File Na me: 09a0111n.06 Filed: F ebrua

ry 10, 2009 NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION No. 08-5654 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
BY RO N H ASH , Plaintif f-Appellant , v. CO M M ISSI ON ER

OF SOC IA L SEC URITY , Defendant-

Appellee
. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP PE A L FROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR

TH E WE STE RN DI STRI CT OF KENTUCKY

O P I N I O N

BEF OR E: M ERRI TT, CO LE, and SU TTON , C ir c uitJudg e s. COLE, Circuit Jud ge. Claima nt- A p p e llant By

ron Ha sh appea ls the district court’s Opinion and Or der a dopting the ma g istrate judg e’ s R ep o rt and Rec ommendation (“R& R”) af firming the denial of his application for Disability I nsuranc e B enef

its (“DI B” ) und er 4 2 U.S.C. § 405(g) by Def endant- Appellee Commi ssioner of Social Sec urity (“Commissioner”). H ash conte nds that the district court’s de cision was improper beca use th e f in d in g s b y th e A d mi n istrative L aw Judge (“A L J ”)
a s to Ha sh ’s ph y sic a l and me nta l li mit a tio ns are no t su pp or te d b y su bs tanti a l e vid e nc e . H a sha lso argues that the district cour t incorre ctly ad o p ted the AL J ’s deter mination that Hash’s subjective complaints were not cre dible. For the following rea sons, we AF F IRM the district court’s judg ment dis mis sin g Ha sh ’s c la im.Byron Hash v . Comm’r of Soc. Se c.

Case No. 08- 5654

2 I. BACKG ROUND A. F ac tu al B ac kgr ound Hash is a f ifty -five- y ear -old hig h school g raduate wit h no additional schooling or job training who alleg es that his back inj u r ie s, in combination with his depression, constitute disabilit ies entitling h i m t o co l l ec tDIB. H as h wo rk edas a p a t t erno p er at o r f o r F ru i to f t h e Loo m fr o m 1 9 7 8 t h ro u gh 1998 and as a

welder for Midwe st St amping from 1998 throug h 2002. I n April 2002, Hash injure d his back l i ft i n g p ar t s weig hing be tween thirty and for ty pounds that are used in the produc tion of pick-up truc ks. As a re sult, he could no long er pe rfor m the normal lifting a

nd bendingrequire d for his po si ti on , and he r e ma ine d o ff wo rk fo r t wo mon ths . H e sa

w D r. Da nie l H un t, a

n o rt ho pe dis t, who diag nosed him with mus culoskeleta l back stra in and re commended that he re turn to work on restric ted duty
. Alt h oug h Hash wa s initi ally able to per form lig ht-duty work upon his re turn to work, the require ments for his position chang ed in Octobe r 2002, and he had to be nd continuously while lifting three to four pound we ights. Ha sh’s back pain bec ame intolera ble, and he returne d to Dr. Hunt, who
rec ommended that Ha sh continue workingon restric ted duty
. Af te r h is f oll ow -u p a pp ointme nt, ho we ve r, Ha sh ’s pa in co nti nu e d to inc re a se and be g an to radiate down his leguntil it beca me intolerable . As a result, Hash quit his job on October 28, 2002. I n No ve mbe r 20 02 , Ha sh re c e ive d thr e e lum ba r e pid ur a l in je c tio ns , b ut t

he y pr ov ide d h im w ithon ly minimal relief. On Nove mber 25, 2002, Hash was re fer red to a neurosur g eon, Dr . J ohn J ohnson, and it was rec ommended that he r efr ain from a ny work pe nding the res u l t s o f the ne urosurg ical examination.Byron Hash v . Comm’r of Soc. Se c.

Case No. 08- 5654

3 Ha sha lle g e s th a t he fi rs t became “ dis a ble d” on Au g us t 22 , 2 00 3 ( the date of his fi ft ie th birthday ). F rom the occu rr ence of his 2002 injury throug h the pre sent, the following doctors and thera pists have treated him for his bac k pain: Drs. Da niel Hunt, J ohn J ohnson, Chris R. Koford, Arul Ve rg his , M ark

Vo lle nw e ide r, and

oc c up a tio na l th e ra

pis ts at F ra zie r Re ha

bil itatio n Ins tit

ute . H a sh
was a lso treated by the following individuals for his de pression: Dr. L ew Hortoillosa, and var ious thera pists at the L ouisvill e, Ke ntucky -base d Adanta Clinic (“ Adanta” ), Dr. Way ne R. Edwar ds, and Stephen Scher , Ph.D. and L isa Perritt, Ph.D. B. P roce dural Hi story On Au g us t 20 , 2 00 3, Ha sh

fi le d h is a pp lic a tio n f

or DI B
. Th e Com mis sio ne r d e nie d h is c la im ini tia lly and on re c on sid e ratio n, and

