteria, no matter how seve rely , does not qualify .”). On e ph y sic a l the ra

pis t did re po rt wi tne ssi ng Pe rs c hk a have “ tw o g ra nd ma l se izur e s” wh ile perf orming a func tional capa city evaluation. The AL J did not consider thi s assessment in her deter mination, because “this statement came from a phy sical thera pist with no ex pertise orNo. 09-6328

Pe rsc hk a v . Co mm iss ion e r o

f So c ial Se c ur ity

- 9 - qualifications to provide an opinion on vocational issues.” This conclusion is consistent with Social Security regulations, which do not include phy sical thera pists in t he list of acc eptable me dical
source s who can provide e vidence to establish an impairment. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513(a) (1)- (5). Even if the AL J had considere d the phy sical thera pist’s c hara cter ization of the episode, this isolated incident would not establish that Perschka experience d convulsiv e gra n d mal seizures with the fre quency require d in L isting 11.02. Simi la rl y , s ub sta nti al e vi den ce supp ort ed t he A L J ’s R FC d ete rm in ati on . T he AL J thor ou ghly
re vie we d th e re c or d b e fo re c on c lud ingthat P ers chk a is a ble to p e rf

or m se de nta

ry wo rk wi th restric tions. Ba sed on objective evidence of P ersc hka’s seiz ure disorde r fr om medical re cords, the AL J det e rm ine d th a t sh e c ann ot l if t or c arr y mor e tha n te n po un ds , sit fo r l on g e r t ha n s ix hou rs , w a lk for more than two hours, oper ate a motor vehicle or heavy machiner y , work at heig hts, or

perf orm jobs that require repe titive moti on. Ba sed on the subjective evidenc e, the AL J found that Persc hka’s seizure d i s o rd er d i d not significa ntly limit her da ily

activities. See20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c) (3). S p e c i f i c a l l y, s h e w a s a

b l e t o c l e an , s h o p , s e w , c o o k , s o c i a l i z e , b o w l , an d w a l k s e v e r a l m i l e s a

d ay. Se e Blac ha v . S

e c ’y of Hea lth an d H

um an Se rv

s. , 927 F.2d 228, 231 ( 6th Cir. 1990) (“AL J may consider house hold and social a ctivities in evaluating complaints of disabl i n g pain.”) . Moreove r, Perschka indicated that she responded posi tively to medication. See Houston v. Sec ’y of He alth and Hu ma n S e rv s. , 7 36 F.2 d 3 65 , 3 67 ( 6 t h C i r. 1 98 4). Th is evi den ce ampl y supp ort s t he A L J ’s R FC deter mination. Sub sta nti a l e vid e nce a lso su

pp or ts t he AL J’s f

ind ingthat Pe rs c hk a

ha d tr ans fe ra

ble sk ill s. The VE list ed several of Perschka ’s s kills that could be transfe rre d to a posi tion as ser vice dispatc herNo. 09-6328

Pe rsc hk a v . Co mm iss ion e r o

f So c ial Se c ur ity

- 10 - or timekee per. The VE’s conclusions are consistent with statements from multiple phy sicians. Any dif fi c ult i e s P e r s c h k a

m ay h av e e n c o un t e r e d

i nh e r j o b s e ar c hd o n o ta f

f e c th e r d i s a b i l ity deter mination. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1566. Finally , neither the newly appende d 2009 Widow’s Bene fits determination nor the 2007 neurolog ist’s opinion require re mand. The AL J ’s 2009 deter mination concluded that Per schka “ has been disa bled from J uly 24, 2007 throug h the date of the dec ision.” The neur ologist’s May 31, 2007 op ini on state s th a t Pe rs c hk a

ha s b e e n treat ed for

“ the pa st two y e ars and thr e e months .” Th is
e vid e nc e is n ot m a te ri a l be c a us e it d oe s n ot e sta

