govinfo:USCOURTS-ohsd-3_25-cv-00145-1

TAURUS B .. 1, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON 

Judge Walter H. Rice 
COMMISSIONER OF 
SOCIAL SECURITY, 
Mag. Judge Kimberly A. Jolson 
Defendant. 
DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE {DOC. #17), AND 
OVERRULING OBJECTIONS THERETO OF PLAINTIFF, TAURUS B. (DOC. 
#18); JUDGMENT SHALL ENTER IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT 
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY AND AGAINST PLAINTIFF, 
AFFIRMING THE DEFENDANT COMMISSIONER'S DECISION THAT 
PLAINTIFF WAS NOT DISABLED AND, THEREFORE, NOT ENTITLED TO 
BENEFITS UNDER THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT; TERMINATION ENTRY 
Plaintiff Taurus B. {"Plaintiff") has brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 
405(9) to review a decision of the Defendant Commissioner of Social Security 
{"Commissioner"), denying Plaintiff's application for Supplemental Security 
Income. On April 24, 2026, Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson filed a Report 
and Recommendations (Report, Doc. #17), recommending that the Commissioner's 
1 "The Committee on Court Administration and Case Management of the Judicial Conference of the 
United States has recommended that, due to significant privacy concerns in social security cases[,] 
federal courts should refer to plaintiffs only by their first names and last initials." S.D. OHIO GEN.A. 
22-01. 
1 
Case: 3:25-cv-00145-WHR-KAJ Doc #: 20 Filed: 06/02/26 Page: 1 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageID>
decision that Plaintiff was not disabled and, therefore, not entitled to benefits under 
the Social Security Act(" Act"), 42 U.S.C. § 301 et seq., be affirmed. Based upon 
reasoning and citations of authority set forth in the Report, a thorough de nova 
review of this Court's file, including the Administrative Record (Doc. #7), and a 
thorough review of the applicable law, this Court ADOPTS the Report and 
Recommendations and OVERRULES Plaintiff's Objections (Doc. #18) thereto. The 
Court, in so doing, affirms the decision of the Commissioner that Plaintiff is not 
disabled and, therefore, not entitled to benefits under the Act. 
I. Legal Standards 
Under Rule 72(b), this Court must review de nova any timely, specific 
objection to a report and recommendations. "The district judge may accept, 
reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return 
the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions." FED.R.CIv.P. 72(b)(3). In 
reviewing the Commissioner's decision, the Court's task is to determine if the 
record as a whole constitutes "substantial evidence" that supports the 
Commissioner's finding of non-disability 42 U.S.C. § 405(9). "The threshold for 
such evidentiary sufficiency is not high. Substantial evidence, this Court has said, 
is more than a mere scintilla. It means-and means only-such relevant evidence 
as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Biestek 
v. Berryhill, 587 U.S. 97, 103 (2019) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); 
accord Brainard v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 889 F.2d 679,681 (6th Cir. 
2 
Case: 3:25-cv-00145-WHR-KAJ Doc #: 20 Filed: 06/02/26 Page: 2 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageID>
1989) (emphasis added) ("Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla of evidence 
but less than a preponderance[.]"). 
In determining "whether there is substantial evidence in the record ... we 
review the evidence in the record taken as a whole." Wilcox v. Sullivan, 917 F.2d 
272, 276-77 (6th Cir. 1980) (citing Allen. v. Califano, 613 F.2d 139, 145 (6th Cir. 
1980)). However, the Court "may not try the case de novo[;J nor resolve conflicts 
in evidence[;] nor decide questions of credibility." Jordan v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 
548 F.3d 417,422 (6th Cir. 2008) (quoting Garner v. Heckler, 745 F.2d 383,387 (6th 
Cir. 1984)). "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 (6th Cir. 2001 ). Rather, if the 
Commissioner's "findings are supported by substantial evidence, then we must 
affirm the [Commissioner's] decision[,] even though as triers of fact we might have 
arrived at a different result." Elkins v. Sec'y of Health and Human Servs., 658 F.2d 
437,439 (6th Cir. 1981). 
II. Analysis 
In addition to the foregoing, this Court makes the following, non-exclusive, 
observations: 
1. Plaintiff objects that the Report relies upon cases that rely upon SSR 
96-7p, and predate the adoption of SSR16-3p, in declining to disturb the credibility 
findings of the Commissioner's Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"). (Doc. #18, 
3 
Case: 3:25-cv-00145-WHR-KAJ Doc #: 20 Filed: 06/02/26 Page: 3 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageID>
PAGEID 3608-09, citing Doc. #17, PAGEID 3594; see also SSR 96-7p, Policy 
Interpretation Ruling Titles II And XVI: Evaluation of Symptoms In Disability Claims: 
Assessing The Credibility Of An Individual's Statements, 1996 WL 374186 (Jul. 2, 
1996), superseded by SSR 16-3p, Titles II And XVI: Evaluation of Symptoms In 
Disability Claims, 2017 WL 5180304 (Oct. 25, 2017)). Specifically, Plaintiff argues 
that, in violation of SSR 16-3p, the ALJ improperly discounted Plaintiff's credibility 
due to his nonadherence with his medication regimen, without adequately 
considering Plaintiff's stated reasons for not adhering to the regimen. (Id at 
PAGEID 3609-10, quoting Stmt. of Errors, Doc. #10, PAGEID 3565-66, in turn quoting 
SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, *9). 
