MEMORANDUM OPINION ORDER

GREG WHITE, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff Joyce A. Jaworski ("Jaworski") challenges the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, Michael J. Astrue ("Commissioner"), denying Jaworski's claim for a Period of Disability ("POD"), Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB"), and Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") under Title II and XVI of the Social Security Act ("Act"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 416(i), 423, 1381 et seq. Jaworski also filed a Title II application for disabled widow's benefits pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 402(e). This matter is before the Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and the consent of the parties entered under the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(2).

For the reasons set forth below, the final decision of the Commissioner is VACATED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I. Procedural History

On April 19, 2007, Jaworski filed an application for POD, DIB, and SSI alleging a disability onset date of August 10, 2005. Her application was denied both initially and upon reconsideration. Jaworski timely requested an administrative hearing.

On January 7, 2009, an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") held a hearing during which Jaworski, represented by counsel, testified. Nancy J. Borgeson testified as an impartial vocational expert ("VE"). On March 16, 2009, the ALJ found Jaworski was able to perform her past relevant work and, therefore, was not disabled. The ALJ's decision became the final decision of the Commissioner when the Appeals Council denied further review.

II. Evidence

Personal and Vocational Evidence

Age fifty-five (55) at the time of her administrative hearing, Jaworski is a "person of advanced age" under social security regulations. (Tr. 410.) See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1563(e) & 416.963(e). Jaworski has a tenth grade education and was working on her GED at the time of the hearing. (Tr. 422.) She has past relevant work as a general electronics assembler, administrative assistant, receptionist, pharmacy technician, and a salesperson. (Tr. 439-40.)

Hearing Testimony

At the hearing, Jaworski testified to the following:

III. Standard for Disability

In order to establish entitlement to DIB under the Act, a claimant must be insured at the time of disability and must prove an inability to engage "in substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment," or combination of impairments, that can be expected to "result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months." 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.130, 404.315 and 404.1505(a).1

A claimant is entitled to a POD only if: (1) she had a disability; (2) she was insured when she became disabled; and (3) she filed while she was disabled or within twelve months of the date the disability ended. 42 U.S.C. § 416(i)(2)(E); 20 C.F.R. § 404.320.

Jaworski was insured on her alleged disability onset date, August 10, 2005, and remained insured through December 31, 2010. (Tr. 15.) Therefore, in order to be entitled to POD and DIB, Jaworski must establish a continuous twelve month period of disability commencing between these dates. Any discontinuity in the twelve month period precludes an entitlement to benefits. See Mullis v. Bowen, 861 F.2d 991, 994 (6th Cir. 1988); Henry v. Gardner, 381 F.2d 191, 195 (6th Cir. 1967).

A claimant may also be entitled to receive SSI benefits when she establishes disability within the meaning of the Act. 20 C.F.R. § 416.905; Kirk v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 667 F.2d 524 (6th Cir. 1981). To receive SSI benefits, a claimant must also meet certain income and resource limitations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.1100 and 416.1201.

IV. Summary of Commissioner's Decision

The ALJ found Jaworski established medically determinable, severe impairments, due to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, scoliosis, degenerative disc disease, fibromyalgia, restless leg syndrome, hypertension, and migraine headaches. (Tr. 18.) However, her impairments, either singularly or in combination, did not meet or equal one listed in 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1. Jaworski was found capable of performing her past work activities, and was determined to have a Residual Functional Capacity ("RFC") for a limited range of sedentary work.

V. Standard of Review

This Court's review is limited to determining whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support the ALJ's findings of fact and whether the correct legal standards were applied. See Elam v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 348 F.3d 124, 125 (6th Cir. 2003) ("decision must be affirmed if the administrative law judge's findings and inferences are reasonably drawn from the record or supported by substantial evidence, even if that evidence could support a contrary decision."); Kinsella v. Schweiker, 708 F.2d 1058, 1059 (6th Cir. 1983). Substantial evidence has been defined as "[e]vidence which a reasoning mind would accept as sufficient to support a particular conclusion. It consists of more than a mere scintilla of evidence but may be somewhat less than a preponderance." Laws v. Celebrezze, 368 F.2d 640, 642 (4th Cir. 1966); see also Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (1971).

The findings of the Commissioner are not subject to reversal merely because there exists in the record substantial evidence to support a different conclusion. Buxton v. Halter, 246 F.3d 762, 772-3 (6th Cir. 2001) (citing Mullen, 800 F.2d 535, 545 (6th Cir. 1986)); see also Her v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 203 F.3d 388, 389-90 (6th Cir. 1999)("Even if the evidence could also support another conclusion, the decision of the Administrative Law Judge must stand if the evidence could reasonably support the conclusion reached. See Key v. Callahan, 109 F.3d 270, 273 (6th Cir. 1997).") This is so because there is a "zone of choice" within which the Commissioner can act, without the fear of court interference. Mullen, 800 F.2d at 545 (citing Baker v. Heckler, 730 F.2d 1147, 1150 (8th Cir. 1984)).

In addition to considering whether the Commissioner's decision was supported by substantial evidence, the Court must consider whether the proper legal standard was applied. Failure of the Commissioner to apply the correct legal standards as promulgated by the regulations or failure to provide the reviewing court with a sufficient basis to determine that the Commissioner applied the correct legal standards are grounds for reversal where such failure prejudices a claimant on the merits or deprives a claimant of a substantial right. See White v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 572 F.3d 272 (6th Cir. 2009); Bowen v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 478 F.3d 742, 746 (6th Cir. 2006).

VI. Analysis

Treating Physician Rule

Jaworski asserts that the ALJ erred by failing to adequately address the opinion of her treating physician, Dhia Aldoori, M.D. (ECF No. 13 at 8-11.) Specifically, Jaworski asserts that the ALJ — who found that Dr. Aldoori's opinion should receive less than controlling weight — failed to meet the minimum articulation requirements of the regulations. Id. at 9.

Under Social Security regulations, the opinion of a treating physician is entitled to controlling weight if such opinion (1) "is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques" and (2) "is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record." Meece v. Barnhart, 192 F. App'x 456, 560 (6th Cir. 2006) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)). "[A] finding that a treating source medical opinion . . . is inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record means only that the opinion is not entitled to `controlling weight,' not that the opinion should be rejected." Blakley v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 581 F.3d 399 (6th Cir. 2009) (quoting Soc. Sec. Rul. 96-2p, 1996 SSR LEXIS 9 at *9). "If the ALJ declines to give a treating source's opinion controlling weight, he must then balance the following factors to determine what weight to give it: `the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability of the opinion, consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and specialization of the treating source.'" Cole v. Astrue, 661 F.3d 931 (6th Cir. 2011) (quoting Wilson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 378 F.3d 541, 544 (6th Cir. 2004); Meece, 192 Fed. App'x at 460-61 (Even if not entitled to controlling weight, the opinion of a treating physician is generally entitled to more weight than other medical opinions.)

Nonetheless, the opinion of a treating physician must be based on sufficient medical data, and upon detailed clinical and diagnostic test evidence. See Harris v. Heckler, 756 F.2d 431, 435 (6th Cir. 1985); Bogle v. Sullivan, 998 F.2d 342, 347-48 (6th Cir. 1993); Blakley, 581 F.3d at 406 ("It is an error to give an opinion controlling weight simply because it is the opinion of a treating source if it is not well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques or if it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the case record.") (quoting SSR 96-2p).2

On June 28, 2007, Dr. Aldoori opined that Jaworski could stand/walk for less than thirty minutes in an eight-hour work day, could lift/carry less than three pounds, had moderate limitation in her ability to bend, and had marked limitation in her ability to push/pull. (Tr. 205.) At the time, Dr. Aldoori found that Jaworski's ability to sit was not affected. Id. On November 8, 2007, Dr. Aldoori completed another basic medical form finding greater restrictions on Jaworski's ability to function. (Tr. 202.) Notably, Dr. Aldoori opined that Jaworski's ability to stand/walk was reduced to less than fifteen minutes in an eight-hour work day, and that her ability to sit was also similarly limited. Id. Dr. Aldoori found that Jaworski had a marked limitation in her ability to bend, push/pull, and to perform repetitive foot movements. Id. In addition, Jaworski's ability to reach and handle was noted to be moderately limited. Id.

The ALJ's total analysis concerning the weight ascribed to Dr. Aldoori's opinion is as follows:

(Tr. 20.)

The inadequacy of the ALJ's opinion is highlighted by the Commissioner's brief. Rather than focusing solely on the actual opinion wherein the treating physician's opinions were essentially rejected, the Commissioner argues that Dr. Aldoori drastically altered Jaworski's sitting abilities in a matter of months. This observation is not found anywhere in the ALJ's opinion. (ECF No. 17 at 9.) Furthermore, even if the opinion that dramatically altered Jaworski's ability to sit were to be set aside, Dr. Aldoori consistently opined in both medical forms that Jaworski was limited to less than thirty minutes of standing/walking. This opinion was implicitly rejected in light of the ALJ's finding that Jaworski could stand/walk for two hours in an eight-hour work day. (Tr. 19.) Thus, discrepancies in the two forms — completed just months apart — are an insufficient reason to reject the standing/walking portion that is relatively consistent.