Ha shtim e ly

fi le d a re qu e st f or a he ari ng . On Ma

y 4, 20 05 , H a sh appea red and testified befor e AL J Roge r Rey nolds. The Commi ssioner called a v o ca tional consultant and re habilitation c ounselor to te stify as to what jobs, if any , Hash c ould perfor m. The
c on su lta nt opi ne d that, g ive n Ha sh ’s re str ic tio ns , he c ou ld stil l per fo rm nume ro us be nc h a sse mbl y “ty pes of jobs”—8900 in Kentucky and almost 393,200 in the national ec onomy . He then c larified that th e re we re a

pp ro ximate ly

58 00 lig ht- e xer

tio n le ve l jo bs wi th a

sit -s tand op tio n av ail able in Kentucky and appr ox imately

346,400 such jobs exis ting in the national economy
. On Octobe r 6, 2005, after re viewingthe re levant evide nce, the AL J conclude d that Hash ha d failed to refute the Commi ssioner’s showingthat a sig nificant number of jobs exis ted in the national economy , which Ha sh could perf orm, making him unqualified for D I B. The AL J deter mined that Hash re tained the residual functional capa city (“RF C”) to perf orm a ra ng e of “ light wor

k” with the fo llo wi ngre str ic tio ns :Byron Hash v . Comm’r of Soc. Se c.

Case No. 08- 5654

4

sit-stand option at one-hour inter vals, no clim b i n g of rope s, ladders or scaf folds; no work at he ights, a round industr ial hazards or c oncentr ated vib ratio n, and

no c omm e rc ia l dr ivi ngse c on da ry to h ist ory

of bla c ko uts ; o cc as i o n al cl i mb i n g o f s t ai rs o r r a m p s ; o cc as i o n al b en d i n g, t wi s t i n g, stooping, kne eling , crouc hing or cra wling; r equire s e ntr

y le v e l work with 1-2- 3 step proce dures, no f

reque nt c hang es in w ork routines, no require ment for pr ob le m so lvi ng , in de pe nd e nt p lann ingor the se tti ngof

g oa ls; and

on ly oc c a sio na l in te ra c tio n w iththe g e ne ra l pu bli c , c o- wo rk e rs or

su pe rv iso rs . (AL J Dec ision, J oint Appendix (“JA”) 22.) A ccor ding to Social Sec urity Administration (“SSA”)
re g ulatio ns , L ight wor

k involves lifting no more than 20 pounds at a time with fre quent lifting or c arr y i n g o f objects we ighingup to 10 pounds. Even thoug h the we ig ht l if te d ma y be very li tt le, a job is i n th is c a te g or y wh e n it re qu ir e s a g oo d d e a l of wa lki ng or sta nd ing , o r whe n it

inv olv e s si tti ngmos t of

the tim e with some pushing a

nd pulling of a

rm or legcontrols. To be c onsidered capa ble of perf

orming a full or wide rang e of light work, y ou must have the ability t o d o s u bstantially all of these a ctivities. I f someone c an do lig ht work, we deter

mine that he or she can a lso do sedentar y work, unless ther e are a dd iti on a l li mit ing fa c tor s su c h a s los s of fi ne de xter ity or ina bil ity to s it for longperiods of time. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(b). Th e AL J rej ect ed t he re sp on ses to th e “S pi nal I mp ai r m e n t Que st io nn air e” andth e R FC finding s submitt ed by Dr
. Ko fo rd re g ardingHash’s ba ck pain, de termining that there was “ no objective ba sis” for them. The AL J also reje cted the r esponses to the “ Psy chiatric /Psy cholog ical I mpairment Que stionnaire” a nd the RFC finding s submitt ed by Dr. Hor toil l osa re g ardingHash’s de pr e ssi on , c on c lud ing that the y we re inc on sis te nt w iththe oth e r e vid e nc e and un su pp or te d b y bo th treatment rec ords and the dia g noses of major de pression and mood disorder due to ge nera l medical
c on dit ion . T he AL J als o f ound that H a shha d o ve rs ta

te d “ the int e ns ity and

pe rs ist e nc e of

hisByron Hash v . Comm’r of Soc. Se c.

Case No. 08- 5654

5 sy mptoms,” (J A 22), a

nd he g ave Hash’s subjec tive statements little weig ht in determining Hash’s RFC. Hash a

ppeale d the AL J ’s dec ision, and, on Fe bruar y 15, 2008, the mag istrate judg e re ndere d his R&R concludingthat the Commiss ioner ’s d ecision should be af firmed. Hash v. Astrue , No. 1:07-cv-00125- J (W.D. Ky . 2008) (Doc
. No. 15). The district court adopte d the R&R in full and dismiss ed Ha sh’s petition. Hash timely appea led. II. AN AL YSI S A. Stand ard of Review Un de r 4 2 U .S. C. § 40 5( g ), our r e vie w of th e Com mis sio ne r’ s d e c isi on is l imi te d to deter mining whe ther the f

indings a re suppor ted by substantial evidenc e and whether the cor rec t leg al sta nd ard s we re a

pp lie d. 42 U. S.C. § 4 05 (g ); Cutli p v. Sec’y Health & Human Serv s ., 25 F.3d 284, 286 (6th Cir. 1994). “Substantial evidenc e” me ans “more than a sc intill a of e vidence but less than
a pr e po nd e ra

