Shank v. Commissioner of Social Security

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
LARRY SHANK,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 1:25-cv-34
Hon. Jane M. Beckering
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
__________________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review
of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (Commissioner) which denied his
claims for disability insurance benefits (DIB) and supplement security income (SSI).
Plaintiff filed applications for DIB and SSI on August 31, 2021, alleging a disability
onset date of September 18, 2020. PageID.32. Plaintiff identified his disabling conditions as back
injury and neck injury. PageID.264. Plaintiff earned a GED and had past relevant work as a parts
inspector and plastic injection machine tender. 	PageID.42. 	An administrative law judge (ALJ)
reviewed plaintiff’s claim de novo and entered a written decision denying benefits on October 26,
2023. 	PageID.32-45. 	This decision, which was later approved by the Appeals Council, has
become the final decision of the Commissioner and is now before the Court for review.
I. 	LEGAL STANDARD
“The federal courts review the Commissioner’s factual findings for substantial
evidence and give fresh review to its legal interpretations.” 	Taskila v. Commissioner of Social
Case 1:25-cv-00034-JMB-RSK ECF No. 15, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/17/26 Page 1
of 10

2
Security, 819 F.3d 902, 903 (6th Cir. 2016). This Court’s review of the Commissioner’s decision
is typically focused on determining whether the Commissioner’s findings are supported by
substantial evidence. 	42 U.S.C. § 405(g); McKnight v. Sullivan, 927 F.2d 241 (6th Cir. 1990).
“[T]he threshold for such evidentiary sufficiency is not high.” Biestek v. Berryhill, 587 U.S. 97,
103 (2019). “Substantial evidence, this Court has said, is more than a mere scintilla. It means —
and means only — such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
A determination of substantiality of the evidence must be based upon the record
taken as a whole. Young v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 925 F.2d 146 (6th Cir. 1990).
The scope of this review is limited to an examination of the record only. 	This Court does not
review the evidence de novo, make credibility determinations, or weigh the evidence. Brainard v.
Secretary of Health & Human Services, 889 F.2d 679, 681 (6th Cir. 1989). The fact that the record
also contains evidence which would have supported a different conclusion does not undermine the
Commissioner’s decision so long as there is substantial support for that decision in the record.
Willbanks v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 847 F.2d 301, 303 (6th Cir. 1988). “If the
[Commissioner’s] decision is supported by substantial evidence, it must be affirmed even if the
reviewing court would decide the matter differently, and even if substantial evidence also supports
the opposite conclusion.” Cutlip v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 25 F.3d 284, 286
(6th Cir. 1994).
A claimant must prove that he suffers from a disability in order to be entitled to
benefits. 	A disability is established by showing that the claimant cannot engage in substantial
gainful activity by reason of any medically 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
Case 1:25-cv-00034-JMB-RSK ECF No. 15, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/17/26 Page 2
of 10

3
of not less than twelve months. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1505 and 416.905; Abbott v. Sullivan, 905
F.2d 918, 923 (6th Cir. 1990). In applying the above standard, the Commissioner has developed
a five-step analysis:
The Social Security Act requires the Secretary to follow a “five-step
sequential process” for claims of disability. First, plaintiff must demonstrate that
she is not currently engaged in “substantial gainful activity” at the time she seeks
disability benefits. 	Second, plaintiff must show that she suffers from a “severe
impairment” in order to warrant a finding of disability. A “severe impairment” is
one which “significantly limits . . . 	physical or mental ability to do basic work
activities.” Third, if plaintiff is not performing substantial gainful activity, has a
severe impairment that is expected to last for at least twelve months, and the
impairment meets a listed impairment, plaintiff is presumed to be disabled
regardless of age, education or work experience. 	Fourth, if the plaintiff's
impairment does not prevent her from doing her past relevant work, plaintiff is not
disabled. For the fifth and final step, even if the plaintiff’s impairment does prevent
her from doing her past relevant work, if other work exists in the national economy
that plaintiff can perform, plaintiff is not disabled.
Heston v. Commissioner of Social Security, 245 F.3d 528, 534 (6th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted).
The claimant bears the burden of proving the existence and severity of limitations
caused by her impairments and the fact that she is precluded from performing her past relevant
work through step four. 	Jones v. Commissioner of Social Security, 336 F.3d 469, 474 (6th Cir.
2003). However, at step five of the inquiry, “the burden shifts to the Commissioner to identify a
significant number of jobs in the economy that accommodate the claimant’s residual functional
capacity (determined at step four) and vocational profile.” Id. If it is determined that a claimant
is or is not disabled at any point in the evaluation process, further review is not necessary. Mullis
v. Bowen, 861 F.2d 991, 993 (6th Cir. 1988).
“The federal court’s standard of review for SSI cases mirrors the standard applied
in social security disability cases.” D’Angelo v. Commissioner of Social Security, 475 F. Supp. 2d
716, 719 (W.D. Mich. 2007). “The proper inquiry in an application for SSI benefits is whether the
Case 1:25-cv-00034-JMB-RSK ECF No. 15, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/17/26 Page 3
of 10

4
plaintiff was disabled on or after her application date.” Casey v. Secretary of Health and Human
Services, 987 F.2d 1230, 1233 (6th Cir. 1993).
II. 	ALJ’s DECISION
Plaintiff’s claim failed at the fifth step of the evaluation. At the first step, the ALJ
found that plaintiff has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the alleged onset date of
September 18, 2020, and that he met the insured status requirements of the Social Security Act
through December 31, 2025. PageID.34. At the second step, the ALJ found that plaintiff has severe
impairments of: cervical and lumbar degenerative disc disease (“DDD”); emphysema; and alcohol
abuse. PageID.35. At the third step, the ALJ found that plaintiff does not have an impairment or
combination of impairments that meets or equals the requirements of the Listing of Impairments
in 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1. PageID.36.
The ALJ decided at the fourth step that:
After careful consideration of the entire record, I find that the claimant has
the residual functional capacity to perform light work as defined in 20 CFR
404.1567(b) and 416.967(b) except he can stand and/or walk up to four hours out
of an eight-hour workday. He can occasionally climb ramps and stairs, but he can
never climb ladders or scaffolds. He can occasionally balance, stoop, kneel, crouch,
and crawl. He is limited to no concentrated exposure to extreme cold and heat or to
respiratory irritants. He is limited to no work at unprotected heights.
PageID.37. The ALJ also found that plaintiff is unable to perform any past relevant work.
PageID.42.
At the fifth step, the ALJ found that plaintiff could perform a significant number of
light, unskilled jobs in the national economy. PageID.44. Specifically, the ALJ found that plaintiff
could perform the requirements of: office helper (32,000 jobs); mail sorter (18,000 jobs); and,
information clerk (20,000 jobs). PageID.44. Accordingly, the ALJ determined that plaintiff has
Case 1:25-cv-00034-JMB-RSK ECF No. 15, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/17/26 Page 4
of 10

5
not been under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, from September 18, 2020 (the
alleged onset date) through October 26, 2023 (the date of the decision). PageID.67.
III. 	DISCUSSION
Plaintiff set out two errors:
A. 	Substantial evidence does not support the ALJ’s decision
because he failed to properly evaluate the medical opinion
evidence in light of Mr. Shank’s MRI studies of May 2023.
For claims filed on or after March 27, 2017, the regulations provide that the Social
Security Administration (SSA) “will not defer or give any specific evidentiary weight, including
controlling weight, to any medical opinion(s) or prior administrative medical finding(s).” 20
C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c(a) and 416.920c(a). 	In these claims, the SSA “will articulate in our
determination or decision how persuasive we find all of the medical opinions and all of the prior
administrative medical findings in [the claimant’s] record.” 	20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c(b) and
416.920c(b). In addressing medical opinions and prior administrative medical findings, the ALJ
will consider the following factors: (1) supportability; (2) consistency; (3) relationship with the
claimant; (4) specialization; and, (5) other factors. 	See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c(c)(1)-(5) and
416.920c(c)(1)-(5).
The most important factors which the ALJ considers in evaluating medical opinions
are “supportability” and “consistency”. 	20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c(b)(2) and 416.920c(b)(2). The
regulations explain “supportability” as, “[t]he more relevant the objective medical evidence and
supporting explanations presented by a medical source are to support his or her medical opinion(s)
or prior administrative medical finding(s), the more persuasive the medical opinions or prior
administrative medical finding(s) will be.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c(c)(1) and 416.920c(c)(1). The
regulations explain “consistency” as, “[t]he more consistent a medical opinion(s) or prior
Case 1:25-cv-00034-JMB-RSK ECF No. 15, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/17/26 Page 5
of 10

6
administrative medical finding(s) is with the evidence from other medical sources and nonmedical
sources in the claim, the more persuasive the medical opinion(s) or prior administrative medical
finding(s) will be.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c(c)(2) and 416.920c(c)(2).
The regulations recognize that “[b]ecause many claims have voluminous case
records containing many types of evidence from different sources, it is not administratively
feasible for us to articulate in each determination or decision how we considered all of the factors
for all of the medical opinions and prior administrative medical findings in your case record.” 20
C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c(b)(1) and 416.920c(b)(1). Thus, “when a medical source provides multiple
medical opinion(s) or prior administrative medical finding(s), we will articulate how we
considered the medical opinions or prior administrative medical findings from that medical source
together in a single analysis using the factors listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(5) of this
section, as appropriate.” Id. “We are not required to articulate how we considered each medical
opinion or prior administrative medical finding from one medical source individually. Id.
Plaintiff contends that the ALJ failed to properly evaluate the opinions of PA
Larsen (July 2023) and PA Brinkmeier (August 2023). 	Plaintiff points out that unlike the
consulting examiners and state agency medical consultants, Larsen and Brinkmeier had the benefit
of reviewing plaintiff’s claim in light of the May 11, 2023 MRI (see Exh. 11F, PageID.863-869).
The ALJ addressed the MRI evidence as follows,
[W]hen the claimant presented to his orthopedist with complaints of thoracolumbar
pain [on April 17, 2023 (PageID.805)], he had negative straight leg raising and 5/5
strength and was observed ambulating without an assistive device (Exs. 9F, 56-60;
12F, 17-21). An MRI of the lumbar spine was ordered, which showed prominent
spondylosis at L2-3 resulting in mild to moderate central canal stenosis and severe
bilateral neural foraminal narrowing (Exs. 9F, 27-28; 11F; 12F, 1-2).
Given the claimant’s continued complaints of pain and the results of his
lumbar MRI, his orthopedist recommended injections (Exs. 9F, 51-54; 12F, 13-16),
which the claimant underwent in early June 2023 (Ex. 12F, 3-6, 9-12). However,
Case 1:25-cv-00034-JMB-RSK ECF No. 15, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/17/26 Page 6
of 10

7
when the claimant followed up with his orthopedist later that month, the claimant
continued to complain of pain and difficulty standing and walking more than ten to
fifteen minutes, so he was refereed for a surgical opinion (Id., 7-8). The record is
absent any further evidence of treatment or complaints since June 2023.
PageID.40.
The ALJ found that PA Larsen’s opinion was not persuasive:
In July 2023, Mr. Larsen opined that the claimant could perform less than
sedentary exertional work and would be absent from work more than three times
per month (Ex. 13F). I do not find Mr. Larsen’s opinion persuasive as it is not well
supported and is inconsistent with his treatment notes and the other evidence of
record. Specifically, when asked for the medical findings that support his opinion,
Mr. Larsen simply wrote “see records”, but as detailed above, Mr. Larsen has seen
the claimant infrequently since the alleged onset date, and his notes consistently
show him restricting the claimant to lifting twenty pounds (see e.g., Ex. 4F, 2, 5).
Furthermore, as detailed above, the record shows that the claimant’s treatment with
Mr. Larsen has been conservative and infrequent, with multiple of the claimant’s
limited visits being to obtain work documentation, for alcohol counseling, or for
complaints unrelated to DDD. In short, there is nothing in Mr. Larsen’s treatment
notes that would support such an extreme opinion, and his opinion contains very
little explanation for the assessed limitations. As such, I find it less than persuasive.
PageID.42. In this regard, PA Larsen’s form did not list the “Patient’s diagnosis”. PageID.895.
Similarly, the ALJ found that PA Brinkmeier’s opinion was not persuasive:
The claimant’s orthopedist, William Brinkmeier, PA-C, also opined in
August 2023 that the claimant could perform less than sedentary exertional work
and would be absent from work more than three times per month (Ex. 14F). I
likewise do not find Mr. Brinkmeier’s opinion persuasive as it is not well supported
and is inconsistent with his treatment notes and the other evidence of record.
Specifically, as detailed above, the record shows that the claimant’s treatment with
Mr. Brinkmeier has been conservative and infrequent, with Mr. Brinkmeier noting
that the claimant did not require the use of an assistive device in multiple visits.
Additionally, although Mr. Brinkmeier referred the claimant for a surgical
evaluation following failure of lumbar injections, the claimant’s examinations with
Mr. Brinkmeier show he had negative straight leg raising and 5/5 strength (see Exs.
9F, 56-60; 12F, 17-21), and the record does not contain any evidence that the
claimant was actually recommended to undergo surgery. In short, there is nothing
in Mr. Brinkmeier’s treatment notes that would support such an extreme opinion,
and his opinion contains very little explanation for the assessed limitations. As
such, I find it less than persuasive.
Id.
Case 1:25-cv-00034-JMB-RSK ECF No. 15, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/17/26 Page 7
of 10

8
Both of the opinions consisted of one page and neither opinion included a narrative
to explain the extreme limitations. 	See PA Larsen’s Opinion (Exh. 13F) (PageID.895); PA
Brinkmeier’s Opinion (Exh. 14F) (PageID.897).
ALJs are not bound by conclusory statements of doctors, particularly where they
appear on “check-box forms” and are unsupported by explanations citing detailed
objective criteria and documentation. “Many courts have cast doubt on the
usefulness of these forms and agree that administrative law judges may properly
give little weight to a treating physician's check-off form of functional limitations
that did not cite clinical test results, observations, or other objective findings[.]”
Ellars v. Commissioner of Social Security, 647 Fed. Appx 563, 566 (6th Cir. 2016)
(internal quotation marks omitted). In such cases, where the physician includes
remarks on a check-off form such as noting that the “plaintiff's impairments
consisted of severe peripheral vascular disease, coronary artery disease, COPD,
depression and anxiety,” these types of cryptic remarks are not sufficient to explain
the doctor's findings. Id. at 566-67.
Laporte v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 1:15-cv-456, 2016 WL 5349072 at *7 (W.D.
Mich. Sept. 26, 2016).1
Consistent with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c and § 416.920c,2 the ALJ considered the
MRI in evaluating opinion issued before May 2023. See, e.g., PageID.41 (noting that “evidence
received at the hearing level [which would include the May 2023 MRI] showing the claimant’s
1 While these opinions did not require PA Larsen and PA Brinkmeier to check a box containing the relevant answer,
the forms required them to circle the relevant answer (e.g., “Is this patient’s ability to sit limited?”) and to provide a
few words to identify various subjects (e.g., “patient’s diagnosis”).
2 In this regard, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c and § 416.920c provide in pertinent part:
(c) Factors. We will consider the following factors when we consider the medical opinion(s) and
prior administrative medical finding(s) in your case: . . .
(5) Other factors. We will consider other factors that tend to support or contradict a medical opinion
or prior administrative medical finding. This includes, but is not limited to, evidence showing a
medical source has familiarity with the other evidence in the claim or an understanding of our
disability program’s policies and evidentiary requirements. When we consider a medical source’s
familiarity with the other evidence in a claim, we will also consider whether new evidence we
receive after the medical source made his or her medical opinion or prior administrative medical
finding makes the medical opinion or prior administrative medical finding more or less persuasive.
20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(c)(5) and § 416.920c(c)(5).
Case 1:25-cv-00034-JMB-RSK ECF No. 15, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/17/26 Page 8
of 10

