Evaluating supportability “is an inquiry geared toward assessing how well a medical source supported and explained their opinion(s).” Navedo v. Kijakazi, No. 20-CV-10013 (JLC), 2022 WL 2912986, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. July 25, 2022) (internal quotations omitted).
It is not clear to the Court that the ALJ considered this objective evidence, which calls into question his determination that Dr. Krymkevich's opinions were not supported by the record. See Navedo v. Kijakazi, No. 20-CV-10013 (JLC), 2022 WL 2912986, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. July 25, 2022) (finding error when unclear whether ALJ overlooked providers' findings in own opinions when assessing supportability); cf. Credle v. Astrue, No. 10-CV-05624 (DLI), 2012 WL 4174889, at *22 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 19, 2012) (omitting notes reflecting components of mental status examination “call[ed] into question the ALJ's determination that the doctor ‘did not even administer a mental status examination,' as well as the ALJ's other reasons for discrediting [treating physician's] assessments.”); see also Daniels v. Kijakazi, No. 21-CV-00712 (GWG), 2022 WL 2919747, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. July 26, 2022) (citing Brianne S. v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 19-CV-01718 (FPG), 2021 WL 856909, at *5 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 8, 2021) (remanding where “the ALJ did not examine what [treating doctors] used to support their opinions and reach their ultimate conclusions.”
. “Because the ALJ was not entitled to conclude that the examinations were largely normal, while disregarding or glossing over these problematic findings without explanation, his reliance on ‘normal' results to substantiate his RFC determination was error.” Navedo v. Kijakazi, 2022 WL 2912986, *13 (S.D.N.Y. 2022) (internal quotations omitted). See alsoMcIntosh v. Kijakazi, 2022 WL 2384151, *5 (S.D.N.Y. 2022) (“[a]t no point in Dr. Etemadi's opinions does he state that [p]laintiff's examination was ‘unremarkable'[;] . . . [b]y interpreting Dr. Etemadi's opinions to mean that [p]laintiff's examination was ‘unremarkable,' the ALJ impermissibly substituted his interpretation of Dr. Etemadi's notes as a basis for rejecting it”); Justin H. v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 2021 WL 4241505, *6 (W.D.N.Y. 2021)
” Navedo v. Kijakazi, No. 20-cv-10013(JLC), 2022 WL 2912986, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. July 25, 2022).
While this must be considered, the ALJ is not required to expressly explain their reasoning on this factor. See Navedo v. Kijakazi, 20-cv-10013 (JLC), 2022 WL 2912986, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. July 25, 2022) (citing 20 C.F.R. §404.1520c(b)(2)).