nc e ; it is s uc h r e le va

nt e vid e nc e as a

re a so na ble min d mi g ht a c c e pt a s a de qu a te to
s u p p o rt a c onclusion.” Id
. I n d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r s u

b s t an t i a l e v i d e n c e e xi s t s , t h i s C o u rt mu st examine the administrative re cord a s a whole. Id . We may n o t t ry t h e ca s e de novo, resolve conflicts in evidenc e, or de cide que stions of credibility
. W alters v. Comm’r of Soc. Se c ., 127 F.3d 525, 528 (6th Cir. 1997). I f it is supported by substantial evidenc e, we must aff irm the Com mis sio ne r’ s d e c isi on e ve n if we wo uld

ha ve de c ide d th e matte r d if fe re ntl y , a

nd e ve n if substantial e vidence also supports the claimant’ s position. Mullen v. Bowe n , 800 F .2 d 535 , 5 45 (6 th Cir.1986).Byron Hash v . Comm’r of Soc. Se c.

Case No. 08- 5654

6 I n DI B c ases, the pla intiff has the ultimate burden to establish an entitlement to bene fits by pr ov ingthe e xiste nc e of a disa bil ity . 4 2 U .S. C. § 42 3( a ); W yatt v. Sec ’y H

ealth & Human Serv

s ., 974 F.2d 680, 683 ( 6th Cir. 1992). The SSA defines a “disability ” as an “inability to eng ag e in any substantial ga inful activity by rea son of any

medically

deter minable phy sical or mental impairment which ca n be expected to r esult in death or whic h has lasted or ca n b e ex p ec ted to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)( 1)(A)
. To deter mine whether a cl ai mant has established disability , an AL J undertakes a f ive-step sequential e valuation mandate d by regulation. W

ilson v. Co mm’r of Soc. Se c ., 378 F.3d 541, 548 (6th Cir. 2004). First, the claimant mus t demonstrate that he has not eng ag ed in s ubstantial g ainful
a c tiv ity duri ngthe pe ri od

of dis a bil ity . 2 0 C. F .R. § 4 04 .1 52 0( a )( 4) (i ). Se c on d, the c la ima nt m us t show that he suff

ers f rom a seve re, me dically

deter mina b l e p h y s i cal or mental impairment. Id . § 404.1520(a) (4)( ii). Third, if the cla imant shows that his im pairment mee ts or medically equals one of the imp a ir

me nts lis te d in

20 C.F .R. Pt. 40 4, Sub pt. P, App . 1, he is de e me d disa ble d. 20 C.F .R. § 404.1 5 2 0 (a )( 4 )( iii). Fourth, the AL J deter mines whether , based on the claimant’s RF C, the claimant ca

n perf orm his past releva

nt work; i f t he AL J deter

mines in the affirmative, the claimant is not disabled. Id
. § 4 0 4
. 1 5 2 0 (a )( 4 )( i v ). Fi ft h , t h e A L J d et erm i n es wh et h er , b as edo nt h e c l ai m an t 's RF C, a s w e ll a s h is a g e , e du c a tio n, and wo rk e xpe ri e nc e , th e c la ima

nt c an ma ke an a dju st ment

to other wor k; if the claimant c an, then he or she is not disabled. Id . § 404.1520(a) (4)( v). The claimant bear s the burden of proving the first four steps, W ilson , 378 F.3d at 548 (citing W alte rs , 127 F.3d at 529), but at s tep five, the burden shifts to the Comm issioner, who must identify a sig nificant number

of jobs in the economy that acc ommodate the cla imant’s RFC and vocationalByron Hash v . Comm’r of Soc. Se c.

Case No. 08- 5654

7 profile. J

o n es v . Co m m ’ r o

f S o c . Sec
. , 3 3 6 F. 3 d 469, 474 (6th Cir. 2003). In many case s, the Commi ssioner may

car ry this burden by applying the medical- vocational g rid at 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P , App. 2, which dire cts a conclusion of “disabled” or “not disabled” based on the claimant’s ag e and educ ation and on whe ther the c laimant has transf era ble work skills. W

rig ht v . M as sa na ri, 32 1 F .3 d 6 11 , 6 15 (6 th C ir .2 00 3) ; Burton v. Sec ’y of He alth & Human Serv s ., 89 3 F .2 d 82 1, 82 2 ( 6th Cir. 1990). Howe ver, if a cl ai m an t s u ff er s from a limitation not accounte d for by the g rid, the Com mis sio ne r m ay

us e the g ri d a s a fr a me wo rk fo r he r de c isi on but mus t re ly on oth e r e vid e nc e to
car ry her bur den. Burton , 893 F.2d at 822. I n such a c ase, the AL J may rely on the testimony

of a vocational e x pert in consider ing whether the claimant possesse s the ca pacity t o p er fo rm other substantial g ainful activity that exis ts in the national economy . W ilson , 3 7 8 F. 3 d

at 5 4 8 (c i t i n g Cline v. Comm’r of Soc . Sec., 96 F.3d 146, 150 ( 6th Cir. 1996)). I n this case, the A L J deter mined that Hash succ essfully established the f

