DECISION AND ENTRY: (1) AFFIRMING THE ALJ'S NON-DISABILITY FINDING AS SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE; AND (2) TERMINATING THIS CASE ON THE DOCKET

MICHAEL J. NEWMAN, United States Magistrate Judge.

This Social Security disability benefits appeal is presently before the undersigned for disposition based upon the parties' consent. Doc. 5. At issue is whether the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") erred in finding Plaintiff not "disabled" and therefore unentitled to Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB") and/or Supplemental Security Income ("SSI").1 This case is before the Court upon Plaintiff's Statement of Errors (doc. 9), the Commissioner's memorandum in opposition (doc. 10), Plaintiff's reply (doc. 11), the administrative record (doc. 8),2 and the record as a whole.

I.

A. Procedural History

Plaintiff filed for DIB and SSI alleging a disability onset date of April 1, 2007. PageID 215-27. Plaintiff claims disability as a result of a number of impairments including, inter alia, mild mental retardation ("MMR") and an anxiety disorder. PageID 64.

After initial denial of his applications, Plaintiff received a hearing before ALJ Curt Marceille on October 5, 2012. PageID 82-109. The ALJ issued a written decision thereafter finding Plaintiff not disabled. PageID 62-74. Specifically, the ALJ's findings were as follows:

PageID 64-73 (internal citations omitted).

Thereafter, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review, making the ALJ's non-disability finding the final administrative decision of the Commissioner. PageID 50-52. Plaintiff then filed this timely appeal. Cook v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 480 F.3d 432, 435 (6th Cir.2007) (noting that, "[u]nder the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, [claimant] had 60 days from the Appeals Council's notice of denial in which to file his appeal").

B. Evidence of Record

In his decision, the ALJ set forth a detailed recitation of the underlying medical evidence in this case. PageID 63-72. Plaintiff, in his Statement of Errors, sets forth a detailed summary of the record evidence. Doc. 9 at PageID 433-40. The Commissioner, in response, defers to the ALJ's recitation of the relevant evidence and Plaintiff's statement of facts. Doc. 10 at PageID 453. Except as otherwise noted in this Decision and Entry, the undersigned incorporates Plaintiff's summary and the ALJ's recitation of the evidence.

II.

A. Standard of Review

The Court's inquiry on a Social Security appeal is to determine (1) whether the ALJ's non-disability finding is supported by substantial evidence, and (2) whether the ALJ employed the correct legal criteria. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Bowen v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 478 F.3d 742, 745-46 (6th Cir.2007). In performing this review, the Court must consider the record as a whole. Hephner v. Mathews, 574 F.2d 359, 362 (6th Cir.1978).

Substantial evidence is "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401, 91 S.Ct. 1420, 28 L.Ed.2d 842 (1971). When substantial evidence supports the ALJ's denial of benefits, that finding must be affirmed, even if substantial evidence also exists in the record upon which the ALJ could have found Plaintiff disabled. Buxton v. Halter, 246 F.3d 762, 772 (6th Cir.2001). Thus, the ALJ has a "`zone of choice' within which he [or she] can act without the fear of court interference." Id. at 773.

The second judicial inquiry — reviewing the correctness of the ALJ's legal analysis — may result in reversal even if the ALJ's decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record. Rabbers v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 582 F.3d 647, 651 (6th Cir.2009). "[A] decision of the Commissioner will not be upheld where the [Social Security Administration] fails to follow its own regulations and where that error prejudices a claimant on the merits or deprives the claimant of a substantial right." Bowen, 478 F.3d at 746.

B. "Disability" Defined

To be eligible for disability benefits, a claimant must be under a "disability" as defined by the Social Security Act. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). Narrowed to its statutory meaning, a "disability" includes physical and/or mental impairments that are both "medically determinable" and severe enough to prevent a claimant from (1) performing his or her past job and (2) engaging in "substantial gainful activity" that is available in the regional or national economies. Id.

Administrative regulations require a five-step sequential evaluation for disability determinations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). Although a dispositive finding at any step ends the ALJ's review, see Colvin, 475 F.3d at 730, the complete sequential review poses five questions:

20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4); see also Miller v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 181 F.Supp.2d 816, 818 (S.D.Ohio 2001). A claimant bears the ultimate burden of establishing that he or she is disabled under the Social Security Act's definition. Key v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 109 F.3d 270, 274 (6th Cir.1997).

III.

In his Statement of Errors, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred: (1) in his analysis of Listing § 12.05; (2) in weighing the opinions of consultative examiners Gordon Harris, Ph.D. and Stephen W. Halmi, Psy. D.; and (3) at Step Five of the sequential benefits analysis. Doc. 9 at PageID 442. Having reviewed the administrative record and the parties' briefs, and also having carefully considered the ALJ's decision, the Court finds that the ALJ carefully reviewed the record and appropriately assessed the evidence, reasonably concluded that Plaintiff's impairments do not meet or equal Listing § 12.05, and satisfied his burden at Step Five. The Court, therefore, finds the ALJ's analysis supported by substantial evidence, and affirms the ALJ's non-disability finding.

A. Listing § 12.05(C)

Plaintiff first argues that the ALJ erred at Step Three of the sequential benefits analysis in concluding that his impairments do not meet or medically equal Listing § 12.05(C). Doc. 9 at PageID 442-47.

The Listing of Impairments "describes impairments the SSA considers to be severe enough to prevent an individual from doing any gainful activity, regardless of his or her age, education, or work experience." Rabbers v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 582 F.3d 647, 653 (6th Cir.2009) (internal quotations omitted). "Because satisfying the [L]istings yields an automatic determination of disability ... the evidentiary standards [at Step Three] ... are more strenuous than for claims that proceed through the entire five-step evaluation." Peterson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 552 Fed.Appx. 533, 539 (6th Cir.2014). Plaintiff has the burden of proving that he or she meets or equals all of the criteria of a listed impairment. Evans v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 820 F.2d 161, 164 (6th Cir.1987).

Listing § 12.05 provides in relevant part:

20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, § 12.05. In other words, for a claimant to meet Listing § 12.05, he or she must meet the criteria under subsection A, B, C, or D, as well as "satisfy the diagnostic description" in the introductory paragraph, i.e., "(1) subaverage intellectual functioning; (2) onset before age twenty-two; and (3) adaptive-skills limitations." Hayes v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 357 Fed.Appx. 672, 675 (6th Cir.2009) (internal citations omitted).

"The adaptive skills prong evaluates a claimant's effectiveness in areas such as social skills, communication skills, and daily-living skills." Id. at 677 (internal citation omitted). Although Listing § 12.05 does not define "adaptive functioning," another portion of the Listings defines "adaptive activities" as "cleaning, shopping, cooking, taking public transportation, paying bills, maintaining a residence, caring appropriately for your grooming and hygiene, using telephones and directories, and using a post office." 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1 § 12.00(C)(1). The plain language of the Listing also does not identify how severe limitations must be to qualify as "deficits in adaptive functioning." Pendleton v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:10-cv-650, 2011 WL 7070519, at *11 (S.D.Ohio Dec. 23, 2011). Nevertheless, case law from the Sixth Circuit and other federal courts suggests that a claimant must have relatively significant deficits to satisfy the Listing. See Farnsworth v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 2:13-cv-923, 2015 WL 1476458, at *9 (S.D.Ohio Mar. 31, 2015) (collecting cases).

Here, with regard to Listing § 12.05(C), the ALJ found that:

PageID 65 (emphasis in original).

Substantial evidence supports the ALJ's Listing analysis. Although Plaintiff arguably satisfied the criteria under subsection C — with a Full Scale Intelligence Quotient ("IQ") of 65, PageID 422, and an anxiety disorder that the ALJ found to be "severe" at Step Two, PageID 64 — the ALJ reasonably concluded that Plaintiff did not meet the "deficits in adaptive functioning" prong in the introductory paragraph of Listing § 12.05. PageID 65. In so finding, as detailed above, the ALJ considered Plaintiff's testimony that he dropped out of school to raise his child (in addition to his academic difficulties, discussed in detail later in his decision, see PageID 68); his stable relationships with his mother, three children, and fiancé; and his ability to live alone and take care of his basic needs. PageID 65, 87. Importantly, also supporting the ALJ's conclusion is consultative examiner Dr. Harris' opinion that, although Plaintiff has "some limits to his cognitive functioning," he has "few limitations in his daily functioning, other than allowing other people to meet some of his needs, such as cooking and laundry, which he likely could do himself if he had to." PageID 353.

Plaintiff also argues that the ALJ erred in considering his ability to perform basic activities of daily living in the Listing analysis. Doc. 9 at PageID 443; doc. 11 at PageID 467. Such contention is without merit. Although Plaintiff correctly notes that an individual's daily activities are not considered to be substantial gainful activity, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1572(c), an ALJ is required to consider such evidence in analyzing the adaptive functioning prong of the introductory paragraph of Listing § 12.05. See Hayes, 357 Fed.Appx. at 677; see also 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1 § 12.00(C)(1). Such analysis occurred here, PageID 65, and the Court finds the ALJ's analysis supported by substantial evidence.

Accordingly, although there is evidence upon which the ALJ could have relied to find that Plaintiff met or equaled Listing § 12.05(C) — including his difficulties with reading and math, PageID 99-100; the fact that Plaintiff's mother has custody of his children (and the reasons supporting such custody), PageID 97, 102; and consultative examiner's Stephen Halmi, Psy.D.'s opinion, PageID 419-30 (discussed infra) — substantial evidence supports the ALJ's ultimate conclusion at Step Three. See Peterson, 552 Fed.Appx. at 539; see also Blakley v. Comm'r Of Soc. Sec., 581 F.3d 399, 406 (6th Cir.2009) ("[e]ven if there is substantial evidence in the record that would have supported an opposite conclusion[,]" the Court must give deference to the ALJ's decision if it is supported by substantial evidence).

B. Medical Source Opinions

Plaintiff next argues that the ALJ erred in weighing the opinions of consultative examiners Drs. Harris and Halmi. Doc. 9 at PageID 447. The regulations require that, unless the opinion of a treating source is entitled to controlling weight, an ALJ must "evaluate all medical opinions according to [the 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)] factors, regardless of their source[.]" Walton v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 187 F.3d 639, 1999 WL 506979, at *2 (6th Cir.1999). The ALJ's explanation in this regard must be "meaningful." Ott v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:08-CV-00399, 2009 WL 3199064, at *3 (S.D.Ohio Sept. 29, 2009). However, an ALJ need not give "an exhaustive factor-by-factor analysis." Francis v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 414 Fed. Appx. 802, 804 (6th Cir.2011) (citation omitted).

Dr. Harris performed a psychological evaluation of Plaintiff on May 9, 2011, and diagnosed him with Borderline Intellectual Functioning ("BIF") and an Anxiety Disorder Not Otherwise Specified ("NOS"). PageID 350-54. After conducting a mental status exam and clinical interview, Dr. Harris assigned Plaintiff a Global Assessment of Functioning ("GAF")3 score of 62 and concluded, inter alia, that, although limited by his BIF, Plaintiff is capable of carrying out instructions, responding appropriately to co-workers and supervisors, and responding appropriately to work pressures in a "relatively low pressured environment." PageID 353-54.

Shortly after the October 5, 2012 administrative hearing, Plaintiff was evaluated by Dr. Halmi on October 18, 2012. PageID 419-30. Dr. Halmi administered personality and intelligence testing, conducted a clinical interview, and reviewed records — including Dr. Harris' opinion, school records, and treatment notes from Sri Alwis, M.D. Id. Dr. Halmi diagnosed Plaintiff with an Anxiety Disorder NOS, a Depressive Disorder NOS, and MMR; assigned a GAF of 50; and concluded, inter alia, that while Plaintiff is capable of understanding and carrying out one and two step instructions, he would have "significant difficulty" maintaining attention, concentration persistence and pace; "some problems" responding appropriately to supervision and co-workers; and "would struggle to manage unforeseen, novel problems." PageID 427-28. Dr. Halmi further concluded that Plaintiff's intellectual abilities and adaptive functioning meet the diagnostic description of MMR, such that he would satisfy the Listing § 12.05(C) criteria. See PageID 426.

The ALJ afforded "great weight" to Dr. Harris' opinion, and "little weight" to Dr. Halmi's opinion, although he incorporated several of Dr. Halmi's findings into Plaintiff's RFC. PageID 66, 69, 72. Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred in granting greater weight to Dr. Harris' opinion that to Dr. Halmi's. Doc. 9 at PageID 447. The Court disagrees. The ALJ gave a meaningful explanation for his decision to accord Dr. Halmi's opinion little weight, as contemplated by the regulations. See PageID 71-72; Ott, 2009 WL 3199064, at *3. For example, the ALJ found Dr. Halmi's reliance on profiles of "similar people" when interpreting Plaintiff's Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 ("MMPI-2") results to be problematic, and referenced to specific pieces of evidence in the record including Plaintiff's testimony and treatment notes from sessions with a social worker in 2012 that contradicted Dr. Halmi's findings. PageID 72.

Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred in rejecting Dr. Halmi's opinion, including his GAF score of 50, because it was consistent with GAF scores in the 40's assigned by Plaintiff's counselor and Dr. Alwis in 2012. Doc. 9 at PageID 447. However, the undersigned notes the ALJ explained that he found Dr. Harris' GAF score of 62 "consistent with the objective findings and [Plaintiff's] ability to function without mental health treatment." PageID 69. Nevertheless, as stated by the Sixth Circuit, no "statutory, regulatory, or other authority require[s] the ALJ to put stock in a GAF score in the first place." Kornecky v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 167 Fed. Appx. 496, 511 (6th Cir.2006) (citation omitted). Further, the Court notes that Dr. Halmi's opinion, as an examining psychologist, is not entitled to any special deference. Wesley v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 205 F.3d 1343, 2000 WL 191664, at *6 (6th Cir.2000).

Ultimately, the ALJ chose to credit the findings of one mental health expert over another, after each examined Plaintiff on one occasion and conducted objective testing. See PageID 350-54, 419-30. Such a conclusion falls within the ALJ's "`zone of choice' within which he can act without the fear of court interference." Buxton, 246 F.3d at 773. Accordingly, Plaintiff's second assignment of error is overruled.

C. Step Five Determination

Finally, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ's Step Five determination — that work is available in the national economy that Plaintiff can perform — is unsupported by substantial evidence, because the ALJ inaccurately portrayed his impairments and limitations in the hypothetical question to the vocational expert ("VE"). Doc. 9 at PageID 450.

At Step Five, the Commissioner must make a finding "supported by substantial evidence that [Plaintiff] has the vocational qualifications to perform specific jobs." Howard v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 276 F.3d 235, 238 (6th Cir.2002) (internal citation omitted). "This kind of `substantial evidence may be produced through reliance on the testimony of a [VE] in response to a `hypothetical' question, but only if the question accurately portrays [Plaintiff's] individual physical and mental impairments.'" Id. (internal citation omitted). In formulating the hypothetical, the ALJ needs to incorporate only those limitations that he or she accepts as credible. See Casey v. Sec. of Health and Human Servs., 987 F.2d 1230, 1235 (6th Cir.1993).

The ALJ's hypothetical question to the VE was as follows:

PageID 106. Plaintiff argues that this hypothetical question was inaccurate because it portrayed an individual who could not perform "tandem work," while some evidence of record indicates that Plaintiff "has never been able to perform a job where he was not working in tandem with a family member or best friend."4 Doc. 9 at PageID 450 (emphasis in original). In support of this argument, Plaintiff cites to his own testimony, and Dr. Halmi's statement that he has not been able to work without accommodations in the past, namely direct supervision. Id.; see PageID 427. The Commissioner argues that the ALJ reasonably found Plaintiff's allegations regarding the extent of his limitations not fully credible, and was, therefore, not required to adopt a "tandem work" requirement into the hypothetical question to the VE. See doc. 10 at PageID 461.

The undersigned finds merit to the Commissioner's argument. The ALJ determined that Plaintiff's impairments could "reasonably be expected to require his assignment to unskilled work with limited social and stress demands ... [however,] the evidence of record ... does not fully support his recent statements with regard to the frequency, intensity and limiting effects of his symptoms." PageID 67. Notably, Plaintiff has not challenged the ALJ's credibility findings, see doc. 9, and the ALJ is only required to incorporate limitations that he accepts as credible. See Casey, 987 F.2d at 1235. Although Dr. Halmi stated that Plaintiff has required work accommodations in the past, PageID 427, such statement is based on Plaintiff's self-reporting, PageID 421-22, which, again, the ALJ found not fully credible. PageID 67. The ALJ's hypothetical question to the VE properly incorporated Dr. Harris' opinion regarding Plaintiff's functional limitations, which contained several restrictions related to Plaintiff's limited cognitive functioning and anxiety, PageID 106, but did not include a need for special accommodations, such as working in tandem. PageID 350-54.

Accordingly, the Court finds the ALJ's Step Five determination supported by substantial evidence, and overrules Plaintiff's final assignment of error.

IV.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds Plaintiff's assignments of error unmeritorious, and further finds the ALJ's non-disability determination supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly: (1) the Commissioner's non-disability finding is AFFIRMED; and (2) this case is CLOSED on the Court's docket.

IT IS SO ORDERED.