Warner v. Commissioner of Social Security

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
ANDREA W., 	Case No. 	1:25-cv-00562
Plaintiff, 	Hon. Robert J. Jonker
U.S. District Judge
v.
COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This 	Report 	and 	Recommendation 	addresses 	Plaintiff’s 	appeal 	of
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Dina LaMarche’s decision denying Plaintiff’s
request for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB). 	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 spinal fusion surgery,
scoliosis, neuropathy, arthritis, and obesity. 	As a result, Plaintiff suffers with back
pain and says that the ALJ failed to properly consider her inability to stoop when
considering Plaintiff’s Residual Functional Capacity (RFC). 	The Commissioner
asserts that the ALJ properly considered the opinion evidence, including Plaintiff’s
ability to stoop, in formulating the RFC.
For the reasons stated below, the undersigned recommends that the Court
affirm the ALJ’s decision.
Case 1:25-cv-00562-RJJ-MV ECF No. 13, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/27/26 Page 1
of 10

2
I. 	Procedural History
A. 	Key Dates
The ALJ’s decision notes that Plaintiff applied for DIB on September 6, 2022,
alleging an onset date of June 23, 2022. 	ECF No. 6-2, PageID.36. 	Plaintiff’s claim
was initially denied by the Social Security Administration (SSA) on March 8, 2023.
Id. 	The claim was denied on reconsideration on August 9, 2023. 	Id. 	Plaintiff then
requested a hearing before an ALJ. 	ALJ LaMarche conducted a hearing on
Plaintiff’s claim on February 22, 2024, and issued her decision on May 10, 2024. 	Id.,
PageID.36, 46. 	Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on May 14, 2025.
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.37-38. 	Before
stating her findings at each step, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff’s Date Last Insured
(DLI) was December 31, 2027. 	Id., PageID.38.
At Step One, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial
gainful activity (SGA) from June 23, 2022. 	Id.
At Step Two, the ALJ found that the Plaintiff had the following severe
impairments: 	spinal fusion surgery, scoliosis, neuropathy, arthritis, and obesity.
Id. 	The ALJ discussed a number of non-severe impairments, including gallbladder
removal surgery and an acute appendicitis status post laparoscopic appendectomy.
Id., PageID.39.
At Step Three, the ALJ found that the Plaintiff did not have an impairment or
Case 1:25-cv-00562-RJJ-MV ECF No. 13, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/27/26 Page 2
of 10

3
combination of impairments that met or medically equaled the severity of one of the
listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. Id. The ALJ
specifically commented on the impairments identified in Listings 1.15, 1.17, 1.18,
11.14, and Social Security Ruling 19-2p. 	Id.
Before going on to Step Four, the ALJ found that the Plaintiff had the following
RFC:
to perform sedentary work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(a) except the
claimant can never climb ladders, ropes or scaffolds; occasionally climb
ramps and stairs; occasionally stoop, kneel, crouch, crawl, and balance
as balancing is defined by the Selected Characteristics of Occupations;
frequently handle and finger bilaterally; can work in an environment
with only occasional concentrated exposure to extreme cold (under 30
degrees), wetness, humidity (over 80%) or vibration; should have no
exposure to environmental hazards such as high exposed places or
moving mechanical parts and no commercial driving.
Id.
The ALJ devoted six 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.39-40;
 	a summary of Plaintiff’s statements, id, PageID.40-41;
 	a summary of the medical records relating to spinal fusion surgeries,
scoliosis, 	degenerative 	disc 	disease, 	back 	pain, 	gallstones 	and
gallbladder removal surgery, appendectomy, and a medical consultative
examination which found that bending at the waist was limited to 30
degrees, id., PageID.41-43;
Case 1:25-cv-00562-RJJ-MV ECF No. 13, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/27/26 Page 3
of 10

4
 	a summary of the opinions of Seth Van Heukelom, DO, and medical
consultative examiners Ashok Sachdev, M.D., Thomas Flake, Jr., M.D.,
and Jeremey Mormol, M.D., id., PageID.44; and
 	an explanation as to why Dr. Sachdev and Dr. Flake’s opinion was
partially persuasive, why Dr. Mormol’s opinion was largely persuasive,
and why greater RFC restrictions were necessary, id.
At Step Four, the ALJ concluded that the Plaintiff was unable to perform Past
Relevant Work (PRW). 	Id., PageID.44-45.
At 	Step 	Five, 	the 	ALJ 	considered 	the 	Plaintiff’s 	age, 	education, 	work
experience, and RFC and concluded that jobs existed in significant numbers in the
national economy that the claimant could perform, such as charge account clerk,
order clerk food and beverage, and document preparer. 	Id., PageID.45-46.
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.
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
Case 1:25-cv-00562-RJJ-MV ECF No. 13, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/27/26 Page 4
of 10