irst f our steps of the
se qu e nti a l e va luatio n p ro c e ss, but, b a se d o n te sti mony by the vo c a tio na l e xpe rt , d e nie d H a sh ’s c la im at the fifth step. Thus, the only rele vant issue for our revie w is whether the AL J ’s deter mination that the Commiss ioner met he r burde n of showing that Hash c an perf orm a signific ant number of jobs exis ting in the national economy is suppor ted by substantial e vidence
. Se e Bo rn v . S e c ’y of H e alt h & H u m a n S e rv s. , 923 F.2d 1168 ( 6th Cir. 1990). Be cause Hash ba ses his appea l on the AL J ’s
re je c tio n of the op ini on s by Dr s. Ko fo rd and Ho rt oil los a , “ tr e a tin g ph y sic ians ” un de r a pp lic a ble SSA
r e g u l a t i o n s , an d t h e A L J ’ s f i n d i n g t h a t h e w a s n o t c r e d i b l e , w e h a v e f o c u s e d o u r

r e v i e w a c c o r d i n g l y. B. P hys ic al L im it at ion sByron Hash v . Comm’r of Soc. Se c.

Case No. 08- 5654

8 Ha shfi rs t a sse rt s th a t th e AL J impr op e rl y dis c re dit e d the op ini on of Dr . K of or d in deter mining that Hash’s back injury did not preve nt him from perf orming a signific an t ra n ge of “lig ht work.” We disag ree . Hash saw Dr. Kof ord for treatment of his lower ba ck and le g pain from Ma rch 26, 2004 throug h J anuar

y 18, 2005. Ba sed on the re sults of Hash’ s 2 0 0 2 M R Iand CT sca ns, which Dr. Koford f ound to be compatib lew it

h lumba r deg ener ative disc disea se, Dr. K oford r ecommende d that Hash unde rg o phy sical thera py , and he a djusted Hash’s pa in me dications. I n November 2004, when Ha shre tur

ne d f or a fo llo w- up a

pp ointme nt, Dr . K of

or d d ia g no se d H a shwi th c hr on ic low ba c k p a in with lumbar deg ener ative disc disea se and face t arthropathy . Hash told Dr. Kof ord that he ha d voluntarily

cea sed phy sical thera

py when it ha d worsene d his pa in but that the he at thera py , elec trode thera py , and ner

ve blocks ha d provided him with some relief
. On J anuar

y 18, 2005, Hash re quested that Dr . Koford f ill out t he “Spinal Impai rment Questionnaire ” to be use d at Hash’ s administrative hea ring . Dr. Kof

ord examined Hash a

nd found that de sp ite so me te nd e rn e ss, Ha shha d n o mu sc le sp a sms , s we lli ng , o r p a lpa ble tr ig g e r p oints. Ha sh
was a ble to perf

orm a norma l straig ht-legraise, thoug h the action was painful, and Hash’s femor al stretch test—whic h is used to determine if a patient has m uscle or ne rve pr oblems ty pically occur ring wi th a he rn iate d dis c —w a s ne g a tiv e . Dr
. Ko fo rd re fe rr e d Ha shto t he F ra zie r R e ha

bil itatio n Ins tit

ute for a functional c apac ity

evaluation and to Dr. Arul Ve rg his, a bac k specia list, for possible additional fa c e t jo int inj e c tio ns . Dr. Koford completed his response s to Hash’s impairme nt questionnaire on Apr il 14, 2005. At the t ime of completion, Dr. Koford had not seen Hash for over three months and had not r eviewe dByron Hash v . Comm’r of Soc. Se c.

Case No. 08- 5654

9 MRI s of Hash’ s spine that had bee n taken dur ing that period. Dr. Kof ord’s que stionnaire re sponses noted that Hash c ould lift ten to twenty pounds occa sionally , and five pounds fre quently
. Dr. Kof ord also found that Hash could sit at one hour i nterva ls but would need to stand for te n minutes before he c ou ld s it ag a in. F ina lly , Dr . Kof or d opin e d that H a shwo uld ne e d uns c he du le d b re a ks of a t le a st te n mi nu te s e ve ry

ho ur to r e lie ve his pa in a

nd that he wo uld

lik e ly be a bs e nt f ro m w or k d ue to p a in more than thre e times per month. The AL J reje cted Dr. Koford’ s questionnaire r esponses a nd RFC finding s, rea soning that the

“ c la ima nt w a s a ble to w or k at li g ht duty (t

he c la ima nt re po rt e d he pe rf

or me d a de qu a te ly

on lig ht d uty but had proble m s once he was put bac k on regular duty ), g o deer

hunting a

nd perf orm ac tive activities of daily living.” (JA 21.) The AL J also deter mined that Dr. Kof

ord’s RFC finding s were contra ry to available objective medical evidenc e. Unde r SSA regulations, the opinion of a treating phy sician like Dr. Koford is e ntitled to controlling we ight if suc h opinion (1) “is we ll-supported by
me dic a lly a c c e pta ble c lin ic a l and la

bo rator y dia g no sti c te c hn iqu e s” and (2 ) “ is no t in c on sis te nt w ith the other substantial e vidence in [ the] case r ecor d.” Me e c e v . B ar nh ar t , 19 2 F . App ’x 45 6, 46 0 ( 6th Cir. 2006) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)( 2)). Eve n if not entitled to controlling we i gh t , the opinion of a t reating phy sician i s g ener ally entitled to more we ight than othe r medica l opinions. Id
. at 460-61. The SSA considers sever al fa ctors to assess the w eig ht of the opi n i o n of the tre ating p h y s i ci an , i n cl u d i n g: (1) the le ng th of the treatment relationship and the fre quency of the examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the supportab i l i t y of the opinion, with respect to re levant evide nce suc h as medica l signs and la boratory finding s; (4) the c onsistency of the opinion with the recor d as a whole; (5) theByron Hash v . Comm’r of Soc. Se c.

