reasonably may rely on the non-examining sources' findings and give a nonmedical source, such as a teacher's evaluation, little weight when, for example, the latter consists of checks on a blank form indicating marked limitations in all six domains without further explanation. L.H. ex rel. T.L.H. v. Colvin, No. 1:14-cv-00939-JMS-TAB, 2015 WL 2155687, at *7 (S.D. Ind. May 7, 2015). On the other hand, the opinion from a teacher may outweigh the opinion from a medical source if the non-medical source has seen the individual more often, has greater knowledge of the individual's functioning over time, has better supporting evidence and is more consistent with the evidence as a whole. Conlin ex rel. N.T.C.B. v. Colvin, 111 F.Supp.3d 376, 388 (W.D.N.Y. 2015).

The court in L.H. ex. rel. T.L.H. v. Colvin, cited by plaintiff, suggested that these analyses must be separated. No. 1:14-cv-00939-JMS-TAB, 2015 WL 2155687, at *5 n.6 (S.D. Ind. May 7, 2015) (noting that the domains and functional criteria are “not the same” and declining to read an ALJ's analysis at the domain stage as undermining the ALJ's finding as to the Paragraph B criteria, but also noting that the categories may “overlap”).