Nelson v. Commissioner Social Security Administration, 1:23-cv-01911

Plaintiff Kimberly Nelson sought judicial review of the Social Security Administration’s denial of Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI).
Nelson, with multiple medical impairments (back degeneration, fibromyalgia, diabetes, orthopedic problems, depression, and moderate dementia), alleged she was unable to work due to these conditions.
Procedurally, Nelson’s 2019 claims were initially denied by the ALJ, remanded by the Appeals Council, and again decided unfavorably by the ALJ in 2022, with the Appeals Council declining review—making the ALJ’s second decision final.
Key medical opinions included treating physicians who provided restrictive functional assessments, and state agency consultants who assigned less severe limitations.
The ALJ determined, at Step Five of the sequential process, that while Nelson could not perform past work, there were sedentary national jobs she could do, thus she was not disabled.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the ALJ properly analyzed medical	ALJ failed to properly evaluate treating physicians' opinions using	ALJ correctly analyzed supportability and consistency of medical	ALJ applied correct standards; substantial evidence supported
opinion evidence under agency rules	regulatory factors and did not support his findings with substantial	opinions in accordance with regulations.	the persuasiveness determinations.
	evidence.
Whether the ALJ properly considered Nelson’s	ALJ improperly evaluated subjective pain and symptom testimony,	ALJ followed correct standards and considered multiple regulatory factors	ALJ’s decision, read as a whole, adequately addressed regulatory factors
subjective complaints under SSR 16-3p	failed to clearly articulate how regulatory factors were used.	and supported findings with substantial evidence.	and is supported by substantial evidence; no remand warranted.

Walters v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 127 F.3d 525 (6th Cir. 1997) (recites five-step disability analysis and burden-shifting framework)
McClanahan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 474 F.3d 830 (6th Cir. 2006) (substantial evidence standard for reviewing Commissioner’s findings)
Jones v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 336 F.3d 469 (6th Cir. 2003) (affirming Commissioner when substantial evidence supports ALJ’s choice in the "zone of choice")
Mullen v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 535 (6th Cir. 1986) (deference to the Commissioner due to the "zone of choice" provided by substantial evidence)
Brainard v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 889 F.2d 679 (6th Cir. 1989) (court cannot reweigh the evidence or make credibility determinations)