Case No. 08- 5654

10 specia liz ation of the phy sician re nderingthe opinion; and (6) a ny other fa ctor ra ised by the a pp lic ant. Id . at 461 (c iting 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d) (2)- (6))
. Th e AL J’s deter mi nat io n o f t he ph y sic a l li mit a tio ns in H a sh ’s RF C and his de c isi on

to d i s co u n tDr
. K o f

o r d ’ s qu es t i o n n ai re re s p o n s es ar e s u p p o rt edb y

s u b s t an t i al ev i d en ce . Al t h o u gh Hash a rg ues that Dr. K oford’ s evaluation was based on the results of MRI and CT te sts, Hash does
no t po int the Court to the se re su lts
. I n f a c t, t he 20 02 MRI

of Ha sh ’s lum

ba r s pin e sh ow e d th a t di sc spac e and alig nment wer e “w ell maintained” w ith only “minimal” sig nal cha

ng es of the disc and “minimal” disc deg ener ation. Moreove r, the 2002 MRI results reve aled “norma l” ner ve root a rea s and “mode rate ” disc bulg ing w ith “minimal” effa cem en t o f the dura l sac a nd without any

other abnorma lities. Hash’s CT sc an of his lumbar spine also showed only “mild” problems. Eve n when considere d toge ther, such “ min im a l”f in d in g s d o n ot establish an objective ba sis for finding disabling limit ations. Al so , in c omp le tin g the qu e sti onna ir e , D r. Ko fo rd did no t r e vie w the re su lts of

the 20 05 MRI of Ha sh ’s sp ine , whi c h sug g e sts that he re lie d o n o utd a te d te st r e su lts
. Dr . K of or d r e fe rr e d H a shto Dr. Ve rg his, a bac k specia list, i n 2004. The 2005 MR Iof Ha sh’s lumbar spine showe d marke d improvement in Hash’ s condition, as did the 2005 MRI of Hash’s thorac ic s pine, which showe d no pa ra sp ina l ma sse s, bo ny

le sio ns , he rn iate d disc s, or sig nif ic ant spi na l or

ne ur a l f or a min a l st e no sis
. Ag ain, t h es e i m p roveme nts do not support an objective ba sis for finding the exist ence of a “disabling ” limit ation. The rec ord also sug g ests that althoug h he ref err ed Hash to Dr. V erg his, Dr. Koford ne ver r eviewe d Dr. Ve rg his ’s cl inical finding s. Dr. Ve rg his determined that Ha sh had aByron Hash v . Comm’r of Soc. Se c.

Case No. 08- 5654

11 n o rm al gai twi t h o n l y

“m i l d ” d i ff

i cu l t y wh en h e w al k edo nh i s t o es o r h ee l s , an d d es p i t e h av i n g a decr ease d rang e of motion in his thoracic and lumbar spine, had norma l muscle streng th and re flexes in both his u p p er and lower extremiti es and a

normal ra

ng e of motion in his cervic al spine. Dr. Ve rg his e va luated Ha sh ’s 20 05 MRI re su lts and

fo un d th a t H a shha d n or ma l stre ng th i n b oth

his upper a nd lower e x tremities and no neur ologic al problems. Althoug h Dr. Ve rg his r e c o mm e n d e d th at Hash re turn to him for follow-up tre atment, Hash did not do so. Mo re ov e r, Dr . K of

or d’ s o wn

tr e a tme nt n ote s f

ro m hi s e xami natio ns of

Ha sh pri or to hi s
c omp le t i o n o f t h e qu e s t i o n n a i r e ar e i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h , an d p r o v i d e n o o b j e c t i v e b a s i s fo r, his pr op os e d d isa

bli nglim itatio ns . D r. Ko fo rd ha d p revi ou sl y

no te d th a t H a shha d o nly “ mil d tender ness” in his lower ba ck, had a “norma l” g ait, and could stand on h i s h ee l s an d toes without pr ob le ms. Dr . K of

or d n e ve r me nti on e d any

lim itatio ns in H a sh ’s a

bil ity to s it, sta nd , w a lk, or

lif t. Although H ash co n t ends that Dr. K oford’ s findings a re suppor ted by evaluations by
o cc u p at i o nal thera

pists he saw for

phy sical thera

py sessions at Fr azier Rehabilitation I nstitut e, providing that Hash could only stand for thirty minutes a nd walk for up to six minutes, the AL J was entitled to discount their testimony
. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513(a) (“oc cupational ther ap i s t s ” a nd “phy sical thera

