UNITSETDA TDEISS TRCIOCUTR T NORTHEDRNI STROIFCo Tm o EASTEDRINV ISION ) CASNEO . 52:0C V2 632 WILLIJAD.MO DSON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) JUDGDEO NALCD.N UGENT ) v. ) ) KILOKLIOJ AKAZI, ) ActCionmg'm or Sf o Sce.c ., ) ORDEARD OPTIRNEGP ORT ) AND RECOMMENDATION Defendant. ) ) Thmiastt ceorm beesfo trheCe o uurptot nhR ee panodrR te commenodfM aatgiiosntr ate JudDgaev Ai.Rd u i(zE.C# F1 9O)nN. o vem2b32e,0r 2 P0l,a i(n"tMDiroff.d sfiolnhe"id)s Compl(aEiC#nF1tc ) h alltehnfiegn idanelgc iosfDi eofenn dKanitlK oiljoak Aacztii,n g CommisosfSi oocnSieearcl ur (i"tCyo mmisdseinoyhniieansrpg "p )l,ifo crDa itsiaobni lity InsuBreannceeufi ntdTsei rtI olIfte h Seo cSieaclu Arcitt,Uy . 4S§2.§ C4 1.6 4(2iP3)u.,r suant tLo ocRaull7 e2 .)2t,(h cbea wsaes rtefMoea rrgeidsD tarvAai.tRd eu iz. MrD.o dsfiorfinsl tfoe rdd isabbeinleiofitnJty as n u2a62ry,0 1a8l,l etghhiaintsg disasbtiartlieiOndtc yt ober( EoCf#F 1 20T0)h1.ai5 ps.p liwcaadste inoanindeM dr . Dodson requaeh setaerbdie nfoangr A ed miniLsatJwru adt(gi"evA eL TJh"hi)es.ar icnogm meonnc ed Octo4b2,e0 r1T 9h.Ae L rJe vimeewdeidrc eaclod ridssa,cb oinlsiutelyvt aaltuitaohtnei ons, opinoifSo tnaAstg ee npchyy siancdih aenartsde, s tifrmoomaqn uya lvioficeadte ixopnearlt ("VET"hA)eL. dJ e termtihnMaertDd. o dshoatndh foel losweivniegmr pea irments: osteoarthorfti hlteeis ftsh oupledreirpart,he errdiaialsl e aarstee,r icoarsdciloevraostciucl ar diseaathseer,o socfthl een raotasirtiveseir thnye b ilaltoewerexartl r ewmiiittnhit eesrm ittent claudication, status post-surgical correction, high cardiac calcium score, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Based on the record and testimony, the ALJ also found that Mr. Dodson had residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform sedentary work, subject to some physical limitations, and that he had acquired sufficient work skills from past employment that are transferable to other occupations with which he has the capacity to perform. As such, the ALJ determined on February 7, 2020 that Mr. Dodson was not disabled. (ECF #10).

Mr. Dodson argues that: (1) the ALJ discounted all the medical opinions in the record and instead relied on their own lay interpretation of the evidence to create a finding of RFC; (2) the ALJ had the responsibility to recontact medical sources after evidence of worsening conditions that post-dated State Agency opinions came to light; and, (3) that the skills considered by the ALJ are more appropriately classified as “aptitudes” and not transferable as learned skills to perform sedentary work. Magistrate Judge David Ruiz issued a Report and Recommendation on January 20, 2022, addressing these arguments in turn. (ECF # 19). He recommended that the Commissioner’s final decision denying Mr. Dodson’s application for disability benefits be AFFIRMED.

The applicable district court standard of review for a magistrate’s report and recommendation depends upon whether objections were made to that report. When objections are made to a report and recommendation, the district court reviews the case de novo. This standard of review is provided by Fed R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). It states, in pertinent part, that “[t]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that is properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition. . . .” Mr. Dodson timely filed objections in this matter. (ECF #20). Accordingly, this Court will review the Report and Recommendation de novo.

Mr. Dodson raises two objections to Magistrate Judge Ruiz’s Report and Recommendation’s on the grounds that neither the ALJ’s determination of RFC, nor the inference that transferable skills were obtained from previous employment, are supported by substantial evidence. In response, Magistrate Judge Ruiz correctly asserts that a finding of RFC to perform sedentary work is consistent with the opinion of State Agency physician Dr. Trello and the opinion of consultative examiner Dr. Sioson, who opined that Mr. Dodson could lift or carry 20 pounds occasionally, 10 pounds frequently, and stand and sit for six hours each, as well as basic handling and manipulation. State Agency medical consultative opinions may constitute substantial evidence supporting an ALJ decision. See, e.g., Lemke v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 380 Fed. App’x. 599, 601 (9th Cir. 2010); Filus v. Astrue,

(7th Cir. 2012). As to Mr. Dodson’s claim that the ALJ should have recontacted medical sources when new evidence showed a worsening condition, Magistrate Judge Ruiz correctly pointed out in his Report and Recommendation that the burden is on the Claimant, not the ALJ, to produce any evidence to support his claim of disability. See King v. Berryhill, No. 3:16 CV 1184,

, at *18 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 23, 2017); Brown v. Comm’r Soc. Sec., 602 Fed. App’x. 328, 331 (6th Cir. 2015); Peterson v. Comm of Soc. Sec., No 1:16 CV 363,

, at *3 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 24, 2017). Therefore, the ALJ was not obligated to seek out additional information, and reliance on the entire medical record present at the hearing is proper. Finally, regarding Mr. Dodson’s last objection, Magistrate Judge Ruiz refers to the testimony of the VE which explicitly opined that Mr. Dodson would have acquired qualifying skills while owning and operating his business that would transfer to gainful sedentary jobs, such as communication, organization, multi-tasking, planning, and scheduling. Magistrate Judge Ruiz correctly asserts that such testimony from a VE establishes substantial evidence and that Mr.

Dodson’s lay opinion that these qualities are “aptitudes” do not have bearing on the weight of the evidence.

The Court has carefully reviewed the Report and Recommendation, Mr. Dodson’s objections, and the Defendant’s response. Magistrate Judge Ruiz has correctly addressed objections raised by Mr. Dodson. As such, Mr. Dodson’s objections are OVERRULED. Magistrate Judge Ruiz correctly determined that the ALJ’s finding of residual functional capacity and the presence of transferable skills was supported by substantial evidence and that the ALJ considered all the medical evidence presented. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge David A. Ruiz (ECF #19) is ADOPTED. The final decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED, and judgment is entered in favor of Defendant.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DONALD C. i | Senior United States District Judge

DATED: □ ancl 30, Lo»