Ross v. Commissioner of Social Security

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
PATRICIA R. , 	Case No. 1:25-cv-607
Plaintiff, 	Hon. Hala J. Jarbou
Chief U.S. District Judge
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
__________________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This Opinion addresses Plaintiff’s appeal of Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
Mary Pamela Hubert’s decision denying Plaintiff’s request for 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 hypertension, myocardial
infarction, a history of traumatic brain injury, generalized anxiety disorder, major
depressive disorder, migraines, and mild intellectual disability. 	Plaintiff is a fifty-
four-year-old woman. Plaintiff’s medical records indicate that she survived domestic
abuse approximately fifteen years ago, including being struck at the back of the head
leading to skull fractures. ECF No. 5-8, PageID.342. Following that abuse, Plaintiff
reports having migraines three to four times a week. 	Id. 	Plaintiff asserts that the
ALJ’s formulation of her Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) is not supported by
substantial 	evidence. 	Plaintiff’s 	primary 	argument 	is 	that 	the 	ALJ 	erred 	in
evaluating 	the 	opinion 	from 	consultative 	psychological 	examiner 	Dr. 	Kitchen,
Case 1:25-cv-00607-HYJ-MV ECF No. 19, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/27/26 Page 1
of 10

2
specifically that she did not consider the supportability factor. 	ECF No. 11,
PageID.701. The Commissioner asserts that the ALJ sufficiently explained why she
was not persuaded by Dr. Kitchen’s opinion and her analysis reflects consideration of
the supportability factor. ECF No. 15, PageID.717-18.
For the reasons stated below, the undersigned respectfully recommends that
the Court affirm the ALJ’s decision.
I. 	Procedural History
A. 	Key Dates
The ALJ’s decision notes that Plaintiff applied for SSI on December 15, 2022,
alleging an onset date of May 6, 2008. ECF No. 5-2, PageID.37. Plaintiff’s claim was
initially denied by the Social Security Administration (SSA) on June 22, 2023. 	Id.
The claim was denied on reconsideration on September 25, 2023. Id. Plaintiff then
requested a hearing before an ALJ. 	ALJ Hubert conducted a hearing on Plaintiff’s
claim on May 1, 2024, and issued her decision on May 29, 2024. 	Id., PageID.50.
Plaintiff timely filed this lawsuit on May 30, 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. 5-2, PageID.38.
At Step One, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial
gainful activity (SGA) since December 15, 2022. Id., PageID.39.
At Step Two, the ALJ found that the Plaintiff had the following severe
impairments: hypertension, myocardial infarction, history of traumatic brain injury,
Case 1:25-cv-00607-HYJ-MV ECF No. 19, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/27/26 Page 2
of 10

3
generalized 	anxiety 	disorder, 	major 	depressive 	disorder, 	migraines, 	and 	mild
intellectual disability. Id. In portion of her decision, the ALJ discussed a number of
non-severe impairments, including mild degenerative disk disease of the lumbar
spine (9F/13); benign positional vertigo, treated with Meclizine (7F/13); dyslipidemia,
treated with Crestor (7F/13); and subclinical hypothyroidism (7F/13). 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 of the
listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. 	Id., PageID.40.
The ALJ specifically commented on the impairments listed in 4.00 (cardiovascular
system), 11.02 (epilepsy), and SSR 19-4p (headache disorder). 	Id., PageID.41. 	The
ALJ also discussed the Paragraph B criteria, finding that Plaintiff had: a moderate
limitation remembering or applying information; a mild limitation interacting with
others; a moderate limitation concentrating, persisting or maintaining pace; and a
moderate limitation adapting or managing oneself. 	Id., PageID. 41-42. 	The ALJ
concluded that the required level of severity for a 12.05 listing (intellectual disorder)
was not met because despite Plaintiff “having a full-scale IQ score of 67 on the WAIS-
IV at the psychological consultative examination, she does not have significant
deficits in adaptive functioning” to satisfy paragraph A or B. Id., PageID.43.
Before going on to Step Four, the ALJ found that the Plaintiff had the following
RFC:
After careful consideration of the entire record, the undersigned finds
that the claimant has the residual functional capacity to perform a full
range 	of 	work 	at 	all 	exertional 	levels 	but 	with 	the 	following
nonexertional limitations: no exertional limits but where the claimant
Case 1:25-cv-00607-HYJ-MV ECF No. 19, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/27/26 Page 3
of 10

4
cannot climb ladders, ropes, and scaffolds. The claimant must avoid
concentrated exposure to noise more than a moderate/level 3, and avoid
even moderate exposure to hazards which include unprotected heights,
dangerous moving machinery, and where the claimant cannot drive a
motor vehicle as part of work duties. The claimant can sustain simple,
routine, repetitive tasks in a low stress work environment with only
simple decision making and infrequent simple changes in routine.
Id., PageID.43.
The ALJ devoted over five pages to discussing Plaintiff’s RFC. This discussion
included the following:
x 	a summary of the regulations regarding how the ALJ will address
Plaintiff’s symptoms, id., PageID. 43-44;
x 	a summary of Plaintiff’s statements, id., PageID. 44;
x 	a summary of the medical records relating to migraine symptom,
hypertension, major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder,
insomnia, and a history of traumatic brain injury, and a myocardial
infarction (heart attack) in February 2024, id., PageID.44-47;
x 	a summary of opinions by the state agency medical consultant, state
agency psychological consultant, state agency medical consultant at the
reconsideration 	level, 	and 	psychological 	consultative 	examiner 	Dr.
Kitchen, id., PageID.48-49; and
x 	an explanation of how the ALJ arrived at her decision on the Plaintiff’s
RFC, id., PageID.49.
At Step Four, the ALJ concluded that the Plaintiff had no Past Relevant Work
(PRW). Id.
Case 1:25-cv-00607-HYJ-MV ECF No. 19, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/27/26 Page 4
of 10

