Dawn Mabry-Schlicher v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
Court
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
Decided
June 6, 2025
Jurisdiction
F
Practice Areas
Case Summary
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 25a0278n.06 No. 24-3811 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED Jun 06, 2025 DAWN MABRY-SCHLICHER, ) KELLY L. STEPHENS, Clerk ) Plaintiff-Appellant, ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED v. ) STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR ) THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL ) OHIO SECURITY, ) Defendant-Appellee. ) OPINION ) Before: CLAY, KETHLEDGE, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges. JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge. Dawn Mabry-Schlicher applied for disability benefits based on severe anxiety and depression, among other disabilities. After the Social Security Administration (SSA) rejected the application, the district court remanded the application to the agency with instructions to further consider medical testimony regarding Mabry-Schlicher’s social impairments. On remand, the SSA again rejected Mabry-Schlicher’s application, and the district court affirmed. Mabry-Schlicher contends that the SSA failed to comply with the district court’s remand order and ignored important vocational testimony. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. I. BACKGROUND Mabry-Schlicher alleges disability secondary to various impairments, including, among other things, depression, anxiety, fibromyalgia, obesity, foot injury and degeneration, and recurrent migraines. Because of her mental disabilities and migraines, Mabry-Schlicher has difficulty No. 24-3811, Mabry-Schlicher v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. interacting with others and is wary of leaving her home. She also struggles with mobility and experiences frequent pain due to her physical disabilities. Mabry-Schlicher applied to the SSA for disability insurance benefits (DIB) and supplemental security income (SSI) in May 2015. In evaluating her application, the agency reviewed copies of Mabry-Schlicher’s medical records, as well as various expert evaluations and opinions. These included a psychological evaluation from Dr. Giovanni M. Bonds, who found that Mabry-Schlicher “avoid[s] people and socializing with them” and “would have difficulty working around many people.” R. 7-7, PageID 407. Another psychologist, Dr. Karen Steiger, also conducted an evaluation, determining that Mabry-Schlicher’s ability to interact with coworkers was “[m]oderately limited,” and that any such interaction should be kept to “a superficial level,” while “contact with the general public should be kept to a limited basis.” R. 7-3, PageID 119. Two other psychologists, Dr. Joseph Edwards and Dr. Courtney Zeune, similarly determined that Mabry-Schlicher was “[m]oderately limited” in her ability to interact with coworkers, but remained capable of “infrequent, superficial interactions” with others. Id. at PageID 149, 182. The SSA denied the May 2015 claim, concluding that Mabry-Schlicher was not “disabled” within the meaning of the Social Security Act. Seeking reversal of the denial, Mabry-Schlicher requested a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ), which was held on October 3, 2017. At the hearing, the ALJ heard testimony from Mabry-Schlicher, as well as a vocational expert, Karen Schneider. Schneider testified that it is “important” that all employees “respond appropriately to instructions and accept supervisor criticism,” and stated that she would not characterize supervisory criticism as “superficial.” R. 7-2, PageID 102. The ALJ denied the -2- No. 24-3811, Mabry-Schlicher v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. claim, and Mabry-Schlicher appealed to the district court. On the joint motion of the parties, the district court remanded the case to the SSA for further proceedings. On remand, the case was reassigned to a new ALJ, who held a second hearing on February 5, 2020. The ALJ again heard personal testimony from Mabry-Schlicher and vocational testimony from Schneider, and concluded that Mabry-Schlicher was not disabled. Notably, the ALJ’s decision discounted the opinions of the reviewing psychologists that Mabry-Schlicher maintained the ability to interact with coworkers and officials at only a “superficial” level, deeming th
Case Summary
Summary of the key points and legal principles
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 25a0278n.06
No. 24-3811
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED
Jun 06, 2025
DAWN MABRY-SCHLICHER, ) KELLY L. STEPHENS, Clerk ) Plaintiff-Appellant, ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED v. ) STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR ) THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL ) OHIO SECURITY, ) Defendant-Appellee. ) OPINION )
Before: CLAY, KETHLEDGE, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.
JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge. Dawn Mabry-Schlicher applied for disability
benefits based on severe anxiety and depression, among other disabilities. After the Social
Security Administration (SSA) rejected the application, the district court remanded the application
to the agency with instructions to further consider medical testimony regarding Mabry-Schlicher’s
social impairments. On remand, the SSA again rejected Mabry-Schlicher’s application, and the
district court affirmed. Mabry-Schlicher contends that the SSA failed to comply with the district
court’s remand order and ignored important vocational testimony. For the reasons set forth below,
we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
I. BACKGROUND
Mabry-Schlicher alleges disability secondary to various impairments, including, among
other things, depression, anxiety, fibromyalgia, obesity, foot injury and degeneration, and recurrent
migraines. Because of her mental disabilities and migraines, Mabry-Schlicher has difficulty No. 24-3811, Mabry-Schlicher v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.
interacting with others and is wary of leaving her home. She also struggles with mobility and
experiences frequent pain due to her physical disabilities.
Mabry-Schlicher applied to the SSA for disability insurance benefits (DIB) and
supplemental security income (SSI) in May 2015. In evaluating her application, the agency
reviewed copies of Mabry-Schlicher’s medical records, as well as various expert evaluations and
opinions. These included a psychological evaluation from Dr. Giovanni M. Bonds, who found
that Mabry-Schlicher “avoid[s] people and socializing with them” and “would have difficulty
working around many people.” R. 7-7, PageID 407. Another psychologist, Dr. Karen Steiger,
also conducted an evaluation, determining that Mabry-Schlicher’s ability to interact with
coworkers was “[m]oderately limited,” and that any such interaction should be kept to “a
superficial level,” while “contact with the general public should be kept to a limited basis.” R. 7-3,
PageID 119. Two other psychologists, Dr. Joseph Edwards and Dr. Courtney Zeune, similarly
determined that Mabry-Schlicher was “[m]oderately limited” in her ability to interact with
coworkers, but remained capable of “infrequent, superficial interactions” with others. Id. at
PageID 149, 182.
The SSA denied the May 2015 claim, concluding that Mabry-Schlicher was not “disabled”
within the meaning of the Social Security Act. Seeking reversal of the denial, Mabry-Schlicher
requested a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ), which was held on October 3, 2017.
At the hearing, the ALJ heard testimony from Mabry-Schlicher, as well as a vocational expert,
Karen Schneider. Schneider testified that it is “important” that all employees “respond
appropriately to instructions and accept supervisor criticism,” and stated that she would not
characterize supervisory criticism as “superficial.” R. 7-2, PageID 102. The ALJ denied the
-2-
No. 24-3811, Mabry-Schlicher v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.
claim, and Mabry-Schlicher appealed to the district court. On the joint motion of the parties, the
district court remanded the case to the SSA for further proceedings.
On remand, the case was reassigned to a new ALJ, who held a second hearing on
February 5, 2020. The ALJ again heard personal testimony from Mabry-Schlicher and vocational
testimony from Schneider, and concluded that Mabry-Schlicher was not disabled. Notably, the
ALJ’s decision discounted the opinions of the reviewing psychologists that Mabry-Schlicher
maintained the ability to interact with coworkers and officials at only a “superficial” level, deeming
th
Legal Topics
Areas of law covered in this case
Case Information
Detailed case metadata and classifications
Court Proceedings
Document Details
Legal Classification
Similar Cases
Cases with similar legal principles and precedents
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 6, 2025
Jurisdiction
F
Court Type
appellate
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools