VanDyke v. Commissioner of Social Security

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
BRENNEN V., 	Case No. 	1:25-cv-00213
Plaintiff, 	Hon. 	Maarten Vermaat
U.S. Magistrate Judge
v.
COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
/
OPINION
This opinion addresses Plaintiff’s appeal of Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
Tjapkes’s decision denying Plaintiff’s request for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB)
and Supplement Security Income (SSI). 	This appeal is brought pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 405(g).
The record before the Court demonstrates that Plaintiff suffers from a number
of severe medically determinable impairments, including depression and anxiety,
attention deficit, and substance abuse. 	Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ failed to
properly consider the opinions of the medical providers by relying on the check box
forms used by the consultative examiners and by rejecting the reasoned and
supported opinions of Plaintiff’s treating doctors. 	Further, Plaintiff argues that the
ALJ improperly relied upon Plaintiff’s activities of daily living to deny his claim for
benefits. 	The Commissioner asserts that the ALJ properly considered the medical
source opinions as required by the regulations and properly considered Plaintiff’s
activities of daily living.
Case 1:25-cv-00213-MV ECF No. 18, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/30/26 Page 1 of 10

2
For the reasons stated below, the undersigned affirms the ALJ’s decision.
I. 	Procedural History
A. 	Key Dates
The ALJ’s decision notes that Plaintiff applied for DIB and SSI on October 16,
2022, alleging an onset date of March 31, 2022. 	ECF No. 6-2, PageID.25. 	Plaintiff’s
claim was initially denied by the Social Security Administration (SSA) on May 4,
2023. 	Id. 	The claim was denied on reconsideration on August 8, 2023. 	Id.
Plaintiff then requested a hearing before an ALJ. 	ALJ Tjapkes conducted a hearing
on Plaintiff’s claim on February 7, 2024, and issued his decision on April 1, 2024. 	Id.
Plaintiff timely filed this lawsuit on February 21, 2025. 	ECF No. 1.
B. 	Summary of ALJ’s Decision
The ALJ’s decision correctly outlined the five-step sequential process for
determining whether an individual is disabled. 	(ECF No. 6-2, PageID.26-27.)
Before stating his findings at each step, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff’s Date Last
Insured (DLI) was September 30, 2026. 	Id., PageID.27.
At Step One, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had not engaged in Substantial
Gainful Activity (SGA) from March 31, 2022. 	Id.
At Step Two, the ALJ found that the Plaintiff had the following severe
impairments: 	major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, attention-
deficit hyperactivity disorder, and polysubstance abuse disorder. 	Id. 	In portions of
his decision, the ALJ discussed Plaintiff’s gastroesophageal reflux disease as a non-
severe impairment. 	Id., PageID.28. 	The ALJ also discussed the Paragraph B
Case 1:25-cv-00213-MV ECF No. 18, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/30/26 Page 2 of 10

3
criteria, finding moderate limitations in understanding, remembering or applying
information; interaction with others; persisting or maintaining pace; and adapting or
managing himself. 	Id., PageID.28-29. 	The ALJ found that Plaintiff’s anxiety and
depression, and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorders were well controlled. 	Id.,
PageID.29.
At Step Three, the ALJ found that the Plaintiff did not have an impairment or
combination of impairments that met or medically equaled the severity of one or more
of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. 	Id.,
PageID.28. The ALJ specifically commented on the impairments listed in 12.04
(depressive 	and 	bipolar 	disorders), 	12.06 	(anxiety 	and 	obsessive 	compulsive
disorders), and 12.11 (neurodevelopmental disorders).
Before going on to Step Four, the ALJ found that the Plaintiff had the following
RFC:
to perform a full range of work at all exertional levels but with the
following 	non-exertional 	limitations: 	he 	is 	able 	to 	understand,
remember, and carry out simple instructions and tasks; have occasional
interaction with co-workers, supervisors, and the public; there can be no
production-rate work (such as on an assembly line); and there can be
occasional changes in the workplace setting.
Id., PageID.30.
The ALJ devoted five pages to discussing Plaintiff’s RFC. 	This discussion
included the following:
 	a summary of the regulations regarding how the ALJ will address
Plaintiff’s symptoms, id., PageID.30,
 	a summary of Plaintiff’s statements, id., PageID.30-32,
Case 1:25-cv-00213-MV ECF No. 18, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/30/26 Page 3 of 10

