Donald Roy Clark v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
Court
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
Decided
June 9, 2025
Jurisdiction
F
Importance
48%
Case Summary
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 25a0285n.06 No. 24-1718 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED Jun 09, 2025 ) KELLY L. STEPHENS, Clerk DONALD ROY CLARK, ) Plaintiff-Appellant, ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE v. ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT ) COURT FOR THE WESTERN COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, ) DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN Defendant-Appellee. ) ) OPINION ) Before: WHITE, LARSEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. LARSEN, Circuit Judge. Donald Clark sought disability benefits under the Social Security Act (SSA). The Commissioner of Social Security determined that Clark was not disabled and denied benefits. The district court affirmed that decision. Clark now appeals. We AFFIRM. I. In 2019, Donald Clark applied for disability insurance benefits. He alleged that he became disabled in October 2018 because of various infirmities, including complex regional pain syndrome, lumbar degenerative disc disease, thoracic degenerative disc disease, sleep apnea, and depression. Many of these problems allegedly stemmed from a 2006 work accident in a warehouse, in which a 4,000-pound steel tube fell on him and broke his leg and ankle. Two years after the accident, Clark returned to work, but as an inside salesman. He stayed in that position successfully until 2018. In 2018, Clark was promoted to warehouse foreman. That position required Clark to be on his feet for most of the workday, which made his symptoms worse. He No. 24-1718, Clark v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. stopped working as warehouse foreman in October 2018, and later filed the instant claim for disability benefits. An ALJ denied Clark disability benefits. The ALJ considered the evidence from Clark’s treating physicians—Dr. Berland and Dr. Brummett. He also considered the opinions of other non-treating physicians. The ALJ determined that Clark was not disabled from the October 2018 alleged disability onset through the August 2022 decision. He concluded that Clark’s impairments were not per se disabling and that Clark retained the residual functional capacity to perform a range of light work that involved standing and walking up to four hours per day. This meant that Clark could perform his previous job of sales representative, which he had performed for ten years after the injury, or other similar work. A magistrate judge recommended affirming the ALJ’s decision. Over Clark’s objections, the district court agreed and granted judgment in favor of the Commissioner. Clark now appeals. II. We review de novo a district court’s decision in a Social Security case. Emard v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 953 F.3d 844, 849 (6th Cir. 2020). “Unless the ALJ has failed to apply the correct legal standards or has made findings of fact unsupported by substantial evidence in the record, we must affirm the Commissioner’s conclusions.” Id. (citing 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)). “Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “Where substantial evidence supports the Secretary’s determination, it is conclusive, even if substantial evidence also supports the opposite conclusion.” Id. (citation omitted). To be entitled to benefits under the SSA, a person must have a “disability,” which means that he is unable “to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically -2- No. 24-1718, Clark v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). The Commissioner follows a five-step process for evaluating disability. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). At step one, the claimant must not be engaging in substantial gainful activity; if he is, he is not disabled. Id. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i). At step two, the claimant must establish a medically determinable impairment that is severe. Id. § 404.
Case Details
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 9, 2025
Jurisdiction
F
Court Type
appellate
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools
Case Summary
Summary of the key points and legal principles
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 25a0285n.06
No. 24-1718
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED
Jun 09, 2025
) KELLY L. STEPHENS, Clerk
DONALD ROY CLARK, ) Plaintiff-Appellant, ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE v. ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT ) COURT FOR THE WESTERN COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, ) DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN Defendant-Appellee. ) ) OPINION )
Before: WHITE, LARSEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
LARSEN, Circuit Judge. Donald Clark sought disability benefits under the Social Security
Act (SSA). The Commissioner of Social Security determined that Clark was not disabled and
denied benefits. The district court affirmed that decision. Clark now appeals. We AFFIRM.
I.
In 2019, Donald Clark applied for disability insurance benefits. He alleged that he became
disabled in October 2018 because of various infirmities, including complex regional pain
syndrome, lumbar degenerative disc disease, thoracic degenerative disc disease, sleep apnea, and
depression. Many of these problems allegedly stemmed from a 2006 work accident in a
warehouse, in which a 4,000-pound steel tube fell on him and broke his leg and ankle. Two years
after the accident, Clark returned to work, but as an inside salesman. He stayed in that position
successfully until 2018. In 2018, Clark was promoted to warehouse foreman. That position
required Clark to be on his feet for most of the workday, which made his symptoms worse. He No. 24-1718, Clark v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.
stopped working as warehouse foreman in October 2018, and later filed the instant claim for
disability benefits.
An ALJ denied Clark disability benefits. The ALJ considered the evidence from Clark’s
treating physicians—Dr. Berland and Dr. Brummett. He also considered the opinions of other
non-treating physicians. The ALJ determined that Clark was not disabled from the October 2018
alleged disability onset through the August 2022 decision. He concluded that Clark’s impairments
were not per se disabling and that Clark retained the residual functional capacity to perform a range
of light work that involved standing and walking up to four hours per day. This meant that Clark
could perform his previous job of sales representative, which he had performed for ten years after
the injury, or other similar work.
A magistrate judge recommended affirming the ALJ’s decision. Over Clark’s objections,
the district court agreed and granted judgment in favor of the Commissioner. Clark now appeals.
II.
We review de novo a district court’s decision in a Social Security case. Emard v. Comm’r
of Soc. Sec., 953 F.3d 844, 849 (6th Cir. 2020). “Unless the ALJ has failed to apply the correct
legal standards or has made findings of fact unsupported by substantial evidence in the record, we
must affirm the Commissioner’s conclusions.” Id. (citing 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)). “Substantial
evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “Where substantial evidence
supports the Secretary’s determination, it is conclusive, even if substantial evidence also supports
the opposite conclusion.” Id. (citation omitted).
To be entitled to benefits under the SSA, a person must have a “disability,” which means
that he is unable “to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically
-2-
No. 24-1718, Clark v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.
determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has
lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.” 42 U.S.C.
§ 423(d)(1)(A). The Commissioner follows a five-step process for evaluating disability. 20 C.F.R.
§ 404.1520(a)(4). At step one, the claimant must not be engaging in substantial gainful activity;
if he is, he is not disabled. Id. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i). At step two, the claimant must establish a
medically determinable impairment that is severe. Id. § 404.
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 9, 2025
Jurisdiction
F
Court Type
appellate
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools