Martin v. Commissioner of Social Security

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
MIRANDA M., 	Case No. 	1:25-cv-00268
Plaintiff, 	Hon. Hala Y. Jarbou
Chief 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) Cynthia Harmon’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 severe
medically determinable impairments, including arthralgias/myalgias, endometriosis,
bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and ADHD.
Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ failed to properly assess and evaluate the medical
opinion evidence and failed to properly evaluate her subjective symptoms. 	The
Commissioner argues that the ALJ properly evaluated medical provider opinion
evidence and Plaintiff’s subjective symptoms and further asserts that substantial
evidence support the ALJ’s decision.
For the reasons stated below, the undersigned recommends that the Court
affirm the ALJ’s decision.
Case 1:25-cv-00268-HYJ-MV ECF No. 16, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/15/25 Page 1
of 13

2
I. 	Procedural History
A. 	Key Dates
The ALJ’s decision notes that Plaintiff applied for DIB and SSI on September
7, 2022, alleging an onset date of April 1, 2021. 	(ECF No. 5-2, PageID.34.)
Plaintiff’s claim was initially denied by the Social Security Administration (SSA) on
April 21, 2023. 	(Id.) 	The claim was denied on reconsideration on September 1,
2023. 	(Id.) 	Plaintiff then requested a hearing before an ALJ. 	ALJ Harman
conducted a hearing on Plaintiff’s claim on December 12, 2023, and issued her
decision on February 15, 2024. 	(Id., PageID.34, 44.) 	Plaintiff timely filed this
lawsuit on March 10, 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. 5-2, PageID.35-36.)
Before stating her findings at each step, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff’s Date Last
Insured (DLI) was December 31, 2021. 	(Id., PageID.36.)
At Step One, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial
gainful activity (SGA) from April 1, 2021. 	(Id.)
At Step Two, the ALJ found that the Plaintiff had the following severe
impairments: 	arthralgias/myalgias, 	endometriosis, 	bipolar 	disorder, 	major
depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and ADHD. 	(Id.) 	The ALJ also
discussed the Paragraph B criteria, finding that Plaintiff did not meet or medically
equal the criteria in listings 12.04 (depression and bipolar disorders) and 12.06
Case 1:25-cv-00268-HYJ-MV ECF No. 16, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/15/25 Page 2
of 13

3
(anxiety 	and 	obsessive-compulsive 	disorders) 	due 	to 	only 	mild 	or 	moderate
limitations. 	(Id.)
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 the
listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. 	(Id., PageID.37.)
The ALJ specifically commented on the impairments listed in 1.15 (skeletal spine
disorders), 1.16 (lumbar spinal stenosis), and 1.18 (abnormality of a major joint in
any extremity). 	(Id.)
Before going on to Step Four, the ALJ found that the Plaintiff had the
following RFC: 	to perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b)
and 416.967(b) except the claimant can only stand and/or walk for 4
hours during an 8-hour workday; sit for about 6 hours during an 8-hour
workday; occasionally climb ramps and stairs; never climb ladders,
ropes, 	or 	scaffolds; 	occasionally 	stoop, 	kneel, 	crouch, 	and 	crawl;
occasionally reach overhead with bilaterally upper extremity; frequently
handle and finger bilaterally; must avoid concentrated exposure to
extreme cold, heat, humidity, and vibration; and must avoid dangerous
work place hazards such as unprotected heights or dangerous moving
machinery. The claimant is able to carry out simple instructions that do
not involve detailed or complex decision making or judgment; can
tolerate occasional changes in a routine work setting; cannot be required
to work at a production rate pace such as assembly line work, or have
hourly quota requirements, but is able to complete flexible daily quotas
by end of day.
(Id., PageID.38-39.)
The ALJ devoted more than four 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),
 	a summary of Plaintiff’s statements (id.),
Case 1:25-cv-00268-HYJ-MV ECF No. 16, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/15/25 Page 3
of 13

4
 	a 	summary 	of 	her 	2017 	to 	2019 	treatment 	for 	endometriosis,
arthralgias/myalgias, bipolar disorder, depression, and anxiety, (id.,
PageID.40-41.),
 	a summary of the medical records relating to her care with Dr. Tobolic
on March 5, 2021, September 3, 2021, and October 8, 2022, and her
follow-up care at the Byron Center Family Medicine during 2023. 	(id.),
 	a summary of opinions by Dr. Duemler, and consultative examiners:
nurse practitioner Kelly Easley; Dr. Fields, Dr. Manley, Dr. Gray, Dr.
Simone, and Dr. Moten. 	(id., PageID.40-42),
 	an explanation of how the ALJ arrived at his decision on the Plaintiff’s
RFC (id., PageID.42-43).
At Step Four, the ALJ concluded that, through the DLI, the Plaintiff was
unable to perform Past Relevant Work (PRW). 	(Id., PageID.43.)
At 	Step 	Five, 	the 	ALJ 	considered 	the 	Plaintiff’s 	age, 	education, 	work
experience and RFC and concluded that there exists significant jobs in the national
economy that claimant can perform. (Id., PageID.43-44.)
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
Case 1:25-cv-00268-HYJ-MV ECF No. 16, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/15/25 Page 4
of 13

5
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
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
a. Medical Opinions
Plaintiff argues that the ALJ failed to properly consider treating physician Dr.
Duemler’s 	May 	17 	and 	November 	3, 	2023, 	opinions 	regarding 	her 	physical
Case 1:25-cv-00268-HYJ-MV ECF No. 16, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/15/25 Page 5
of 13

6
restrictions. 	Dr. Duemler estimated that Plaintiff could stand for one hour per day
and sit upright for six to eight hours with breaks due to joint pain and fatigue. (ECF
No. 5-8, PageID.348-349, 354-355.) 	He further indicated that Plaintiff needed to lie
down during the day to help with joint pain, could rarely reach above her right
shoulder, and could frequently reach above her left shoulder, down to her waist, and
toward the floor. 	She could consistently handle objects, handle with her fingers, and
she could lift and carry less than five pounds. 	(Id., PageID.349, 355.) 	Dr. Duemler
wrote that Plaintiff is “getting worse over time and less able to keep up full time
work.” 	(Id., PageID.351, 357.)
The ALJ evaluated all 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. §§
Case 1:25-cv-00268-HYJ-MV ECF No. 16, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/15/25 Page 6
of 13

7
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
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.
In finding Dr. Duemler’s opinions unpersuasive the ALJ explained:
(ECF No. 5-2, PageID.41-42.)
Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred by not referencing the 2015 laparoscopy
Case 1:25-cv-00268-HYJ-MV ECF No. 16, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/15/25 Page 7
of 13

8
procedure or examinations conducted by Dr. Duemler in 2017 and 2019, which pre-
date the alleged onset date. 	(ECF No. 12, PageID.474-476.) 	Plaintiff asserts that
the objective evidence from the laparoscopy procedure and exams in 2017 and 2019
provide support and consistency for Dr. Duemler’s opinions. 	(Id.) 	Plaintiff argues
that her impairments did not get better. 	She argues the limitations as set forth by
Dr. Duemler, prevent her from performing light work and are inconsistent with the
RFC. 	While an ALJ is required to consider all the evidence in the record, she is not
required to discuss each item of evidence in her opinion. 	Jenkins v. Colvin, No. 5:15-
CV-1165, 	2016 	WL 	825909, 	at 	*9 	(N.D. 	Ohio 	Feb. 	11, 	2016), 	report 	and
recommendation adopted, No. 5:15 CV 1165, 2016 WL 815625 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 1,
2016); see Thacker v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 99 F. App’x 661, 665 (6th Cir.2004) (“An
ALJ need not discuss every piece of evidence in the record for his decision to stand.”)
In the opinion of the undersigned, 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).
As for supportability, the ALJ found that Dr. Duemler’s limitations were not
supported by the minimal and conservative treatment that Plaintiff received during
Case 1:25-cv-00268-HYJ-MV ECF No. 16, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/15/25 Page 8
of 13

9
the relevant period. 	The ALJ further found that Dr. Duemler’s opinion was
inconsistent with the consultative examination and the psychological consultative
examinations. 	N.P. Easley examined Plaintiff on March 27, 2023, and opined that
Plaintiff could perform light work with restrictions. 	The ALJ explained:
(ECF No. 5-2, PageID.41.) 	Plaintiff had a psychological consultative examination
with Dr. Fields on April 1, 2023. 	The ALJ noted that the “claimant’s mental status
exam was grossly normal.” 	(Id.)
Moreover, the ALJ found that state agency consulting physicians Dr. Manley
and Dr. Gray’s opinion that Plaintiff could perform light exertional level work with
some 	restrictions 	generally 	persuasive 	and 	noted 	that 	the 	examinations 	were
“supported by the claimant’s ongoing treatment which do not show any significant
worsening or change in treatment.” 	(Id., PageID.42.) 	Finally, the ALJ found that
state agency consulting physicians Dr. Simone and Dr. Moten’s opinion that Plaintiff
could perform “simple, routine tasks on a sustained basis in a work environment”
Case 1:25-cv-00268-HYJ-MV ECF No. 16, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/15/25 Page 9
of 13

10
with some limitations was somewhat persuasive and consistent with the medical
evidence and other consultative examinations. 	(Id.)
A substantiality of evidence evaluation does not permit a selective reading of
the record. Hardy v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 554 F. Supp. 3d 900, 909 (E.D. Mich. 2021);
see Wyatt v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 974 F.2d 680, 683 (6th Cir. 1992)
(“Substantiality of the evidence must be based upon the record taken as a whole....
[It] must take into account whatever in the record fairly detracts from its weight”).
But here, the ALJ’s opinion demonstrates that she did not ignore the full scope of Dr.
Duemler’s findings; instead, she found that some of Dr. Duemler’s conclusions were
not supported by the overall medical record and were inconsistent with the findings
of the consultative examiners.
Plaintiff’s argument merely highlights that there may be substantial evidence
to support an alternative conclusion. 	That is not enough to disturb the ALJ’s
findings. 	Weighing conflicting evidence is the role of the ALJ, not of the Court.
Sallaz v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 23-3825, 2024 WL 2955645, at *7 (6th Cir. June 12,
2024). 	As long as substantial evidence supports the Commissioner’s decision, the
Court must defer to it, “even if there is substantial evidence in the record that would
have supported an opposite conclusion.” 	Wright v. Massanari, 321 F.3d 611, 614 (6th
Cir. 2003) (citations omitted); see Buxton v. Halter, 246 F.3d 762, 772 (6th Cir. 2001)
(“The findings of the Commissioner are not subject to reversal merely because there
exists in the record substantial evidence to support a different conclusion”) (citations
omitted).
Case 1:25-cv-00268-HYJ-MV ECF No. 16, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/15/25 Page 10
of 13

11
b. Assessment of Symptoms in RFC Finding
Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred by not properly evaluating Plaintiff’s
subjective symptoms. 	At the hearing, Plaintiff testified she does not drive because
of 	her 	pain 	medication 	(ECF 	No. 	5-2, 	PageID.55), 	and 	that 	she 	experiences
endometriosis pain about 80 percent of time which is “consistently wiping me out.”
(Id., PageID.57.) 	She has been told that she needs “a full hysterectomy to take care
of everything.” 	(Id., PageID.58.) 	She says that the worst pain symptoms occur
about a week and a half per month, which require her to stay in bed during the first
week of pain. 	(Id.) 	She also says that she has arthritis pain in both knees which
slow her down and make it difficult for her to walk. 	(Id., PageID.59.) 	As a result
of her pain symptoms, she experiences depression and has a hard time focusing due
to ADHD. 	(Id., PageID.60-61.)
Plaintiff argues that the ALJ used meaningless boiler plate language to reject
Plaintiff’s claim of disabling symptoms. 	The Commissioner argues that substantial
evidence supports the ALJ’s symptom evaluation and RFC finding because the ALJ
addressed 	Plaintiff’s 	symptoms 	and 	provided 	further 	work 	restrictions 	to
accommodate her ability to perform light work.
An ALJ must consider “the intensity and persistence of [the claimant’s]
symptoms” to determine how the claimant’s symptoms limit their capacity for work.
20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1). 	In evaluating the intensity and persistence of the
claimant’s symptoms, the ALJ must consider “all of the available evidence from [the
claimant’s] medical sources and nonmedical sources” to determine how the claimant
Case 1:25-cv-00268-HYJ-MV ECF No. 16, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/15/25 Page 11
of 13

12
is affected by their symptoms. 	Id. 	An ALJ must take into account symptom-
related functional limitations and restrictions that can reasonably be accepted as
consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence. 	20 C.F.R. §
404.1529(c)(3). 	The ALJ also must consider factors relevant to the claimant’s
symptoms including: (1) the claimant’s daily activities; (2) the location, duration,
frequency, and intensity of the claimant’s pain or other symptoms; (3) precipitating
and aggravating factors; (4) the type dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any
medication the claimant takes or has taken to alleviate their pain or other symptoms;
(5) treatment, other than medication, the claimant receives or received for relief of
pain or symptoms; (6) any measures the claimant uses or has used to relieve their
pain or other symptoms; and (7) other factors concerning the claimant’s functional
limitations 	and 	restrictions 	due 	to 	pain 	or 	other 	symptoms. 	20 	C.F.R. 	§
404.1529(c)(3)(i-vii).
In her decision, the ALJ evaluated Plaintiff’s symptoms and addressed them
in the RFC. 	Contrary to Plaintiff’s claims, the ALJ credited Plaintiff’s testimony
regarding her symptoms. 	For example, when considering N.P. Easley’s opinions, the
ALJ indicated that N.P. Easley opinions were consistent with primary care physician
Dr. Tobolic’s examinations and conservative treatment with pain medication (see
ECF No. 5-2, PageID.40 (summarizing Dr. Tobolic’s care between 2021 and 2022)),
but 	the 	ALJ 	“afforded 	slightly 	greater/additional 	limitations 	based 	upon 	the
claimant’s testimony.” 	(Id., PageID.41.) 	The ALJ also discussed Plaintiff’s care
with Dr. Duemler at Byron Center Family Medicine in 2023. 	Here, the ALJ credited
Case 1:25-cv-00268-HYJ-MV ECF No. 16, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/15/25 Page 12
of 13

13
Plaintiff’s subjective complaints by limiting her to light work with additional
restrictions. 	Further, In addition to N.P. Easley’s examination results, the ALJ
considered consultative doctors Manley, Gray, Simone and Moten’s opinions in
determining Plaintiff’s RFC. 	In the opinion of the undersigned, ALJ Harmon did
not err in considering Plaintiff’s subjective symptoms in determining the RFC.
IV. 	Recommendation
Accordingly, it is respectfully recommended that the Court find that ALJ
Harmon’s 	decision 	was 	supported 	by 	substantial 	evidence. 	Accordingly, 	the
undersigned respectfully recommends that the ALJ’s decision be affirmed.
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: 	December 15, 2025 	/s/ `ttÜàxÇ ixÜÅttà
MAARTEN VERMAAT
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-00268-HYJ-MV ECF No. 16, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/15/25 Page 13
of 13