UNITED STATES D                                         
                             ISTRICT COURT                            
                  DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                               


Christian Paul C.,                 Case No. 24-cv-772 (ECT/DTS)           

 Plaintiff,                                                           

v.                                 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION              

Martin O'Malley,                                                          
Commissioner of Social Security,                                          

 Defendant.                                                           


                      INTRODUCTION                                    
 Claimant Christian C. applied for supplemental security income in August 2021. 
Admin. Rec. 15, 219–21, Dkt. No. 7. His claim was denied initially, upon reconsideration, 
and after a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). Id. at 15–28, 57–64, 77–
84. The Appeals Council declined Claimant’s subsequent request to review the ALJ’s 
unfavorable ruling, making it the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. Id. 
at 1. Claimant filed this action on March 5, 2024. Compl. Jud. Rev. Dec. Comm’r Soc. 
Sec. 2, Dkt. No. 1.                                                       
 Claimant argues the ALJ erred in two ways: (1) failing to appropriately address 
supportability and consistency factors in evaluating Dr. Van Noord’s medical opinion, and 
(2) improperly evaluating Claimant’s residual functional capacity (RFC). Pl.’s Br. 8–15, 
Dkt. No. 9. Because the ALJ properly analyzed the supportability and consistency of Dr. 
Van Noord’s opinion, and substantial evidence supports the RFC determination, the Court 
recommends that the ALJ’s decision be affirmed.                           
                      BACKGROUND                                      
I.   Procedural History                                                   
 Claimant filed for supplemental security income in August 2021 under Title XVI of 
the Social Security Act, alleging disability due to autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and 

depression. Id. at 15, 219–21. After the Social Security Administration denied his claim 
initially and on reconsideration, he requested a hearing before an ALJ. Id. at 57–64, 77–
84, 133–34.                                                               
 The ALJ employed the familiar five-step sequential evaluation process in finding  
claimant not disabled. 

(a)(4). At step one, the ALJ determined 
Claimant had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since he applied for benefits. 
Admin. Rec. 18, Dkt. No. 7. At step two, the ALJ determined Claimant had the severe 
impairments of major depressive disorder and ASD. 

 At step three, the ALJ determined 
Claimant’s impairments did not meet or equal a listed impairment. 

 Claimant does not 
challenge the ALJ’s findings at steps 1–3. Pl.’s Br. 8–15, Dkt. No. 9. At step four, the ALJ 

determined Claimant had the RFC to perform work at all exertional levels but was limited 
to  occasional  changes  in  work  setting,  no  public  interaction,  brief  and  superficial 
interaction with superiors and coworkers, and no rapid, assembly-line paced work. 

. Since Claimant had no relevant past work, the analysis proceeded to step five, at 
which the ALJ determined Claimant could perform jobs existing in significant number in 
the national economy, including merchandise maker, collator operator, and router. 

 at 
27–28. As a result, the ALJ denied Claimant’s claim for supplemental security income. 

.                                                                    
 Claimant appealed the ALJ’s decision to the Appeals Council, which declined 
review. 

. Claimant now seeks judicial review under 

(g), requesting 
reversal or remand for further proceedings. Compl. Jud. Rev. Dec. Comm’r Soc. Sec. 1–
2, Dkt. No. 1; Pl.’s Br. 1, Dkt. No. 9.                                   

II.  Standard of Review                                                   
 Under the Social Security Act, disability is the “inability to engage in any 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 of not less than 12 months.” 

(d)(1)(A). A claimant 
bears the burden of proving his or her disability. See 

(a)(1); Kamann 
v. Colvin, 

 (8th Cir. 2013).                             
 This Court has authority to affirm, modify, or reverse the Commissioner of Social 
Security’s decision with or without remand. 

(g). This Court must affirm the 
Commissioner’s decision if its findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence in 

the record as a whole and are not based on legal error. Id.; see also Chismarich v. 
Berryhill, 

 (8th Cir. 2018).                             
A.    Substantial Evidence                                            
 An ALJ’s decision must be based on substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is 
what “a reasonable mind would find . . . adequate to support the conclusion.” Chismarich 
v. Berryhill, 

 (8th Cir. 2018) (quoting Jones v. Astrue, 

 (8th Cir. 2010)). This is not a high bar. While substantial evidence is “more than a 
mere scintilla,” Biestek v. Berryhill, 

 (2019) (quoting Consolidated Edison 
Co. v. NLRB, 

 (1938)), it is “less than a preponderance,” Chismarich, 

 (quoting Jones v. Astrue, 

 (8th Cir. 2010)). A court 
must affirm the ALJ’s decision if it is reasonable, even if the record could support another 
inconsistent conclusion. Cuthrell v. Astrue, 

 (8th Cir. 2013). In 
evaluating  whether  substantial  evidence  exists,  a  court  considers  evidence  both 

supporting and undermining the ALJ’s findings. 

                        
B.    Supportability and Consistency                                  
 In determining a claimant’s RFC, the ALJ must consider all medical opinions and 
prior administrative medical findings to determine their persuasiveness. 

.1520c(a). In his decision, the ALJ must articulate the factors he used to evaluate the 
persuasiveness of each medical source. 