pist s ” ar e not re fer ence d as “a cce ptable medica l sources” for makingmedical de te rm inatio ns un de r 2 0 C. F .R. § 4 04 .1 52 7) ; W alte rs , 127 F.3d at 530-31 (a l t h o u gh a phy sical the ra pis t c an p ro vid e ins ig ht int o the se ve ri ty of a c la ima nt’ s im pa ir me nts and

ho w the y a ff e c t hi s abilit y to f u n c ti o n , th e A L J is n o t r e qu ir e d to g iv e th e p h y s ic a l t

h e r a p is t’ s f in d in g s c o n tr o ll ing weig ht). Her e, whe re the conclusions of the F razier ther apists were inconsistent with objective
me dic a l e vid e nc e , th e AL J wa s e nti tle d to dis re g ard the m.Byron Hash v . Comm’r of Soc. Se c.

Case No. 08- 5654

12 Finally , Hash’s ow n repor ted daily activities also provide substantial e vidence for the AL J ’s reje ction of Dr. K oford’ s assessment. W arner v. Comm’r of Soc
. Sec ., 375 F.3d 387, 392 ( 6th Cir. 200 4 ) ( n oting that a

claimant’s pa

rticipation in daily

activities alone w ill not automatically disqualify him from a disability

finding , but the AL J may consider suc h activities in evaluating the ve rac ity of his claim of disabling pain). Ha sh testified that on a “r egular da y ,” he spe nds the “big g est part of the day” in a r ecliner

tilted to a 45-deg ree ang le. (JA 3 8 8
. ) I n t h at p osition, he ty pically watche s television, rea ds the pape r, and tries to “ keep [hi mself] busy .” (JA 389.) Hash also explained that his pa in c a

us e s h im t o h ave dif

fi c ult y sle e pin g , a

nd he of te n ta ke s a sle e pin g pil l and

sp e nd s tw o to thr e e ho ur s e a c h n ig ht i n th e re c lin e r. Ha shstated th at he c ou ld d ri ve a c a r f or thi rt y min ute s at a time, make two-hour car trips ( as a passeng er) , g roce ry shop occa sionally , and walk up to twohund re d y ard s at a

tim e . A lth ou g h, Ha sha sse rt e d th a t h is back pai n pre ve nte d h im f ro m a c tiv e ly pa rt ic ipatin g in d e e r h

un tin g , a sp or t he ha d enjoy e d b e fo re his inj ur y , me dic a l r e c or ds fr om a J anuar y 23, 2004 visit t o an Ada

nta thera pist indi cate that he had hur t himself by

falling in the woods while looking f

or a de er his daug hter ha d shot. Be cau s e t h e A L J p ro p erly

based his re

jectio no f D r. Ko fo rd ’s qu es t i o n n ai re an d R FC fi n d i n gs on the objective medical evidenc e and H ash’s stateme nts about his daily activities, we uphold the AL J ’s d ete rm in ati on th at H ash ’s p hy si cal li mi tat io ns di d n otqu ali fy hi m f or D I B. C. M e nt al L im it at ion s Hash a lso argu es t h at t he AL J improperly discounted Dr. H ortoillosa’s “Psy chiatric /Psy cholog ical Impairment Que stionnaire” a nd RFC finding s. Ag ain, we disa g ree .Byron Hash v . Comm’r of Soc. Se c.

Case No. 08- 5654

The GA F sc ale r efle cts a c linician’s assessment of an individual’s over all level of 1 functioning
. See Americ an Psy chiatric Association, Di agn o s t ic & Statist ical Manua l of Mental Disorder s 30 (4th ed. 1994). A ccor ding to the A meri ca n P s y chiatric Association, a GA F sc ore be tw e e n 41 an d 50 re fl e c ts “s e ri ou s sy mpt oms su c h as sui c ida l thou g hts , sev e re ob se ssi ve ri tua ls, or other se rious impairments in social, occ upational or school f unctioning.” Id
. 13 Hash soug ht ment al hea lth treatment at Ada nta for de pression fr om 2003 throug h 2004. Thoug h he had be en takinganti-depr essants since 1993, he claimed that his depr ession had bee n
exacer bated by his inabilit y

to work due to his bac k pain, and he soug ht counseling to r aise his selfestee m. Has h ’s i n itial Adanta mental status examination reve aled that he had a f lat aff ect a nd a de pr e sse d mo od

but f a ir judgment and ins ig ht. He wa s d ia g no se d w itha moo d d iso rd e r d

ue to g ener al medica l condition, a nd his Global Assessment of F unctioning ( “GAF ”) sc ore w as asse ssed at 50. 1 Hash c o nti nued to see numerous Ada nta thera pists, and was pre scribed Paxil (for depr ession) and Tra zodone (for insomnia). The Adanta thera pists’ e valuations reve al that by Marc h 22, 2004, Ha shsh ow e d s ig ns of imp ro ve me nt, bu t so on a ft e r, he a g a in re po rt e d de pr e ssi ve sy mpt oms du e to the a dd e d fi na