bli shthat Per sc hk a wa s disa ble d b e fo re he r d isa

bil ity insured status e x pired on Mar ch 31, 2004. See 42 U. S.C. § 4 23 (a ), (c ); Moon v. Sullivan , 923 F.2d 1175, 1182 (6th Cir. 1990). B. Perschk a ar g u e s th a t h e r d u e p r o c e s s r igh ts w e r e v io late d b e c a u s e s h e n e v e r had the oppo rtu n it y to r e s p o n d

to th e V E ’ s inte r

r o g a to r y a n s w e r s . Sh e a c kn o w le d g e s th a t h e r a tt o r n ey should h av e r e s p o n d e d , b u t ar g u e s th a t h e f a il e d to a d e qu a te ly r e p r e s e n t h e r . Sh e a ll e g e s tha t he exh ib it e d b a d f

a it h
. Sh e f u rth e r a p p e ar s to c o n te n d th a t, a s a r e s u lt o f h e r a tt o r n ey ’s re peate d reque sts for extensions of tim e t o re s p o n d to the VE’s interr og atories, the A L J was biase d in her unfavor able deter

mination. She also sug g ests that the AL J did not fully and fairly deve l o p the
re co rd , p ar t i cu l ar l y

b ec au s e P er s ch k a w as un re p re s en t edb y co un s el at th e h ea ri n g. Pe rs c hk a ha s n ot s ho wn

a du e pr oc e ss vio latio n. F ir st, sh e ha d a n o pp or tun ity to r e sp on d to the VE’s c onclusions. AL J Thomas proff ere d the VE’s inter

rog atory response s to Persch k a’s attorney . For t h e n ex t three months, AL J Thomas g rante d Perschka ’s attorne y ’s four r equests forNo. 09-6328

Pe rsc hk a v . Co mm iss ion e r o

f So c ial Se c ur ity

- 11 - extensions of t ime to respond to the i nterrog atories, eventually denying the fifth re quest. The AL J ’s proff er an d gra n t i ng of multiple ex tensions of time to respond provided Per schka a meaning ful opportunity

to present he r ca se. Se e Flatf or d , 93 F.3d at 1306-07. Additionally , she fa ils to support her conclusory alleg ation that her attorney exhibi ted bad f

aith befor e AL J Thomas. See H ollon ex rel. Hollon v. Comm’r of Soc. Se c. , 447 F .3 d 4 77 , 4 91 (6 th C ir . 2 00 6) (“ [W]e d e c lin e to f or mul a te arguments on [appellant’s] behalf”)
. Second, Persc hka pre sents no evidenc e to substantiate he r cl ai m t h at the AL J was biase d, other than the AL J ’s unfavorable ruling . An adve rse r uling a lone is not enoug h to support a finding of bias. See F

irst N at’l Monetary Corp. v. W einberge r , 819 F.2d 1334, 1337 ( 6th Cir. 1987). Finally , Perschka

has not shown that the AL J failed to fully and fa irly

develop the r ecor d. The AL J held a hear ing, revie wed sever al hundred pag es of medical rec ords, and s o l i ci t ed VE t est imony
. Se e Las hle

yv . S e c ’y of H e alt h &Hu ma n S

e rv s. , 7 0 8 F
. 2 d

1 0 4 8 , 1 0 5 2 ( 6 th

Ci r . 1 983) (“ [ T he AL J ] m ust scrupulously and consc ientiously

probe into, inquire of

, and explore for

all the
re le va nt f a c ts” ). She inf

or me d Pe rs c hk a ’s a tto rn e y that he c ou ld s ub mit wri tt e n c omm e nts
conce rning the VE’s evidenc e, reque st a supplemental hear ing to submit additional evidenc e, and reque st a subpoena f

or witnesses or

rec ord s . T h e ALJ ’s dec ision care fully discusses the re cord evidenc e and doe s not merely rely on the finding s of the prior A L J
. AF F IRMED.