Cluster 4246559

Sec., 656 Fed.

Sec., 656 F. App'x 162, 173 (6th Cir. 2016) (“The ALJ contrasted Sorrell’s ability to do daily activities with her reports of pain—noting that Sorrell is “able to prepare simple meals, perform various household duties with breaks, handle personal care, drive, and shop”); Bogle v. Sullivan, 998 F.2d 342, 348 (6th Cir. 1993) (a claimant’s ability to perform household and social activities on a daily basis is contrary to a finding of disability).

Sec., 656 F. App'x 162, 173 (6th Cir. 2016) (“The ALJ contrasted Sorrell’s ability to do daily activities with her reports of pain—noting that Sorrell is “able to prepare simple meals, perform various household duties with breaks, handle personal care, drive, and shop”); Bogle v. Sullivan, 998 F.2d 342, 348 (6th Cir. 1993) (a claimant’s ability to perform household and social activities on a daily basis is contrary to a finding of disability).

Sec., 656 F. App’x 162, 173 (6th Cir. 2016) (“The ALJ contrasted Sorrell’s ability to do daily activities with her reports of pain—noting that Sorrell is “able to prepare simple meals, perform various household duties with breaks, handle personal care, drive, and shop”); Bogle v. Sullivan, 998 F.2d 342, 348 (6th Cir. 1993) (a claimant’s ability to perform household and social activities on a daily basis is contrary to a finding of disability).

Sec., 656 F. App’x 162, 174 (6th Cir. 2016) (applying Cox, but finding “the ALJ provided an adequate explanation of the adverse credibility finding, pointing to, among other things, Sorrell’s inconsistent statements, and her failure to provide medical evidence supporting her claims regarding the intensity and pervasiveness of her pain”); Hernandez v. Comm’r of Soc.

Sec., 656 F. App’x 162, 168 (6th Cir. 2016) (citing Bowen v. Comm’r of Soc.

Sec., 656 F. App’x 162, 170 (6th Cir. 2016) (“[T]he ALJ was not required to include a limitation for elevating legs in the RFC because, although there were some treatment records that mentioned leg elevation as a treatment for edema, no physician indicated that Sorrell's edema caused work-related functional limitations, and no medical expert opined Case No. 2:25-cv-293 Page 7 of 8 that Sorrell would need to elevate her feet to waist level during the workday or even every day…

Sec., the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that an ALJ did not err by omitting a leg-elevation limitation in a plaintiff’s RFC. 656 F. App’x 162, 170 (6th Cir. 2016).

Sec., 656 F. App’x 162, 169 (6th Cir. 2016).

Sec., 656 F. App’x 162, 171 (6th Cir. 2016) (quoting Martin v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 735 F.2d 1008, 1010 (6th Cir. 1984)).

Sec., 656 F. App'x 162, 170 (6th Cir. 2016) (rejecting claimant’s argument that ALJ failed to consider need to elevate legs in calculating residual functional capacity because, despite claimant’s testimony, “no medical expert opined that [the claimant] would need to elevate her feet to waist level during the workday or even every day”); Lyon v. Saul, No. 5:20-CV-00121-LLK, 2021 WL 2403151 , at *2 (W.D.

Sec., 656 F. App’x 162, 174 (6th Cir. 2016) (finding use of template language “is not by itself erroneous” where the “ALJ provide[s] an adequate explanation of the adverse credibility finding, pointing to, among other things, [claimant’s] inconsistent statements, and her failure to provide medical evidence supporting her claims regarding the intensity and pervasiveness of her pain”); Barnes v. Comm'r of Soc.

Sec., 656 Fed.

Sec., 656 F. App’x 162, 170 (6th Cir. 2016) (“the ALJ was not required to include a limitation for elevating legs in the RFC because, although there were some treatment records that mentioned leg elevation as a treatment for edema, no physician indicated that Sorrell’s edema caused work- related functional limitations, and no medical expert opined that Sorrell would need to elevate her feet to waist level during the workday or even every day.”).

Sec., 656 F. App’x 162, 170 (6th Cir. 2016).

Sec., 656 F. App’x 162, 170 (6th Cir. 2016) (“the ALJ was not required to include a limitation for elevating legs in the RFC because, although there were some treatment records that mentioned leg elevation as a treatment for edema, no physician indicated that Sorrell’s edema caused work-related functional limitations, and no medical expert opined that Sorrell would need to elevate her feet to waist level during the workday or even every day.”).

Sec., 656 F. App'x 162, 170 (6th Cir. 2016).

Sedentary work would include sitting for approximately 6 hours of an 8- hour workday. , 656 F. App’x 162, 172 (6th Cir. 2016) (citing SSR 96-9p).

Sec., 656 F. App’x 162, 172 (6th Cir. 2016).

Sec., 656 F. App’x 162, 174 (6th Cir. 2016).

Sec., 656 F. App’x 162, 169 (6th Cir. 2016) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 423 (d)(1)(A)). - 13 - No. 18-5136, Amburgey v. Comm’r of Soc.

Sec., 656 Fed.Appx. 162, 174 (6th Cir. 2016) (citing Cruse v. Comm’r of Soc.

See Sorrell, 656 F. App’x at 174–75 (6th Cir. 2016) (contrasting claimant’s daily activities with reports of physical pain to make a credibility finding about claimant’s limitations).