nc ia l pr e ssu

re he e xpe ri e nc e d fo llo wi ng his ba c k in jur y . H a shla st v isi te d A da

nta in
e arl y Ap ri l 20 05 , at w hic h p oint he wa s a sse sse d a s c a lm and sta ble wi th a e uthy mic (n e utr a l) a ff

e c t. After he had submitted all of his mental health rec ords to the Commi ssioner and te stified at the administrative hea

ring , Hash a

pproac hed Dr . Hortoillosa, one of his Ada nta psy chiatrists, and asked him to complete a “Psy chiatric /Psy cholog ical I mpairment Que stionnaire.” U sing H ash’s own repor t and an unidentifie d “B io psy chosocia l and hea lth scree ning,” Dr. Hor toillos a af

fi rm ed the diag noses of single-e pisode depre ssion, and mood disorder due to an under ly ing me dical condition.Byron Hash v . Comm’r of Soc. Se c.

Case No. 08- 5654

14 He r eporte d that Hash ha d sy mptoms of “depre ssed m o od and loss of intere st or pleasure ,”

“ ins omn ia ,” “ po or

a pp e tit e ,” “ se lf

iso latio n, ” and “ fa

tigue .” Dr . H or

toi llo sa a lso ind ic a te d th a t H a sh
wa s “ mark e dly

lim ite d” in h is a

bil iti e s to : mai ntai n c on c e ntr a tio n, pa y a tte nti on to a nd re g ula rl y attend wor

k, work in proxi mity to others, make simple work-r elated decisions, complete a normal workda y , acc ept instructions, g et along with co-w orker s, respond a ppropriate ly

to chang es, and se t
rea listi c g oals. Dr. Hortoillosa also opined that combined with his chronic back pain , Hash’s depre ssive sy

mptoms would l ikely

make him incapa

ble of tolerating e ven a low le vel of wor k-re lated str e ss. L ike Dr . K of

or d, Dr . H or

toi llo sa qu a lif ie s a s a “tr eat in g p hy sic ian” un de r t he a pp lic a ble regulations. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)( 2)-( 6). None theless, the AL J was e ntitled to reject Dr
. Hortoillosa’s a s s essm ents as they wer e contr ary

to other substantial evidenc e in the re cord. See Mee ce , 192 F. App’ x at 460. Dr. Edwards, a psy chiatrist who examined Hash on O ctober 5, 2003
a t th e Com mis sio ne r’ s r e qu e st, op ine d th a t H a sh co uld pe rf or m si mpl e wo rk -r e late d ta sk s, a sk simple questions, appropriate ly understand, r emember , and follow simple commands, a nd work without spe cial supervision. Dr. Edwar ds also noted that Hash could adapt to c hang es in a work setting w ithout si gn i fi cant impairment, had appropr iate socia l interac tion, demonstrated “no dis tr a c ta bil ity ,” and

sh ow e d a

g oo d r a te of

c on c e ntr a tio n. Mo re ov e r, Dr . E dw ard s u lti mate ly
c on c lud e d th a t H a shha d a GA F sc or e of

be tw e e n 6 0 a

nd 65 , in dicatingon ly

mil d to mod e rate limit ations. Furthe r , th e r e p o rts b y D r s . Sc h e r an d Pe r r itt, n o n - e xami n in g me d ic a l c o n s u lt an ts who completed mental RFC assessments of Hash, contravene Dr. Hortoillosa’s questionnaire response sByron Hash v . Comm’r of Soc. Se c.

Case No. 08- 5654

15 and RFC. Both Drs. S cher and P err itt conclude d, consistent with the objective c linical finding s of Dr. Edwa rds, t hat Hash could understand and re member shor t, simpl e instructions, sustain attention to complete simple, repe titive tasks, tolerate c oworke rs and supe rvisors in a non-public se tting, and adapt to routine chang es. Althoug h Drs. Scher and Perr itt are not “tre ating phy sicians”—e ach
e va luate d Ha sh on ly on e tim e —th e y are state a g e nc y ps y c ho log ic a l c on su lta nts wh o a re e xpe rt s in disability evaluation, and the AL J is require d to consider their op i n i o n s i n h i s evaluation of the evidenc e. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f) (2)( i). Dr. Hor toillos a’s que stionna ir e r e s p o n s e s a r e a ls o in c o n s is te nt w it

h his own Adanta tre atment notes, which sug g est Hash’ s ong oing improvement. Thoug h there is evidence that Hash “ reg resse d” in Febr uary 2005, this “reg ression” w as closely followed by Dr. Hortoillos a’s f inal Adanta tr eatment note about Hash, which descr ibed Hash as calm, with a euthy mic aff ect, a nd indicated that Ha sh’s depre ssion was stable. Finally , it is i mportant to note t hat Dr. Hortoillosa based his eva luation only on Hash’s ow n repor t and one unspe cified “ Bio psychosocia l and hea lth scree ning.” (J A 3 5 5
. ) Gi ven the inconsistencies in the objec tive medical evidence supporting D r. Hortoillosa’s e valuation, Hash ha s failed to pre sent evidenc e suff icient to overc ome our de fer ential re view of the AL J ’s deter mination. Thus, we uphold the AL J ’s conc lusion that Hash’s mental limitations d o n ot qualify him as “disabled.” D. Cre dib ility F ind ings The fina l issue before us is whether substantial e vidence suppo rt s the AL J ’s finding that H a s h ’ s s u b j e c t i v e a s s e s s m e n t s o f

h i s s y mp t o m s w e r e n o t e n t i r e l y c r e d i b l e . H a s har g u e s t h a tt h e A LJByron Hash v . Comm’r of Soc. Se c.