5
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 failed to properly evaluate the supportability of
the medical opinions by not evaluating Plaintiff’s ability to stoop according to SSR
96-9p. 	SSR 96-9p states in part that:
A complete inability to stoop would significantly erode the unskilled
sedentary occupational base and a finding that the individual is disabled
would usually apply, but restriction to occasional stooping should, by
itself, only minimally erode the unskilled occupational base of sedentary
work. Consultation with a vocational resource may be particularly
useful for cases where the individual is limited to less than occasional
stooping.
Case 1:25-cv-00562-RJJ-MV ECF No. 13, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/27/26 Page 5
of 10

6
Titles II & XVI: Determining Capability to Do Other Work-Implications of A Residual
Functional Capacity for Less Than A Full Range of Sedentary Work, SSR 96-9P, 1996
WL 374185, *8 (S.S.A. July 2, 1996).
Plaintiff argues that although the ALJ found Drs. Sachdev and Flake’s
opinions she could occasionally stoop persuasive, and Dr. Mormol’s opinion largely
persuasive to the extent that it was consistent with the finding of sedentary RFC, the
ALJ never addressed whether Plaintiff had the ability to stoop in the first place.
On March 4, 2023, consultative physician Dr. Sachdev, opined that Plaintiff
could occasionally stoop or bend at the waist. 	ECF No. 6-3, PageID.92, 96. 	On
August 9, 2023, consultative physician Dr. Flake made the same findings. 	Id.,
PageID.101, 104. 	Thereafter, on March 29, 2024, Dr. Mormol conducted a physical
evaluation of Plaintiff. 	ECF No. 6-11, PageID.991-995. 	Dr. Mormol wrote:
Id., PageID.993. 	Dr. Mormal concluded by finding that Plaintiff had no limitation
Case 1:25-cv-00562-RJJ-MV ECF No. 13, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/27/26 Page 6
of 10

7
in her ability to stoop:
Id., PageID.995. 	Plaintiff argues that Drs. Sachdev and Flake’s opinions predate Dr.
Mormol’s evaluation and, therefore, they did not have his report at the time they
rendered their opinions.
An ALJ is required to evaluate the medical opinions pursuant to 20 U.S.C.
§ 404.1520c. 	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),” 	including 	opinions 	from 	a 	treating 	source. 	20 U.S. 	§
404.1520c(a). 	Instead, an ALJ will articulate his or her determination of the
persuasiveness of a medical opinion “in a single analysis using the factors in
paragraph 	(c)(1) 	through 	(c)(5) 	of 	this 	section, 	as 	appropriate.” 	20 U.S. 	§
404.1520c(b)(1). 	These 	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). 	In general, the
ALJ must explain his 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. § 	404.1520c(b)(2). 	The 	regulation 	explains 	“supportability” 	and
“consistency” as follows:
(1) Supportability. The 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
Case 1:25-cv-00562-RJJ-MV ECF No. 13, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/27/26 Page 7
of 10

8
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).
Before 	evaluating 	the 	prior 	administrative 	medical 	findings, 	the 	ALJ
addressed Plaintiff’s March 2024, medical consultative examination with Dr. Mormol:
ECF No. 6-2, PageID.43. 	In fact, when viewing Dr. Mormol’s opinion as largely
persuasive, the ALJ concluded that a more restrictive RFC was appropriate. 	Dr.
Mormol determined that Plaintiff could bend at the waist to 30 degrees but found no
limitations in Plaintiff’s ability to stoop. 	The ALJ explained that Dr. Mormol’s
findings were largely persuasive, but the ALJ provided a more restrictive RFC,
Case 1:25-cv-00562-RJJ-MV ECF No. 13, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/27/26 Page 8
of 10

9
including limiting Plaintiff to occasional stooping. 	The ALJ further explained:
ECF No. 6-2, PageID.44. 	Here, the ALJ considered the medical evidence, including
Dr. Mormol’s examination of Plaintiff and his opinions when formulating her RFC
finding. 	Dr. Mormol did not indicate that greater limitations were necessary.
For these reasons, the undersigned recommends that the Court determine that
the ALJ’s decision meets the requirements of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c) and is supported
by substantial evidence.
Finally, it is worth noting that none of the jobs that the VE identified, from the
Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT), that Plaintiff could perform, including:
account clerk, DOT #205.367-014, 1991 WL 671715, order clerk food and beverage,
DOT #209.567-014, 1991 WL 671794, and document preparer DOT #249.587-018,
1991 WL 672349, require stooping.
IV. 	Recommendation
Accordingly, it is respectfully recommended that the Court affirm the decision
of the Commissioner because the ALJ did not commit legal error, and substantial
evidence exists to support the ALJ’s decision.
Case 1:25-cv-00562-RJJ-MV ECF No. 13, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/27/26 Page 9
of 10

10
NOTICE TO PARTIES: 	Objections to this Report and Recommendation must
be served on opposing parties and filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen
(14) days of receipt of this Report and Recommendation. 	28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); W.D. Mich. LCivR 72.3(b). 	Failure to file timely objections
constitutes a waiver of any further right to appeal. 	United States v. Walters, 638
F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). 	See also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
Dated: 	April 27, 2026 	/s/ `ttÜàxÇ ixÜÅttà
MAARTEN VERMAAT
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-00562-RJJ-MV ECF No. 13, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/27/26 Page 10
of 10