explained the consideration given to Dr. Naum’s conclusion of disability. Dr. Naum’s ordering of a disability placard adds nothing to a finding of disability here because there is no evidence that the two have substantially similar requirements for finding a person to be disabled. Additionally, Dr. Naum’s statement that Mr. Bass’s lower back pain was “in and of itself disabling” is ambiguous at best. Dr. Naum made this statement in response to a finding by Dr. Schreiber that plaintiff had 0% permanent or partial disability under the workers’ compensation laws. It is therefore not clear that Dr. Naum’s assessment of disability would be the same under the social security disability benefits law. See Daniels v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 152 Fed.Appx. 485, 491 (6th Cir.2005) (unpublished) (<HOLDING>). Additionally, Dr. Naum qualified his
holding that remand was not required and that the aljs failure to mention treating physicians opinion was harmless error because the alj adopted the treating physicians recommendations holding that failure to discuss a confusing and unclear statement a de minimis and therefore harmless violation of the treating physician rule holding that where a treating physicians opinion is contradicted by a consulting physician the alj must explain on the record the reasons for rejecting the opinion of the treating physician holding that a violation of the hearsay rule was harmless holding that remand was necessary when the alj failed to adhere to  4041527d2s procedural requirements and noting that a de minimis violation of those procedural requirements may qualify as harmless error