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, Magistrate Judge.
This Social Security disability benefits appeal is before the undersigned for disposition based upon the parties' full consent. Doc. 8. At issue is whether the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") erred in finding Plaintiff not "disabled" and therefore unentitled to Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB"). This case is before the Court on Plaintiff's Statement of Errors (doc. 14), the Commissioner's memorandum in opposition (doc. 16), the administrative record (doc. 7),1 and the record as a whole.
I.
A. Procedural History
Plaintiff filed for DIB alleging a disability onset date of May 1, 2012. PageID 217-18. Plaintiff claims disability as a result of a number of alleged impairments including, inter alia, diabetes mellitus with neuropathy, obesity, right shoulder tendinitis, pancreatitis, anemia, right carpal tunnel syndrome, depression and anxiety. PageID 59.
After an initial denial of his application, Plaintiff received a hearing before ALJ Mark Hockensmith on August 25, 2015. PageID 80-117. The ALJ issued a written decision on October 13, 2015 finding Plaintiff not disabled. PageID 57-72. Specifically, the ALJ found at Step Five that, based upon Plaintiff's residual functional capacity ("RFC") to perform a reduced range of light work,2 "there were jobs in that existed in significant numbers in the national economy that [Plaintiff] could have performed[.]" PageID 62-72.
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 33-36. See Casey v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 987 F.2d 1230, 1233 (6th Cir. 1993). Plaintiff then filed this timely appeal. Cook v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 480 F.3d 432, 435 (6th Cir. 2007).
B. Evidence of Record
The evidence of record is adequately summarized in the ALJ's decision (PageID 59-72), Plaintiff's Statement of Errors (doc. 14) and the Commissioner's memorandum in opposition (doc. 16). The undersigned incorporates all of the foregoing and sets forth the facts relevant to this appeal herein.
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 (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 v. Barnhart, 475 F.3d 727, 730 (6th Cir. 2007), the complete sequential review poses five questions:
1. Has the claimant engaged in substantial gainful activity?
2. Does the claimant suffer from one or more severe impairments?
3. Do the claimant's severe impairments, alone or in combination, meet or equal the criteria of an impairment set forth in the Commissioner's Listing of Impairments (the "Listings"), 20 C.F.R. Subpart P, Appendix 1?
4. Considering the claimant's RFC, can he or she perform his or her past relevant work?
5. Assuming the claimant can no longer perform his or her past relevant work — and also considering the claimant's age, education, past work experience, and RFC — do significant numbers of other jobs exist in the national economy which the claimant can perform?
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 disability 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 asserts a single assignment of error alleging that the ALJ erred in assessing his credibility. Doc. 14 at PageID 1332. In so arguing, Plaintiff contends that the ALJ inappropriately relied on the fact that, although Plaintiff believed he suffered from bone marrow cancer, he was never diagnosed with such a condition. Id.
Notably, the lack of a bone marrow cancer diagnosis is only one of many reasons set forth by the ALJ in finding Plaintiff's allegations of disabling symptoms not credible. See PageID 64-68. The most significant reason relied upon by the ALJ, in finding Plaintiff's allegations not entirely credible, was his conclusion that Plaintiff's allegations were unsupported by the medical evidence of record — a basis Plaintiff does not challenge on appeal. See id. There being other substantial evidence upon which the ALJ reasonably based his credibility finding, the Court finds no merit to Plaintiff's lone alleged error. See Johnson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 535 F. App'x.498, 507 (6th Cir. 2013) (holding that credibility determinations based on partially invalid reasons amounts to harmless error so long as substantial evidence remains to support the determination).
Having carefully reviewed the administrative record and the parties' briefs, and also having carefully considered the ALJ's analysis leading to the non-disability finding here at issue, the Court finds the ALJ carefully and reasonably developed and reviewed the record; appropriately considered the medical evidence at issue; properly weighed opinion evidence based upon reasons supported by substantial evidence; reasonably assessed Plaintiff's credibility; accurately determined Plaintiff's RFC; and appropriately determined that Plaintiff can perform a significant number of jobs in the national economy.
Accordingly, the Court AFFIRMS the ALJ's non-disability finding as supported by substantial evidence and TERMINATES this case on the Court's docket.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