9
continued complaints of pain and undergoing lumbar injections supports finding that the claimant
is further limited to being able to stand and/or walk up to four hours out of an eight-hour workday
instead of six hours as well as additional restrictions in postural functioning”). For these reasons,
plaintiff’s claim of error should be denied.
B. 	Substantial evidence does not support the ALJ’s decision
because he failed to comply with 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c and
416.920c when assessing the opinion consulting examiner NP
Easley.
Plaintiff contends that the ALJ failed to comply with the requirements of 20 C.F.R.
§§ 404.1520c and 416.920c when evaluating NP Easley’s opinion (March 10, 2023) (Exh. 8F,
PageID.738-749). The ALJ addressed the opinion as follows:
The second internal medicine consultative examiner, Kelly Easley, FNP-C,
opined that the claimant, among other things, can sit, stand, and walk a combined
total of six hours in an eight-hour workday, requires a cane “for all distances and
all terrain”, and can frequently reach and handle (Ex. 8F, 10-11). I do not find Ms.
Easley’s opinion persuasive as it is not well supported and is inconsistent with the
other evidence of record. Specifically, Ms. Easley based her opinion on the
claimant’s reports of functioning and the results of her detailed examination of the
claimant. However, as Dr. Metoyer [the reconsideration state agency medical
consultant] noted, the claimant’s examination was internally inconsistent as Ms.
Easley observed the claimant to walk on heels and toes and hop, but he ambulated
with a cane (Ex. 8F; see also Exs. 7A, 7; 9A, 7). Furthermore, Ms. Easley’s
examination and opinion are inconsistent with treatment records the following
month and in May 2023, wherein the claimant was “observed using no aids for
walking assistance” by his orthopedist (Ex. 9F, 51, 56). As detailed above, the
medical evidence before and after this visit do not provide substantial support to
the claimant’s condition deteriorating to such a drastic level indicated by Ms.
Easley’s examination. Given the inconsistencies of the claimant’s examination both
internally and with the other evidence of record, I do not find Ms. Easley’s opinion,
which was based on such examination, persuasive.
PageID.41-42.
Plaintiff contends that the ALJ failed to address the supportability of NP Easley’s
opinion. The Court disagrees. The ALJ found that NP Easley’s opinion was not well supported,
e.g., NP Easley found that plaintiff required a cane for all distances and all terrain, yet also found
Case 1:25-cv-00034-JMB-RSK ECF No. 15, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/17/26 Page 9
of 10

10
that plaintiff was able to walk on his heels and hop. 	The ALJ also noted that the reconsideration
State agency medical consultant, Alyce Metoyer, D.O., found NP Easley’s opinion both internally
and externally inconsistent. 	PageID.41. 	See, e.g., Exh. 9A at PageID.108-109 (Dr. Metoyer
stating in part, “clmt’s 3/10/23 IMCE cited use of an AD [assistive device] is not programmatically
[sic] relevant because there is no documented longitudinal evidence from a medical source that
supports the clmt’s medical need for an AD spanning a continuous [sic] period of at least 12
months”). Accordingly, this claim of error should be denied.
IV. 	RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons discussed, I respectfully recommend that the Commissioner’s
decision be AFFIRMED.
Dated: February 17, 2026 	/s/ Ray Kent
Ray Kent
United States Magistrate Judge
ANY OBJECTIONS to this Report and Recommendation must be served and filed with the Clerk
of the Court within fourteen (14) days after service of the report. All objections and responses to
objections are governed by W.D. Mich. LCivR 72.3(b). Failure to serve and file written objections
within the specified time waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Thomas v. Arn, 474
U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
Case 1:25-cv-00034-JMB-RSK ECF No. 15, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/17/26 Page
10 of 10