5
At Step Five, the ALJ considered Plaintiff’s age, education, work experience
and RFC and concluded that there were jobs that existed in significant numbers in
the national economy that Plaintiff could perform. Id., PageID.49.
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
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,
Case 1:25-cv-00607-HYJ-MV ECF No. 19, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/27/26 Page 5
of 10

6
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 	ALJ 	Hubert 	erred 	in 	evaluating 	the 	opinion 	from
consultative 	psychological 	examiner 	Dr. 	Kitchen. 	ECF 	No. 	11, 	PageID.701.
Specifically, 	Plaintiff 	asserts 	that 	ALJ 	Hubert 	failed 	to 	adequately 	include 	a
supportability analysis. Id. The Commissioner responds that ALJ Hubert’s analysis
of 	Dr. 	Kitchen’s 	findings 	and 	comparison 	to 	the 	state 	agency 	psychological
consultant’s findings reflects that the ALJ considered the supportability factor. ECF
No. 15, PageID.718.
Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c and 416.920c, an 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
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.
Case 1:25-cv-00607-HYJ-MV ECF No. 19, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/27/26 Page 6
of 10

7
20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c(c)(1)-(5) and 416.920c(c)(1)-(5). 	In general, the ALJ must
explain 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. §§
404.1520c(b)(2)-(3) and 416.920c(b)(2)-(3). 	The regulations explain “supportability”
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.
20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c(c)(1) and 416.920c(c)(1).
Here, psychologist Dr. Kitchen authored a medical report on March 8, 2023, as
part of the Michigan disability determination service. ECF No. 5-8, PageID.347-51.
Dr. Kitchen evaluated Plaintiff’s history of illness, personal history, daily functioning,
general observations, and mental status to reach the following diagnoses and
prognosis:
ECF No. 5-8, PageID.351.
Case 1:25-cv-00607-HYJ-MV ECF No. 19, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/27/26 Page 7
of 10

8
ALJ Hubert references Dr. Kitchen’s report multiple times throughout her
opinion. See ECF No. 5-2, PageID. 41, 46-48 (referencing Exhibit 3F – Dr. Kitchen’s
Michigan Disability Determination Service Report). The ALJ specifically notes that
Dr. Kitchen’s findings were contrary to the state agency psychological examiner’s
review. 	The state agency psychological examiner concluded that Dr. Kitchen’s
opinion “relies heavily on the subjective report of symptoms and limitations provided
by the individual, and the totality of the evidence does not support the opinion.” ECF
No. 5-3, PageID.92. 	Ultimately ALJ Hubert did not find Dr. Kitchen’s opinion
persuasive due to the lack of consistency with the rest of Plaintiff’s records:
ECF No. 5-2, PageID.48.
For supportability, the inquiry is “the extent to which a medical source has
articulated support for the medical source’s own opinion.” Benjamin C. v. Comm’r of
Case 1:25-cv-00607-HYJ-MV ECF No. 19, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/27/26 Page 8
of 10

9
Soc. Sec., No., 2025 WL 2646473 at *4 (W.D. Mich. Aug. 27, 2025) (quoting Cook v.
Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 6:20-cv-1197, 2021 WL 1565832, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 6,
2021)). While ALJ Hubert did not directly articulate the word “supportability” in her
analysis, she articulated that Dr. Kitchen’s opinion was not persuasive due to
inconsistencies with the rest of the record, including the Function Report and state
agency psychological examiner’s review. Id. The ALJ engaged in extensive analysis
of the different medical opinions and ultimately concluded that the state agency
psychological examiner’s review was more persuasive. 	This indicates that the ALJ
found the state agency review more heavily supported by the record. In the opinion
of the undersigned, the ALJ’s decision substantially complies with the requirements
of § 404.1520c and is supported by substantial evidence in the record. See Hardy v.
Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 2:20-cv-4097, 2021 WL 4059310 at *4 (S.D. Ohio
Sept. 7, 2021) (“The ALJ's decision substantially complied with the requirements of §
404.1520c, 	and 	her 	failure 	to 	specifically 	use 	the 	terms 	“supportability” 	and
“consistency” in her analysis, even if error, was harmless.”)
Accordingly, in the opinion of the undersigned, Plaintiff has failed to establish
that ALJ Hubert errored in her evaluation of Dr. Kitchen’s opinion.
IV. 	Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, in the opinion of the undersigned, the ALJ’s decision
is supported by substantial evidence. 	Accordingly, the undersigned respectfully
recommends that the Court affirm the ALJ’s decision.
Case 1:25-cv-00607-HYJ-MV ECF No. 19, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/27/26 Page 9
of 10

10
Dated: 	April 27, 2026 	/s/ M	Maarten Vermaat
MAARTEN VERMAAT
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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).
Case 1:25-cv-00607-HYJ-MV ECF No. 19, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/27/26 Page 10
of 10