4
 	a summary of the medical records relating to his mental impairments
and polysubstance abuse, id., PageID.31-32,
 	a summary of opinions by Edward Czarneki, Ph.D., Dyan Hampton-
Aytch, Ph.D, Wayne Silver, MA, LLP, and Dana Cochrane-Hockstra,
PA-C, id., PageID.33.
 	reference 	to 	the 	opinions 	of 	Michael 	Hayes, 	Ph.D., 	and 	Davide
Cashbaugh, Jr., LLP, who performed a consultative exam but not a
function-by-function analysis, id., and
 	an explanation of how the ALJ arrived at his decision on the Plaintiff’s
RFC, id.
At Step Four, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff was unable to perform past
relevant work as a cashier and stocker. 	Id., PageID.34.
At 	Step 	Five, 	the 	ALJ 	considered 	the 	Plaintiff’s 	age, 	education, 	work
experience and RFC and concluded that he could perform jobs in the national
economy such as a cleaner, packager, and kitchen helper. 	Id., PageID.35.
II. 	Standard of Review
Review of an ALJ’s decision is limited to two issues: (1) “whether the ALJ
applied the correct legal standards,” and (2) “whether the findings of the ALJ are
supported by substantial evidence.” 	Winslow v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 566 F. App’x
418, 420 (6th Cir. 2014) (quoting Blakley v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 581 F.3d 399, 405
(6th Cir. 2009)); 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 	The Court may not conduct a de novo review of
the case, resolve evidentiary conflicts, or decide questions of credibility. 	Garner v.
Case 1:25-cv-00213-MV ECF No. 18, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/30/26 Page 4 of 10

5
Heckler, 745 F.2d 383, 387 (6th Cir. 1984). 	It is the Commissioner who is charged
with finding the facts relevant to an application for disability benefits, and the
Commissioner’s findings are conclusive provided they are supported by substantial
evidence. 	42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
Substantial evidence is defined as more than a mere scintilla of evidence but
“such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support
a conclusion.” 	Jones v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 945 F.2d 1365, 1369 (6th
Cir. 1991). 	In determining the substantiality of the evidence, the Court must
consider the evidence on the record as a whole and whatever evidence in the record
fairly detracts from its weight. 	Richardson v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 735
F.2d 962, 963 (6th Cir. 1984) (citations omitted). 	The substantial evidence standard
presupposes the existence of a zone within which the decision maker can properly
rule either way, without judicial interference. 	Mullen v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 535, 545
(6th Cir. 1986) (citation omitted). 	This standard affords the administrative decision
maker 	considerable 	latitude 	and 	acknowledges 	that 	a 	decision 	supported 	by
substantial evidence will not be reversed simply because the evidence would have
supported a contrary decision. 	Bogle v. Sullivan, 998 F.2d 342, 347 (6th Cir. 1993).
III. 	Analysis
Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred by finding that the opinions of his treating
providers, psychologist Wayne Silver and PA-C Dana Cochrane-Hockstra, were not
persuasive. 	Plaintiff’s treating providers opined that he was unable to maintain
attention and concentration, deal with work stress, and would be absent about four
Case 1:25-cv-00213-MV ECF No. 18, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/30/26 Page 5 of 10

6
days per month. 	ECF No. 6-13; ECF No. 6-2, PageID.33. 	Further, Plaintiff argues
that the ALJ should not have concluded that the opinions of consultative examiners
psychologists Dr. Edward Czarnecki, and Dr. Dyan Hampton-Aytch, were generally
persuasive. 	The consultative examiners opined that Plaintiff was able to complete
simple, routine, and repetitive tasks and work in a low stress environment. 	ECF No.
6-3; ECF No. 6-2, PageID.33.
The ALJ evaluated the medical opinions pursuant to 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c
and 416.920c. Under that regulation, the ALJ “will not defer or give any specific
evidentiary weight, including controlling weight, to any medical opinion(s) or prior
administrative medical finding(s),” even an opinion from a treating source. 20 C.F.R.
§§ 	404.1520c(a) 	and 	416.920c(a). 	Instead, 	an 	ALJ 	will 	articulate 	his 	or 	her
determination of the persuasiveness of a medical opinion “in a single analysis using
the factors listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(5) of this section, as appropriate.”
20 	C.F.R. 	§§ 	404.1520c(b)(1) 	and 	416.920c(b)(1). 	Those 	factors 	include: 	(1)
supportability; (2) consistency; (3) relationship with the claimant; (4) specialization;
and (5) other factors which tend to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§
404.1520c(c)(1)–(5) and 416.920c(c)(1)–(5). In general, the ALJ must explain his or
her consideration of the supportability and consistency factors but the ALJ is not
required to explain how the remaining factors were considered. 20 C.F.R. §§
404.l520c(b)(2) 	and 	(3) 	and 	416.920c(b)(2) 	and 	(3). 	The 	regulations 	explain
“supportability” and “consistency” as follows:
(1) Supportability. The more relevant the objective medical evidence and
supporting 	explanations 	presented 	by 	a 	medical 	source 	are 	to
Case 1:25-cv-00213-MV ECF No. 18, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/30/26 Page 6 of 10

7
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.
(2) Consistency. The more consistent a medical opinion(s) or prior
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)(1)–(2) and 416.920c(c)(1)–2.
As to Plaintiff’s providers from Harbor Towne Health, psychologist Silver and
PA-C 	Cochrane-Hockstra, 	the 	ALJ 	found 	that 	the 	stated 	limitations 	were
inconsistent with the findings in the record. 	The ALJ pointed to examinations that
showed that Plaintiff had intact memory, attention, and concentration. 	ECF No. 6-
2, PageID.34.
Id.
Here, the ALJ did not completely discredit Plaintiff’s claims of having difficulty
with memory and concentration or with reasoning and judgment. 	In finding that
the consultative examiners’ opinions were generally persuasive, the ALJ credited
Case 1:25-cv-00213-MV ECF No. 18, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/30/26 Page 7 of 10