The Commissioner cannot cure a deficient opinion by offering explanations not provided by the ALJ. As this Court has previously noted, "arguments [crafted by defense counsel] are of no consequence, as it is the opinion given by an administrative agency rather than counsel's `post hoc rationale' that is under the Court's consideration." See, e.g., Bable v. Astrue, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83635, 27-28 (N.D. Ohio, Oct. 31, 2007) (citing NLRB v. Ky. River Cmty. Care, Inc., 532 U.S. 706, 715, n.1, (2001)); Sarchet v. Chater, 78 F.3d 305, 307 (7th Cir. 1996) ("we cannot uphold a decision by an administrative agency . . . if, while there is enough evidence in the record to support the decision, the reasons given by the trier of fact do not build an accurate and logical bridge between the evidence and the result."); cf. Johnson v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 794 F.2d 1106, 1113 (6th Cir. 1986) (rejecting Defendant's post hoc rationale that obesity is per se remediable where there was no factual basis or findings of fact in the record to support such an argument).

The ALJ's own reasons for not ascribing controlling weight to Dr. Aldoori's opinions are perfunctory and conclusory. Without any meaningful analysis, the Court cannot discern in what manner Dr. Aldoori's opinion was inconsistent with other unidentified "substantial evidence." Similarly, though the ALJ also concludes that Dr. Aldoori's opinion is not consistent with Jaworski's daily activities, it is unclear how. Because the ALJ did not provide an analysis that is sufficiently specific, Jaworski's argument that the ALJ failed to properly articulate the weight given to Dr. Aldoori is well-taken. The Court is unable to trace the path of the ALJ's reasoning. Though the ALJ certainly was not bound to accept Dr. Aldoori's opinion, the analysis was insufficient under the Administration's procedural rules.

Severe Impairment

Jaworski also asserts that the ALJ erred by failing to find that her depression constituted a "severe impairment" at Step Two of the sequential analysis. (ECF No. 13 at 11-14.) The ALJ found that Jaworski's mental impairment caused no more than mild limitations and, therefore, pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520a(d)(1), was not "severe."3 (Tr. 18.) The Sixth Circuit construes the step two severity regulation as a "de minimis hurdle," Rogers v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 486 F.3d 234, 243 n.2 (6th Cir. 2007), intended to "screen out totally groundless claims." Farris v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 773 F.2d 85, 89 (6th Cir. 1985). Thus, if an impairment has "more than a minimal effect" on the claimant's ability to do basic work activities, the ALJ must treat it as "severe." S.S.R. 96-3p, 1996 WL 374181 at *1. However, where an ALJ makes a finding of severity as to even one impairment, the ALJ "must consider limitations and restrictions imposed by all of an individual's impairments, even those that are not `severe.'" S.S.R. 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184, at *5. When the ALJ considers all of a claimant's impairments in the remaining steps of the disability determination, the ALJ's failure to find additional severe impairments at step two does "not constitute reversible error." Maziarz v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 837 F.2d 240, 244 (6th Cir. 1987); see also Nejat v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 359 Fed. Appx. 574, 576-577 (6th Cir. 2009).

As it has already determined that a remand is necessary, the Court declines to address the merits of this argument. Nonetheless, upon remand, the ALJ should consider whether an impairment is severe utilizing the de minimis standard applied in this circuit.

Pain Analysis

Finally, Jaworski argues that the ALJ erred in his analysis of her pain and other symptoms. (ECF No. 13 at 15-16.) The ALJ's pain analysis focused, in large part, on Jaworski's activities. (Tr. 20.) Because the Court has determined that a remand is necessary for greater articulation as to the weight conferred upon the opinion of treating physician Dr. Aldoori — an opinion ostensibly rejected primarily due to the claimant's daily activities — it is unnecessary to determine whether the ALJ also erred in his pain analysis. The new opinion should address Jaworski's activities and discuss their consistency/inconsistency with the functional limitations found by Dr. Aldoori in greater detail.

VII. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds the decision of the Commissioner not supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the decision of the Commissioner is VACATED and the case is REMANDED, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) sentence four, for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.