However, the ALJ expressly considered the side effects Plaintiff claims to 
have suffered from his medication and concluded that the side effects were not 
debilitating, as Plaintiff demonstrated adequate functioning even under a 
conservative treatment plan and while still abusing substances. (ALJ Decision, 
Doc. #7-2, PAGEID 1808). The ALJ further discussed Plaintiff's symptoms and 
their lack of support in medical evidence of record. (Id at PAGEID 1790-95). The 
ALJ nonetheless incorporated Plaintiff's subjective statements by assigning an RFC 
of light work (id at PAGEID 1785), which was necessarily more restrictive than the 
"range of medium exertional level work" opined by "the non-examining physicians 
with the Division of Disability Determination[.]" (Id at PAGEID 1808, citing Admin. 
4 
Case: 3:25-cv-00145-WHR-KAJ Doc #: 20 Filed: 06/02/26 Page: 4 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Record, Doc. #7-2, PAGEID 123-24, 137-38). In sum, the ALJ more than adequately 
considered and accounted for Plaintiff's reasons why he has not been consistent 
with his treatment, meaning that the ALJ's credibility findings and opined RFC were 
supported by substantial evidence. Consequently, Plaintiff's objection must be 
overruled. 
2. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge rejected Plaintiff's contention that 
the ALJ failed to explain why, having accorded "some weight" to the opinion of 
James Washburn, D.O., some of Dr. Washburn's opined limitations were not 
adopted. (Doc. #17, PAGEID 3599-3603, citing Doc. #10, PAGEID 3567-68). The 
Magistrate Judge also rejected a similar contention with respect to the opinion of 
Michael Lace, Psy.D. (Id at PAGEID 3603-06, citing Doc. #10, PAGEID 3568). 
Plaintiff objects that the Magistrate Judge improperly excused the ALJ from her 
obligation to explain why she did not adopt the opinions of Drs. Lace and 
Washburn when formulating an RFC that did not contain their opined limitations. 
(Doc. #18, PAGEID 3610, quoting SSR 96-8p, Policy Interpretation Ruling Titles II 
And XVI: Evaluation of Symptoms In Disability Claims: Assessing Residual 
Functional Capacity in Initial Claims, 1996 WL 374184, *7 (Jul. 2, 1996)). 
In fact, the ALJ extensively explained which portions of Dr. Washburn's 
testimony were consistent with other evidence of record, and, in fact, assigned 
"additional restrictions to address the totality of [Plaintiff's] gastrointestinal 
5 
Case: 3:25-cv-00145-WHR-KAJ Doc #: 20 Filed: 06/02/26 Page: 5 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageID>
symptoms, including ready access to a restroom." (Doc. #7-2, PAGEID 1810-11 ). 
However, in declining to adopt all of the restrictions opined by Dr. Washburn, the 
ALJ relied upon Plaintiff's "noncompliance with testing and treatment, along with 
his relatively steady weight and generally unremarkable laboratory findings 
throughout the period under review[.]" (Id. at PAGEID 1811 ). This is more than 
sufficient explanation as to why Dr. Washburn's opinion was not afforded greater 
weight in the RFC formulation. 
Similarly, the ALJ discussed Dr. Lace's testimony and incorporated some of 
the opined limitations into the RFC-specifically, the ALJ limited Plaintiff to simple 
decision-making, only occasional contact with coworkers or supervisors, and jobs 
without access to alcohol. (Doc. #7-2, PAGEID 1785). All of these limitations 
were opined by Dr. Lace in his testimony. (Id. at PAGEID 1812-13). The ALJ 
explained that Dr. Lace's opinion was given only "some weight" because it was 
"only somewhat supported by and consistent with the record, which demonstrates 
a history of mental health treatment with some abnormalities on examination that 
are not work[-]preclusive." (Id. at PAGEID 1813). However, the ALJ "found a 
moderate limitation in understanding, remembering, and applying information," 
(id. at PAGEID 1813), which was more restrictive than the mild limitation opined by 
Dr. Lace. (Id. at PAGEID 1812). In sum, the ALJ gave detailed reasoning in her 
evaluation of Dr. Lace's opinion, and, in fact, concluded in some areas, Dr. Lace's 
6 
Case: 3:25-cv-00145-WHR-KAJ Doc #: 20 Filed: 06/02/26 Page: 6 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageID>
opined restrictions did not go far enough. The above is precisely the type of 
explanation required by SSR 96-8p, and Plaintiff's objection that the ALJ failed to 
comply must be overruled. 
Ill. Conclusion 
Based on the above, this Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendations of 
the Magistrate Judge (Doc. #17) and OVERRULES Plaintiff's Objections thereto. 
(Doc. #18). Judgment shall enter in favor of the Commissioner and against 
Plaintiff, affirming the Commissioner's finding that Plaintiff is not disabled and not 
entitled to benefits under the Act. 
The captioned cause is hereby ordered terminated upon the docket records 
of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western 
Division, at Dayton. 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
June 1, 2026 
7 
WALTER H. RICE, JUDGE 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
Case: 3:25-cv-00145-WHR-KAJ Doc #: 20 Filed: 06/02/26 Page: 7 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight