Background
Kenett Gregory applied for social security disability insurance benefits following a work-related back injury and various mental health conditions. The Social Security Administration denied her claim, and an administrative law judge found a consultative examination report by Dr. Jennifer Fishkoff unpersuasive. The judge concluded that Fishkoff’s opinion relied largely on Gregory’s subjective complaints and was inconsistent with other medical evidence showing largely unremarkable mental status findings. The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation to affirm the denial, and Gregory appealed.
The court’s reasoning
The court applied the substantial evidence standard, which requires only that relevant evidence be adequate to support a conclusion. The administrative law judge was required to consider all relevant medical evidence and articulate how persuasive they found all medical opinions. The judge properly addressed the supportability and consistency factors by noting that Fishkoff’s opinion relied heavily on subjective complaints and conflicted with other records showing stable or unremarkable conditions. The court found the judge’s explanation sufficient and noted that the decision need not discuss every piece of data as long as the evidence as a whole supports a reasoned conclusion.
Because the ALJ complied with regulatory requirements in disregarding that opinion, and his conclusion is backed by substantial evidence, we AFFIRM.
Gregory v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 26-5022 (6th Cir. Jun. 18, 2026)
What it means going forward
The ruling reinforces that administrative law judges may reject medical opinions that rely primarily on a claimant’s subjective complaints if those opinions lack objective support or consistency with the broader medical record.