.1520c(b). At a minimum, the 
ALJ must consider the opinion’s supportability and consistency. 

 § 404.1520c(b)(2). 
Supportability focuses on the source itself. The more a source’s objective evidence and 
explanations  support  a  medical  opinion,  the  more  persuasive  the  opinion.  Id.  § 
404.1520c(c)(1). Consistency compares a source to the record as a whole. The more 

consistent the opinion is with evidence from other sources, both medical and nonmedical, 
the more persuasive the opinion is. Id. § 404.1520c(c)(2).                
 The  failure  to  consider  supportability  and  consistency  of  a  medical  source’s 
opinions is legal error. See Lucas v. Saul, 

 (8th Cir. 2020). There are 
no magic words an ALJ must use to show he considered supportability and consistency—
he must simply demonstrate that he did so. See Mario O. v. Kijakazi, No. 21-cv-2469, 

, at *11 (D. Minn. Dec. 13, 2022), R. & R. adopted, No. 21-cv-2469, 

 (D. Minn. Jan. 9, 2023) (“No talismanic language is required for the ALJ 
to meet the requirements of § 404.1520c . . .”).                          
                        ANALYSIS                                      
I.   The ALJ’s Assessment of Dr. Van Noord’s Medical Opinion              
 Claimant submitted two medical opinions supporting his claim for social security 
benefits—one each from Dr. Kimberly Klein and Dr. Robert Van Noord.  Admin. Rec. 333–

43, 372–78, Dkt. No. 7. In his opinion, Dr. Van Noord expressly relied on Dr. Klein’s report. 
Id. at 373–78.                                                            
 Dr. Klein conducted a neuropsychological evaluation on Claimant in December 
2020, assessing his level of functioning, areas of difficulty, and needs for intervention. Id. 
at 333. As part of her assessment, Dr. Klein administered a series of tests including the 
Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV) and the Wechsler Memory 
Scale-IV (WMS-IV), showing Claimant’s intelligence was in the high average range and 
his memory ranged from average to excellent. Id. at 336–38. At the same time, Dr. Klein 
also reported Claimant had extremely low adaptive skills and lacked certain executive 
abilities. Id. at 339, 341. Dr. Klein diagnosed Claimant with ASD and Other Specified 

Depressive Disorder, ultimately opining that Claimant would benefit from therapy, support 
in  activities  of  daily  living,  county  case  management  services,  and  vocational 
rehabilitation. Id. at 342.                                               
 Dr. Van Noord interviewed Claimant to evaluate his mental status and activities of 
daily living in December 2021. Id. at 372. In conjunction with his own observations, Dr. 
Van Noord also considered Dr. Klein’s report. Id. at 373–78. Dr. Van Noord concurred 
with Dr. Klein’s diagnoses. Id. at 378. He determined that Claimant could understand 
reasonably complex instructions, manage his finances, and had no cognitive deficits 
impairing  his  ability  to  work  at  least  in  an  entry-level  position.  Id.  Despite  these 
determinations, Dr. Van Noord opined that Claimant’s symptoms would significantly 
impair his ability to function in a work setting, and that structure and support—such as a 
job coach and personally-tailored schedule and tasks—would be necessary for Claimant 
to succeed in the workplace. Id.                                          

 The  ALJ  concurred  with  Dr.  Van  Noord’s diagnoses  and  determinations  that 
Claimant could understand reasonably complex instructions, manage his finances, and 
had no cognitive deficits impairing his ability to work at least in an entry-level position. 
Admin. Rec. 25, Dkt. No. 7. The ALJ found these findings persuasive and “supported by 
the claimant’s lack of mental health treatment, largely unremarkable MSE findings, WAIS-
IV and WMS-IV testing results, and [Claimant’s] relatively robust activities of daily living.” 
Id.                                                                       
 The ALJ was not persuaded by Dr. Van Noord insofar as he found that certain 
ASD-related  skills  deficits  significantly  interfered  with  Claimant’s ability  to  work  and 
recommended mild but definite structures and supports to keep a job. Id. The ALJ 

explained he did not find this aspect of Dr. Van Noord’s opinion persuasive because: 
      It is not supported by the claimant’s lack of involvement in    
      mental health treatment and/or his largely unremarkable MSE     
      findings. It is also not supported by the claimant’s many years 
      of coaching high school basketball with no accommodations,      
      job coaching, or Schule [sic] and work tasks tailored to his    
      tolerances and needs. Further, the claimant presented as        
      pleasant and cooperative during his interview with Dr. Van      
      Noord.                                                          
Id.                                                                       
 Claimant argues the ALJ erred by (1) neglecting to assess the supportability and 
consistency of Dr. Van Noord’s opinion in relation to Dr. Klein’s report and (2) basing his 
rejection of Dr. Van Noord’s opinion on a cherry-picked sample of the evidence in the 
record. Pl.’s Br. 10–12, Dkt. No. 9. The first argument asserts the ALJ made an error of 
law, while the second asserts the ALJ’s assessment of Dr. Van Noord’s opinion was not 
based on substantial evidence. Neither is persuasive.                     
 A.   Supportability                                                  

 An ALJ considers the supportability of a medical opinion by assessing how relevant 
the objective medical evidence and explanations in the source are to the conclusions in 
the opinion. See 

.1520c(c)(1). In other words, the ALJ analyzes how a 
source’s own data and reasoning supports its ultimate opinions. Here, the ALJ identified 
objective medical evidence within Dr. Van Noord’s report in assessing its persuasiveness. 
In explaining why he found certain portions of Dr. Van Noord’s report unpersuasive, the 
ALJ  cited  to  Claimant’s  lack  of  mental  health  treatment,  mental  status  evaluations 
(MSEs), experience coaching basketball, and demeanor during the interview. Admin. 
Rec. 25, Dkt. No. 7. In explaining why he found certain portions of Dr. Van Noord’s report 
persuasive, the ALJ cited to Claimant’s lack of mental health treatment, MSE findings,  

WAIS-IV testing results, and activities of daily living. 

 Throughout his opinion, the ALJ 
discussed each of these pieces of data in the context of Dr. Van Noord’s report. 

 at 19–
21 (discussing MSEs, WAIS-IV, and activities of daily living at page 19, demeanor and 
coaching experience at page 20, and a lack of mental health treatment at page 21). In 
sum, the ALJ clearly addressed the supportability of Dr. Van Noord’s opinion when 
assessing its persuasiveness.                                             
 Claimant argues the ALJ failed to address the supportability of Dr. Van Noord’s 
opinion by neglecting to discuss how Dr. Klein’s report supported Dr. Van Noord’s opinion, 
Pl.’s Br. 10–11, Dkt. No. 9, but this argument is misplaced. An ALJ considers the 
supportability of an opinion by evaluating the evidence in that opinion—not by evaluating 
evidence from a separate medical opinion. See 

.1520c(c)(1). This critique 
is thus properly analyzed with respect to the ALJ’s consistency evaluation. Therefore, the 
ALJ properly considered the supportability of Dr. Van Noord’s opinion by identifying 

objective  medical  evidence  contained  in  that  report  when  assessing  the  opinion’s 
persuasiveness.                                                           
 B.   Consistency                                                     
 An ALJ considers the consistency of a medical opinion by evaluating how it aligns 
with  other  sources  in  the  record,  both  medical  and  non-medical.  See  

 
§ 404.1520c(c)(2). The more an opinion aligns with evidence from other sources, the 
more  persuasive  it  will  be.  Id.  Although  the  ALJ’s  explicit  statements  about  the 
consistency of Dr. Van Noord’s opinion with the record are minimal, “[t]he ALJ’s brevity is 
not reversible error.” Grindley v. Kijakazi, 

 (8th Cir. 2021). Rather, the 
only requirement is that the ALJ’s reasoning is “clear enough to allow for appropriate 

judicial review.” 

 (quoting Sloan v. Saul, 

 (8th Cir. 2019)). Here, the 
ALJ articulated his analysis of the consistency of Dr. Van Noord’s opinion in two ways.  
 First, the ALJ explicitly considered medical evidence extrinsic to Dr. Van Noord’s 
report. In articulating why he found certain aspects of Dr. Van Noord’s opinion persuasive, 
the ALJ specifically referenced the WMS-IV testing not discussed in Dr. Van Noord’s 
report. See 

 at 372–78.                                                
 Second,  the  entirety  of  the  ALJ’s  opinion  demonstrates  he  evaluated  the 
consistency of Dr. Van Noord’s opinion with other medical and non-medical evidence in 
the record. The ALJ explicitly identified Claimant’s lack of mental health treatment, largely 
unremarkable MSE findings, WAIS-IV testing results, relatively robust activities of daily 
living, and high school coaching without accommodations or a job coach. Id. at 25. This 
information, though mentioned in Dr. Van Noord’s report, is also found in other sources 
in the record (id. at 20–21, 23–24) and therefore is appropriate to consider in evaluating 

consistency. The ALJ’s express consideration of this information establishes that he 
properly assessed the consistency of Dr. Van Noord’s opinion with the record as a whole. 
 While Claimant argues the ALJ failed to address the consistency of Dr. Van 
Noord’s  opinion  by  neglecting  to  expressly  assess  its  consistency  with  Dr.  Klein’s 
evaluation, Pl.’s Br. 10–11, Dkt. No. 9, this argument fails. The ALJ expressly referenced 
WMS-IV testing from Dr. Klein’s report when evaluating the persuasiveness of Dr. Van 
Noord’s report. Admin. Rec. 19, 25, Dkt. No. 7. The ALJ discussed Dr. Klein’s report on 
Claimant’s activities of daily living, failure to seek mental health treatment, experience 
coaching basketball, and intellectual abilities. Id. at 20–21, 23. The ALJ cites to all of this 
information  in  evaluating  the  persuasiveness  of  Dr.  Van  Noord’s  opinion,  and  thus 

demonstrates he in fact considered the consistency of Dr. Van Noord’s opinion with, 
among other information, Dr. Klein’s opinion.                             
 C.   Substantial Evidence Supporting Dr. Van Noord’s Opinion         
 Claimant argues the ALJ based his evaluation of Dr. Van Noord’s opinion on a 
“misleading and highly selective reading of the other evidence.” Pl.’s Br. 11, Dkt. No. 9. 
In essence, Claimant maintains the ALJ’s assessment of Dr. Van Noord’s opinion was 
not based on substantial evidence. Substantial evidence exists where “a reasonable mind 
might accept the evidence as adequate to support the Commissioner’s conclusion.” Nolen 
v. Kijakazi, 

 (8th Cir. 2023). Claimant’s argument fails because even if 
the record could support a different conclusion, the record contains sufficient evidence to 
adequately support the ALJ’s evaluation of Dr. Van Noord’s opinion.       
 Here, the ALJ was not persuaded by Dr. Van Noord’s view that Claimant exhibited 
ASD-related deficits that would significantly interfere with his ability to interact with others 

and maintain gainful employment, thus warranting accommodations such as a job coach 
and a personalized schedule. Admin. Rec. 25, Dkt. No. 7. Evidence throughout the record 
supports the ALJ’s position.                                              
 Evidence  in  the  record  shows  Claimant  maintained  employment  without 
accommodations. Although Claimant received numerous complaints about his behavior 
while coaching high school basketball, he held the coaching job for five seasons—two as 
an assistant coach, three as a head coach. Id. at 374, 458. The record also suggests 
Claimant has a high degree of intelligence. See e.g., id. at 340 (discussing test results 
from  intellectual  evaluations).  Claimant  is  well-educated  and  earned  his  bachelor’s 
degree and master’s degree. Id. at 44. He testified, “School has always been pretty easy 

for me if I enjoy the subjects.” Id. Further, there is evidence that Claimant does not require 
the accommodations Dr. Van Noord suggests. While Dr. Van Noord recommended 
structured job supports for Claimant, Dr. Klein did not. Admin. Rec. 342, 378, Dkt. No. 7. 
The ALJ acknowledged Claimant had interpersonal problems while coaching and that Dr. 
Van  Noord  recommended  structured  supports,  which  demonstrates  he  considered 
evidence that detracts from his decision. Id. at 19, 21. The evidence in the record as a 
whole provides adequate support for the ALJ’s assessment of Dr. Van Noord’s opinion. 
The ALJ’s assessment of Dr. Van Noord’s opinion is not the result of improperly cherry-
picking the record.                                                       
II.  RFC Determination                                                    
 Claimant  argues  “[t]he  uncontroverted  evidence  in  this  record  demonstrates 

[Claimant] has long received and required significant financial assistance from his family 
to maintain his activities of daily living,” and that the ALJ erred in his RFC determination 
by  “willfully  disregard[ing]  or  downplay[ing]  the  necessity  for  or  existence  of  these 
significant family supports.” Pl.’s Br. 13, Dkt. No. 9. Claimant essentially argues the ALJ 
should have found Claimant’s dependence on family to warrant greater accommodations. 
Whether  an  ALJ  could  have  found  Claimant  more  limited  is  irrelevant  so  long  as 
substantial evidence supports the RFC determination. See Cuthrell v. Astrue, 

 (8th Cir. 2013).                                               
 Substantial evidence exists here. The ALJ determined Claimant had the RFC to 
work at all exertional levels but was limited to occasional changes in work setting, no 

public interaction, brief and superficial interaction with supervisors and coworkers, and no 
rapid assembly-line paced work. Admin. Rec. 22, Dkt. No. 7. Though evidence in the 
record indicates Claimant struggled with interpersonal interactions in the workplace, see 
e.g. id. at 458 (hence the limitations expressed in the RFC), he maintained the ability to 
be independent in other areas of daily life. For example, Claimant lived alone at the time 
of the hearing. Id. at 39. He could grocery shop for non-heavy items on his own. Id. at 41. 
Dr. Van Noord found him capable of independently managing his own finances. Id. at 
378.  Claimant  successfully  completed  advanced  degrees  without  academic 
accommodations and worked for several years as a basketball coach without workplace 
accommodations  related  to  his  familial  support.  See  e.g.,  id.  374,  458–59  (noting 
academic and work history without mentioning accommodations). Even if another ALJ 
could have found Claimant to be more functionally limited, there is substantial evidence 
in the record to support the ALJ’s RFC determination. The ALJ did not err.  

                    RECOMMENDATION                                    
 For the reasons set forth above, the Court RECOMMENDS that:          
 1.   Plaintiff’s  request  to  reverse  or  remand  the  Commissioner’s  decision 
[Dkt. No. 9] be DENIED.                                                   
 2.   Defendant’s request to affirm the Commissioner’s decision [Dkt. No. 13] be 
GRANTED.                                                                  

Dated: September 30, 2024          __s/David T. Schultz___                
                               DAVID T. SCHULTZ                       
                               U.S. Magistrate Judge                  



                         NOTICE                                       

Filing Objections:  This Report and Recommendation is not an order or judgment of the 
District Court and is therefore not appealable directly to the Eighth Circuit Court of 
Appeals.                                                                  

Under Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), “a party may file and serve specific written objections to a 
magistrate judge’s proposed finding and recommendations within 14 days after being 
served a copy” of the Report and Recommendation.  A party may respond to those 
objections within 14 days after being served a copy of the objections.  LR 72.2(b)(2).  All 
objections and responses must comply with the word or line limits set for in LR 72.2(c). 

              UNITED STATES D                                         
                             ISTRICT COURT                            
                  DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                               


Christian Paul C.,                 Case No. 24-cv-772 (ECT/DTS)           

 Plaintiff,                                                           

v.                                 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION              

Martin O'Malley,                                                          
Commissioner of Social Security,                                          

 Defendant.                                                           


                      INTRODUCTION                                    
 Claimant Christian C. applied for supplemental security income in August 2021. 
Admin. Rec. 15, 219–21, Dkt. No. 7. His claim was denied initially, upon reconsideration, 
and after a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). Id. at 15–28, 57–64, 77–
84. The Appeals Council declined Claimant’s subsequent request to review the ALJ’s 
unfavorable ruling, making it the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. Id. 
at 1. Claimant filed this action on March 5, 2024. Compl. Jud. Rev. Dec. Comm’r Soc. 
Sec. 2, Dkt. No. 1.                                                       
 Claimant argues the ALJ erred in two ways: (1) failing to appropriately address 
supportability and consistency factors in evaluating Dr. Van Noord’s medical opinion, and 
(2) improperly evaluating Claimant’s residual functional capacity (RFC). Pl.’s Br. 8–15, 
Dkt. No. 9. Because the ALJ properly analyzed the supportability and consistency of Dr. 
Van Noord’s opinion, and substantial evidence supports the RFC determination, the Court 
recommends that the ALJ’s decision be affirmed.                           
                      BACKGROUND                                      
I.   Procedural History                                                   
 Claimant filed for supplemental security income in August 2021 under Title XVI of 
the Social Security Act, alleging disability due to autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and 

depression. Id. at 15, 219–21. After the Social Security Administration denied his claim 
initially and on reconsideration, he requested a hearing before an ALJ. Id. at 57–64, 77–
84, 133–34.                                                               
 The ALJ employed the familiar five-step sequential evaluation process in finding  
claimant not disabled. 

(a)(4). At step one, the ALJ determined 
Claimant had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since he applied for benefits. 
Admin. Rec. 18, Dkt. No. 7. At step two, the ALJ determined Claimant had the severe 
impairments of major depressive disorder and ASD. 

 At step three, the ALJ determined 
Claimant’s impairments did not meet or equal a listed impairment. 

 Claimant does not 
challenge the ALJ’s findings at steps 1–3. Pl.’s Br. 8–15, Dkt. No. 9. At step four, the ALJ 

determined Claimant had the RFC to perform work at all exertional levels but was limited 
to  occasional  changes  in  work  setting,  no  public  interaction,  brief  and  superficial 
interaction with superiors and coworkers, and no rapid, assembly-line paced work. 

. Since Claimant had no relevant past work, the analysis proceeded to step five, at 
which the ALJ determined Claimant could perform jobs existing in significant number in 
the national economy, including merchandise maker, collator operator, and router. 

 at 
27–28. As a result, the ALJ denied Claimant’s claim for supplemental security income. 

.                                                                    
 Claimant appealed the ALJ’s decision to the Appeals Council, which declined 
review. 

. Claimant now seeks judicial review under 

(g), requesting 
reversal or remand for further proceedings. Compl. Jud. Rev. Dec. Comm’r Soc. Sec. 1–
2, Dkt. No. 1; Pl.’s Br. 1, Dkt. No. 9.                                   

II.  Standard of Review                                                   
 Under the Social Security Act, disability is the “inability to engage in any 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 of not less than 12 months.” 

(d)(1)(A). A claimant 
bears the burden of proving his or her disability. See 

(a)(1); Kamann 
v. Colvin, 

 (8th Cir. 2013).                             
 This Court has authority to affirm, modify, or reverse the Commissioner of Social 
Security’s decision with or without remand. 

(g). This Court must affirm the 
Commissioner’s decision if its findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence in 

the record as a whole and are not based on legal error. Id.; see also Chismarich v. 
Berryhill, 

 (8th Cir. 2018).                             
A.    Substantial Evidence                                            
 An ALJ’s decision must be based on substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is 
what “a reasonable mind would find . . . adequate to support the conclusion.” Chismarich 
v. Berryhill, 

 (8th Cir. 2018) (quoting Jones v. Astrue, 

 (8th Cir. 2010)). This is not a high bar. While substantial evidence is “more than a 
mere scintilla,” Biestek v. Berryhill, 

 (2019) (quoting Consolidated Edison 
Co. v. NLRB, 

 (1938)), it is “less than a preponderance,” Chismarich, 

 (quoting Jones v. Astrue, 

 (8th Cir. 2010)). A court 
must affirm the ALJ’s decision if it is reasonable, even if the record could support another 
inconsistent conclusion. Cuthrell v. Astrue, 

 (8th Cir. 2013). In 
evaluating  whether  substantial  evidence  exists,  a  court  considers  evidence  both 

supporting and undermining the ALJ’s findings. 

                        
B.    Supportability and Consistency                                  
 In determining a claimant’s RFC, the ALJ must consider all medical opinions and 
prior administrative medical findings to determine their persuasiveness. 

.1520c(a). In his decision, the ALJ must articulate the factors he used to evaluate the 
persuasiveness of each medical source. 

.1520c(b). At a minimum, the 
ALJ must consider the opinion’s supportability and consistency. 

 § 404.1520c(b)(2). 
Supportability focuses on the source itself. The more a source’s objective evidence and 
explanations  support  a  medical  opinion,  the  more  persuasive  the  opinion.  Id.  § 
404.1520c(c)(1). Consistency compares a source to the record as a whole. The more 

consistent the opinion is with evidence from other sources, both medical and nonmedical, 
the more persuasive the opinion is. Id. § 404.1520c(c)(2).                
 The  failure  to  consider  supportability  and  consistency  of  a  medical  source’s 
opinions is legal error. See Lucas v. Saul, 

 (8th Cir. 2020). There are 
no magic words an ALJ must use to show he considered supportability and consistency—
he must simply demonstrate that he did so. See Mario O. v. Kijakazi, No. 21-cv-2469, 

, at *11 (D. Minn. Dec. 13, 2022), R. & R. adopted, No. 21-cv-2469, 

 (D. Minn. Jan. 9, 2023) (“No talismanic language is required for the ALJ 
to meet the requirements of § 404.1520c . . .”).                          
                        ANALYSIS                                      
I.   The ALJ’s Assessment of Dr. Van Noord’s Medical Opinion              
 Claimant submitted two medical opinions supporting his claim for social security 
benefits—one each from Dr. Kimberly Klein and Dr. Robert Van Noord.  Admin. Rec. 333–

43, 372–78, Dkt. No. 7. In his opinion, Dr. Van Noord expressly relied on Dr. Klein’s report. 
Id. at 373–78.                                                            
 Dr. Klein conducted a neuropsychological evaluation on Claimant in December 
2020, assessing his level of functioning, areas of difficulty, and needs for intervention. Id. 
at 333. As part of her assessment, Dr. Klein administered a series of tests including the 
Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV) and the Wechsler Memory 
Scale-IV (WMS-IV), showing Claimant’s intelligence was in the high average range and 
his memory ranged from average to excellent. Id. at 336–38. At the same time, Dr. Klein 
also reported Claimant had extremely low adaptive skills and lacked certain executive 
abilities. Id. at 339, 341. Dr. Klein diagnosed Claimant with ASD and Other Specified 

Depressive Disorder, ultimately opining that Claimant would benefit from therapy, support 
in  activities  of  daily  living,  county  case  management  services,  and  vocational 
rehabilitation. Id. at 342.                                               
 Dr. Van Noord interviewed Claimant to evaluate his mental status and activities of 
daily living in December 2021. Id. at 372. In conjunction with his own observations, Dr. 
Van Noord also considered Dr. Klein’s report. Id. at 373–78. Dr. Van Noord concurred 
with Dr. Klein’s diagnoses. Id. at 378. He determined that Claimant could understand 
reasonably complex instructions, manage his finances, and had no cognitive deficits 
impairing  his  ability  to  work  at  least  in  an  entry-level  position.  Id.  Despite  these 
determinations, Dr. Van Noord opined that Claimant’s symptoms would significantly 
impair his ability to function in a work setting, and that structure and support—such as a 
job coach and personally-tailored schedule and tasks—would be necessary for Claimant 
to succeed in the workplace. Id.                                          

 The  ALJ  concurred  with  Dr.  Van  Noord’s diagnoses  and  determinations  that 
Claimant could understand reasonably complex instructions, manage his finances, and 
had no cognitive deficits impairing his ability to work at least in an entry-level position. 
Admin. Rec. 25, Dkt. No. 7. The ALJ found these findings persuasive and “supported by 
the claimant’s lack of mental health treatment, largely unremarkable MSE findings, WAIS-
IV and WMS-IV testing results, and [Claimant’s] relatively robust activities of daily living.” 
Id.                                                                       
 The ALJ was not persuaded by Dr. Van Noord insofar as he found that certain 
ASD-related  skills  deficits  significantly  interfered  with  Claimant’s ability  to  work  and 
recommended mild but definite structures and supports to keep a job. Id. The ALJ 

explained he did not find this aspect of Dr. Van Noord’s opinion persuasive because: 
      It is not supported by the claimant’s lack of involvement in    
      mental health treatment and/or his largely unremarkable MSE     
      findings. It is also not supported by the claimant’s many years 
      of coaching high school basketball with no accommodations,      
      job coaching, or Schule [sic] and work tasks tailored to his    
      tolerances and needs. Further, the claimant presented as        
      pleasant and cooperative during his interview with Dr. Van      
      Noord.                                                          
Id.                                                                       
 Claimant argues the ALJ erred by (1) neglecting to assess the supportability and 
consistency of Dr. Van Noord’s opinion in relation to Dr. Klein’s report and (2) basing his 
rejection of Dr. Van Noord’s opinion on a cherry-picked sample of the evidence in the 
record. Pl.’s Br. 10–12, Dkt. No. 9. The first argument asserts the ALJ made an error of 
law, while the second asserts the ALJ’s assessment of Dr. Van Noord’s opinion was not 
based on substantial evidence. Neither is persuasive.                     
 A.   Supportability                                                  

 An ALJ considers the supportability of a medical opinion by assessing how relevant 
the objective medical evidence and explanations in the source are to the conclusions in 
the opinion. See 

.1520c(c)(1). In other words, the ALJ analyzes how a 
source’s own data and reasoning supports its ultimate opinions. Here, the ALJ identified 
objective medical evidence within Dr. Van Noord’s report in assessing its persuasiveness. 
In explaining why he found certain portions of Dr. Van Noord’s report unpersuasive, the 
ALJ  cited  to  Claimant’s  lack  of  mental  health  treatment,  mental  status  evaluations 
(MSEs), experience coaching basketball, and demeanor during the interview. Admin. 
Rec. 25, Dkt. No. 7. In explaining why he found certain portions of Dr. Van Noord’s report 
persuasive, the ALJ cited to Claimant’s lack of mental health treatment, MSE findings,  

WAIS-IV testing results, and activities of daily living. 

 Throughout his opinion, the ALJ 
discussed each of these pieces of data in the context of Dr. Van Noord’s report. 

 at 19–
21 (discussing MSEs, WAIS-IV, and activities of daily living at page 19, demeanor and 
coaching experience at page 20, and a lack of mental health treatment at page 21). In 
sum, the ALJ clearly addressed the supportability of Dr. Van Noord’s opinion when 
assessing its persuasiveness.                                             
 Claimant argues the ALJ failed to address the supportability of Dr. Van Noord’s 
opinion by neglecting to discuss how Dr. Klein’s report supported Dr. Van Noord’s opinion, 
Pl.’s Br. 10–11, Dkt. No. 9, but this argument is misplaced. An ALJ considers the 
supportability of an opinion by evaluating the evidence in that opinion—not by evaluating 
evidence from a separate medical opinion. See 

.1520c(c)(1). This critique 
is thus properly analyzed with respect to the ALJ’s consistency evaluation. Therefore, the 
ALJ properly considered the supportability of Dr. Van Noord’s opinion by identifying 

objective  medical  evidence  contained  in  that  report  when  assessing  the  opinion’s 
persuasiveness.                                                           
 B.   Consistency                                                     
 An ALJ considers the consistency of a medical opinion by evaluating how it aligns 
with  other  sources  in  the  record,  both  medical  and  non-medical.  See  

 
§ 404.1520c(c)(2). The more an opinion aligns with evidence from other sources, the 
more  persuasive  it  will  be.  Id.  Although  the  ALJ’s  explicit  statements  about  the 
consistency of Dr. Van Noord’s opinion with the record are minimal, “[t]he ALJ’s brevity is 
not reversible error.” Grindley v. Kijakazi, 

 (8th Cir. 2021). Rather, the 
only requirement is that the ALJ’s reasoning is “clear enough to allow for appropriate 

judicial review.” 

 (quoting Sloan v. Saul, 

 (8th Cir. 2019)). Here, the 
ALJ articulated his analysis of the consistency of Dr. Van Noord’s opinion in two ways.  
 First, the ALJ explicitly considered medical evidence extrinsic to Dr. Van Noord’s 
report. In articulating why he found certain aspects of Dr. Van Noord’s opinion persuasive, 
the ALJ specifically referenced the WMS-IV testing not discussed in Dr. Van Noord’s 
report. See 

 at 372–78.                                                
 Second,  the  entirety  of  the  ALJ’s  opinion  demonstrates  he  evaluated  the 
consistency of Dr. Van Noord’s opinion with other medical and non-medical evidence in 
the record. The ALJ explicitly identified Claimant’s lack of mental health treatment, largely 
unremarkable MSE findings, WAIS-IV testing results, relatively robust activities of daily 
living, and high school coaching without accommodations or a job coach. Id. at 25. This 
information, though mentioned in Dr. Van Noord’s report, is also found in other sources 
in the record (id. at 20–21, 23–24) and therefore is appropriate to consider in evaluating 

consistency. The ALJ’s express consideration of this information establishes that he 
properly assessed the consistency of Dr. Van Noord’s opinion with the record as a whole. 
 While Claimant argues the ALJ failed to address the consistency of Dr. Van 
Noord’s  opinion  by  neglecting  to  expressly  assess  its  consistency  with  Dr.  Klein’s 
evaluation, Pl.’s Br. 10–11, Dkt. No. 9, this argument fails. The ALJ expressly referenced 
WMS-IV testing from Dr. Klein’s report when evaluating the persuasiveness of Dr. Van 
Noord’s report. Admin. Rec. 19, 25, Dkt. No. 7. The ALJ discussed Dr. Klein’s report on 
Claimant’s activities of daily living, failure to seek mental health treatment, experience 
coaching basketball, and intellectual abilities. Id. at 20–21, 23. The ALJ cites to all of this 
information  in  evaluating  the  persuasiveness  of  Dr.  Van  Noord’s  opinion,  and  thus 

demonstrates he in fact considered the consistency of Dr. Van Noord’s opinion with, 
among other information, Dr. Klein’s opinion.                             
 C.   Substantial Evidence Supporting Dr. Van Noord’s Opinion         
 Claimant argues the ALJ based his evaluation of Dr. Van Noord’s opinion on a 
“misleading and highly selective reading of the other evidence.” Pl.’s Br. 11, Dkt. No. 9. 
In essence, Claimant maintains the ALJ’s assessment of Dr. Van Noord’s opinion was 
not based on substantial evidence. Substantial evidence exists where “a reasonable mind 
might accept the evidence as adequate to support the Commissioner’s conclusion.” Nolen 
v. Kijakazi, 

 (8th Cir. 2023). Claimant’s argument fails because even if 
the record could support a different conclusion, the record contains sufficient evidence to 
adequately support the ALJ’s evaluation of Dr. Van Noord’s opinion.       
 Here, the ALJ was not persuaded by Dr. Van Noord’s view that Claimant exhibited 
ASD-related deficits that would significantly interfere with his ability to interact with others 

and maintain gainful employment, thus warranting accommodations such as a job coach 
and a personalized schedule. Admin. Rec. 25, Dkt. No. 7. Evidence throughout the record 
supports the ALJ’s position.                                              
 Evidence  in  the  record  shows  Claimant  maintained  employment  without 
accommodations. Although Claimant received numerous complaints about his behavior 
while coaching high school basketball, he held the coaching job for five seasons—two as 
an assistant coach, three as a head coach. Id. at 374, 458. The record also suggests 
Claimant has a high degree of intelligence. See e.g., id. at 340 (discussing test results 
from  intellectual  evaluations).  Claimant  is  well-educated  and  earned  his  bachelor’s 
degree and master’s degree. Id. at 44. He testified, “School has always been pretty easy 

for me if I enjoy the subjects.” Id. Further, there is evidence that Claimant does not require 
the accommodations Dr. Van Noord suggests. While Dr. Van Noord recommended 
structured job supports for Claimant, Dr. Klein did not. Admin. Rec. 342, 378, Dkt. No. 7. 
The ALJ acknowledged Claimant had interpersonal problems while coaching and that Dr. 
Van  Noord  recommended  structured  supports,  which  demonstrates  he  considered 
evidence that detracts from his decision. Id. at 19, 21. The evidence in the record as a 
whole provides adequate support for the ALJ’s assessment of Dr. Van Noord’s opinion. 
The ALJ’s assessment of Dr. Van Noord’s opinion is not the result of improperly cherry-
picking the record.                                                       
II.  RFC Determination                                                    
 Claimant  argues  “[t]he  uncontroverted  evidence  in  this  record  demonstrates 

[Claimant] has long received and required significant financial assistance from his family 
to maintain his activities of daily living,” and that the ALJ erred in his RFC determination 
by  “willfully  disregard[ing]  or  downplay[ing]  the  necessity  for  or  existence  of  these 
significant family supports.” Pl.’s Br. 13, Dkt. No. 9. Claimant essentially argues the ALJ 
should have found Claimant’s dependence on family to warrant greater accommodations. 
Whether  an  ALJ  could  have  found  Claimant  more  limited  is  irrelevant  so  long  as 
substantial evidence supports the RFC determination. See Cuthrell v. Astrue, 

 (8th Cir. 2013).                                               
 Substantial evidence exists here. The ALJ determined Claimant had the RFC to 
work at all exertional levels but was limited to occasional changes in work setting, no 

public interaction, brief and superficial interaction with supervisors and coworkers, and no 
rapid assembly-line paced work. Admin. Rec. 22, Dkt. No. 7. Though evidence in the 
record indicates Claimant struggled with interpersonal interactions in the workplace, see 
e.g. id. at 458 (hence the limitations expressed in the RFC), he maintained the ability to 
be independent in other areas of daily life. For example, Claimant lived alone at the time 
of the hearing. Id. at 39. He could grocery shop for non-heavy items on his own. Id. at 41. 
Dr. Van Noord found him capable of independently managing his own finances. Id. at 
378.  Claimant  successfully  completed  advanced  degrees  without  academic 
accommodations and worked for several years as a basketball coach without workplace 
accommodations  related  to  his  familial  support.  See  e.g.,  id.  374,  458–59  (noting 
academic and work history without mentioning accommodations). Even if another ALJ 
could have found Claimant to be more functionally limited, there is substantial evidence 
in the record to support the ALJ’s RFC determination. The ALJ did not err.  

                    RECOMMENDATION                                    
 For the reasons set forth above, the Court RECOMMENDS that:          
 1.   Plaintiff’s  request  to  reverse  or  remand  the  Commissioner’s  decision 
[Dkt. No. 9] be DENIED.                                                   
 2.   Defendant’s request to affirm the Commissioner’s decision [Dkt. No. 13] be 
GRANTED.                                                                  

Dated: September 30, 2024          __s/David T. Schultz___                
                               DAVID T. SCHULTZ                       
                               U.S. Magistrate Judge                  



                         NOTICE                                       

Filing Objections:  This Report and Recommendation is not an order or judgment of the 
District Court and is therefore not appealable directly to the Eighth Circuit Court of 
Appeals.                                                                  

Under Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), “a party may file and serve specific written objections to a 
magistrate judge’s proposed finding and recommendations within 14 days after being 
served a copy” of the Report and Recommendation.  A party may respond to those 
objections within 14 days after being served a copy of the objections.  LR 72.2(b)(2).  All 
objections and responses must comply with the word or line limits set for in LR 72.2(c).