Case No. 08- 5654

16 failed to c ite a sing le fa ct in support of hi s cre dibilit y deter minations and that he should at least be forc ed to ar

ticulate a g ood faith basis for his conclusion. A claimant’ s subjective assessment of his sy mptoms is rele vant to de termining whether he suffe rs from a

disability but is not conclusive evidenc e of a disability
. W

arner , 37 5 F. 3d at 392 (c i t i n g Buxton v. H

alter , 246 F.3d 762, 773 (6th Cir. 2001) (“Subjective complaints of ‘pain or other sy mptoms shall not alone be conclusive e vidence of disabili t y . ’”) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 42 3( d) (5 )( A) )) . In e va luatin g the c la ima nt’ s su bje c tiv e c omp la int s o f pai n, an AL J may pr op e rl y consider the claimant’s c redibility , and we acc ord g reat defe renc e to that cr edibility deter mination. Id .; se e als o W

alte rs , 127 F.3d at 531 (stating that an AL J ’s “f indings ba sed on the c redibility of the
a pp lic ant ar e to be a c c or de d g re a t w e ig ht a nd de fe re nc e , p art ic ula

rl y sin c e an [A L J] is ch arg e d w ith the duty of obser ving a witness’s demea

nor and credibility ”). Aclaimant’s c redibility may be proper ly discounted “to a cer

tain deg ree . . . wher e an [AL J ] finds contradictions among the medica l repor ts, claimant’s testimony , and other evidenc e.” W

arner , 3 7 5 F. 3 d at 3 9 2 (q u o t i n g W alte rs , 127 F .3 d at 53 1) ; se e als o Bla c ha v . S e c ’y of H e alt h &Hu ma n S

e rv s. , 927 F.2d 228, 231 ( 6th Cir. 1990) (i n e va luatin g his a sse rt ion s of pa in or a ilm e nts , an AL J may a lso c on sid e r a cl a ima nt’ s h ou se ho ld and socia l activities). An individual’s s t at ements as to “pa in or other sy mptoms wil l not alone establish that [he is] disabled . . . .” W alte rs , 127 F.3d at 531 (quoting 20 C.F .R. § 404.1529(a))
. Th is C ourt

ha s d e ve lop e d a

tw o- pr on g te st t o e va luate su c h a sse rt ion s: First, we examine whether there is objective medica l evidence of an unde rlying medical c ondition. I f there is, we then e x amine: (1) wh et h er o bjective medic al evidenc e conf

irms the sever ity

of t he alleg ed pain a

rising f rom the condition; or (2) whether the objectively

established medica l condition is of such a seve rity that it can rea sonably

be expected to pr oduce the alleg ed disabling pain.Byron Hash v . Comm’r of Soc. Se c.

Case No. 08- 5654

17 Id
. (c i t i n g Felisky v . Bowen , 35 F.3d 1027, 1038- 39 (6th Cir. 1994)). The AL J found objec tive medical evidence of Hash’s underly ing c ondition—dege nerative disc disease and depr essive mood di s o rd er—but ther e is littl e or no obje ctive medica l evidence tending to confirm that the pa in Has h at t ri b uted to these c onditions i s disabling. Without such
e vid e nc e , t hi s Co urt wi ll g e ne ra lly de fe r t o th e AL J’s a sse ssm e nt. See B lacha , 927 F.2d at 231 (def err ing to the AL J ’s credibility analy sis wher e there was no objective medic al support to confirm the dis a bli nge ff e c ts of c la ima

nt’ s und e rl ying me dic a l con dit ion ). I n th is c a se , th e AL J’s c re dib ili ty finding s are supported by th e re co rd. Ha sh’s subjective c omplaints are inconsistent with the
e vid e nc e , in c lud ingob

je c tiv e dia g no sti c te sts , such as MRI s and CT scans, D r. Ve rg his’s clinical fi n d in g s , s tate me n ts in D r . K o f o r d ’ s tr e a tm e n t n o te s , th e o p in io n s o f s tate a g e n c y me d ic al and psy cholog ical consultants, the opinions of Dr . Edwar ds, sever al Adanta treatment notes, and Ha sh’s
ow n s tate me nts a

bo ut his da ily a c tiv iti e s. I n lig ht o f t he fo re g oin g , th e re is s ub sta nti a l e vid e nc e in the r e c o r d

to s u p p o rt t h e A L J’ s d e c is io nto d is c o u n t H a s h ’ s s u b je c ti v e c o mp la ints r e g ar d in g the
sever ity and fr equenc y

of his pain. V. CO NC LU SION For the re asons set for

th above, we AF F IRM the district court’s de cision.