8
Plaintiff’s 	difficulties 	with 	memory 	and 	concentration 	and 	impaired 	abstract
reasoning. 	Due to these difficulties, the ALJ limited Plaintiff to simple tasks, and
occasional interaction with others. 	Moreover, to account for stress in the workplace,
the ALJ limited Plaintiff to no production-rate work and occasional changes in
workplace setting. 	ECF No. 6-2, PageID.33.
The ALJ properly addressed the factors of supportability and consistency and
met the articulation requirements of the regulation. 	“[S]upportability relates to the
extent to which a medical source has articulated support for the medical source’s own
opinion, while consistency relates to the relationship between a medical source’s
opinion and other evidence within the record.” Cook v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 6:20-
cv-1197, 2021 WL 1565832, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 6, 2021), report and recommendation
adopted, 2021 WL 1565162 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 21, 2021). 	The ALJ determined that
mental health providers Silver and Cochrane-Hockstra’s opinions were not supported
by their own treatment records and were inconsistent with their treatment and
examinations 	of 	Plaintiff. 	The 	ALJ 	noted 	that 	during 	a 	January 	3, 	2024,
examination, Dr. Silver noted that Plaintiff was cooperative, with normal behavior
and thought content, and that he exhibited intact memory, attention, insight and
judgment. 	ECF No. 6-12, PageID.802. 	Similarly, during an earlier July 20, 2022,
examination, PA-C Cochran-Hockstra made similar findings, but noted poor insight,
and impaired judgment. 	ECF No. 6-11, PageID.668. 	Therefore, the ALJ properly
considered 	the 	regulations 	and 	articulated 	his 	reasoning 	for 	determining 	the
persuasiveness of each of the provider’s opinions.
Case 1:25-cv-00213-MV ECF No. 18, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/30/26 Page 8 of 10

9
Further, the ALJ found persuasive Dr. Czarnecki and Dr. Dyan Hampton-
Aytch’s opinions that Plaintiff could perform work involving simple and routine
repetitive tasks, in a low stress environment involving only simple decision making,
and infrequent changes to routine. 	ECF No. 6-2, PageID.33. 	Plaintiff argues that
the consultative opinions were based upon check box forms without specific citation
to medical evidence. 	An ALJ is not bound by conclusory statements of doctors,
particularly where they appear on “check-box forms” without explanations citing
detailed objective criteria and documentation. 	Hernandez v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.,
644 F. App’x 465, 474-475 (6th Cir. 2016). 	“Form reports in which a doctor’s
obligation is only to check a box, without explanations of the doctor’s medical
conclusions are weak evidence at best.” 	Smith v. 	Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 13-cv-
12759, 2015 WL 899207, at * 14 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 3, 2015); see also Ashley v. Comm’r
of Soc. Sec., No. 1:12-cv-1287, 2014 WL 1052357, at * 8 n.6 (W.D. Mich. Mar. 19, 2014)
(“Courts have increasingly questioned the evidentiary value of ‘multiple choice’ or
‘check-off’ opinion forms by treating physicians[.]”). 	The consultative examiners did
not simply fill out check box forms. 	Their opinions were set forth in the Disability
Determination Explanation documents used by SSA to evaluate mental RFC and the
ability to work. 	ECF No. 6-3. 	The consultative doctors provided reasoning for their
opinions, which were supported by the medical record. 	Id. 	The ALJ properly
considered the consultative doctor’s opinions in accordance with the regulations.
Plaintiff argues that the ALJ improperly relied upon Plaintiff’s daily activities
to conclude that he could work. 	In addition to finding that Plaintiff could prepare
Case 1:25-cv-00213-MV ECF No. 18, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/30/26 Page 9 of 10

10
simple foods, perform household tasks, pay bills, and shop, the ALJ stated that with
treatment, Plaintiff was more interested in video games and computers, and enjoyed
bowling. 	ECF No. 6-2, PageID.33. 	It was not improper for the ALJ to consider
Plaintiff’s daily activities. 	Napier v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 127 F.4th 1000, 1005-06
(6th Cir. 2025) (ALJ’s reliance on sporadic activities are only problematic if the ALJ
relies too heavily on those activities to determine that Plaintiff’s mental impairments
are not severe). 	First, the regulations provide that an ALJ should consider daily
activities when evaluating a Plaintiff’s symptoms. 	20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i).
Second, in considering RFC, the ALJ may consider all relevant evidence on record,
including an individual’s medical history, reports of daily activity, and recorded
observations. 	SSR 96-8p. 	The ALJ considered Plaintiff’s daily activities and his
medical examinations in determining the appropriate RFC. 	The ALJ did not err.
IV. 	Conclusion
Accordingly, the Court affirms the decision of the Commissioner because the
ALJ did not commit legal errors and substantial evidence exists to support the ALJ’s
decision.
Dated: 	January 30, 2026 	/s/ `ttÜàxÇ ixÜÅttà
MAARTEN VERMAAT
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-00213-MV ECF No. 18, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/30/26 Page 10 of
10