Several courts in this Circuit have found that Sims v. Apfel, 530 U.S. 103 (2000), does not disrupt the requirement of general administrative exhaustion. See Gearing v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 417 F. Supp. 3d 928, 940-41 (N.D. Ohio 2019) (collecting cases). Sims only narrowly holds that "issue exhaustion was not required in a request for review by the Appeals Council."

. This requirement is so significant that the Sixth Circuit had held that failure to articulate “good reasons for discounting a treating physicians' opinion ‘denotes a lack of substantial evidence, even where the conclusion of the ALJ may be justified based upon the record.” Gearing v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec, 417 F.Supp.3d 928 (N.D. Ohio, Oct. 24, 2019) (quoting Rogers v Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 486 F.3d. 234, 243 (6th Cir. Oct. 26, 2006).

It is clear from the ALJ's decision, which provided an extensive discussion of Dr. Murillo's opinion, that the “overarching issue with [Dr. Murillo's opinion] is the lack of support in the record.” See Gearing v. Comm I of Soc. Sec., 417 F.Supp.3d 928, 947 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 24, 2019). The Court finds the ALJ also adequately articulated how he considered the required § 404.1520c factor of consistency when evaluating Dr. Murillo's opinion.

As prior courts have explained “arguments [crafted by defense counsel] are of no consequence, as it is the opinion given by an administrative agency rather than counsel's ‘post hoc rationale' that is under the Court's consideration.” Gearing v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 417 F.Supp.3d 928, 949 (N.D. Ohio 2019) (citing cases); see also Keeton v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 583 Fed.Appx. 515, 524 (6th Cir. 2014) (“[T]his Court shall not ‘accept post hoc rationalizations for agency action in lieu of [accurate] reasons and findings enunciated by the Board.'”) (quoting Hyatt Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 939 F.2d 361, 367 (6th Cir. 1991). Because the arguments now advanced by the Commissioner were not first articulated by the ALJ, they are rejected as post hoc rationalizations.

Failure to apply the correct legal standard set out by agency regulation is grounds for reversal. See Gearing v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 417 F.Supp.3d 928, 939 (N.D. Ohio 2019) (citing White v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 572 F.3d 272, 281 (6th Cir. 2009). A reviewing court must affirm an ALJ's factual findings when they are supported by “substantial evidence.”

Further, it is noted that many of the relevant records - including Dr. Sziraky's notes (Tr. 86-88), Dr. Limperos' medical source statement (Tr. 105-06), and Dr. Surso's notes (Tr. 42-43) and medical source statement (Tr. 120-21) - in addition to being based on examinations occurring after the relevant period, also discuss Mr. Heck's physical condition in the present tense, suggesting that they “reference the doctor's opinion of the claimants then current level of functioning.” Gearing v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 417 F.Supp.3d 928, 946 (N.D. Ohio 2019). Because the findings and opinions at issue do not clearly speak to Mr. Heck's condition at the relevant time, and in fact appear to directly reference his medical condition a number of months after the ALJ decision was issued in the case, the undersigned finds that they are not material.

The plaintiff in Lucia did not have the benefit of Supreme Court case law decided in his favor when he raised his Appointments Clause challenge, and courts have rejected arguments similar to that of the plaintiff in the context of Lucia challenges to the validity of the appointment of Social Security ALJs. See e.g., Gearing v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 417 F. Supp. 3d 928, 943 (N.D. Ohio 2019) ("'By the time Plaintiff received his final agency decision on March 24, 2017, there was already a split of authority on the issue of whether SEC ALJs were constitutionally appointed.'") (quoting Axley v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:18-cv-1106-STA-cgc, 2019 WL 489998, at *2 n.1 (W.D. Tenn. Feb. 7, 2019)). Nor can the plaintiff fairly be said to have timely raised her Appointments Clause challenge to the Appeals Council, in the sense that she timely placed the matter before the Appeals Council for its consideration.