IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
COREY S., ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) 1:25CV790 ) FRANK BISIGNANO, ) Commissioner of Social Security, ) ) Defendant. )
ORDER AND MEMORANDUM OPINION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The plaintiff, Corey S. (“Corey”), has onset date of December 26, 2020. (Tr. sought review of a final decision of the 201-07.) The application was denied Commissioner of Social Security initially and upon reconsideration. denying his claim for disability (Tr. 104-12, 117-23.) After a hearing, insurance benefits, a period of the ALJ determined on May 4, 2023 disability, and supplemental security that Corey was not disabled under the income.1 The Court has considered Act. (Tr. 17-69.) The Appeals Council the certified administrative record denied a request for review. (Tr. 1-6.) and dispositive briefs from each party. Corey then sought review in this Because substantial evidence Court, which granted the supports the determination of the Commissioner’s consent motion for Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), remand. (Tr. 914-24.) A new hearing the Court will deny Corey’s request for was held before a different ALJ who the award of benefits or for a remand, determined on May 7, 2025 that as set forth below. Corey was not disabled under the Act. (Tr. 835-88.) Exercising his right to I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY direct judicial review of the ALJ’s decision after this Court’s remand, Corey filed an application for Corey bypassed the Appeals Council disability insurance benefits, a period and sought review in this Court on of disability, and supplemental September 2, 2025. Docket Entry 1. security income alleging a disability See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.984, 416.1484
1 Transcript citations refer to the Reference, this matter was referred to the Administrative Transcript of Record filed Undersigned to conduct all proceedings manually with the Commissioner’s in this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Answer. See Docket Entry 4. By Order of § 636(c). See Docket Entry 12. (authorizing a claimant to bypass III. THE ALJ’S DECISION Appeals Council review when case was previously remanded from a The ALJ followed the correct process, federal court). set forth in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.150, 416.920, to determine disability. See II. STANDARD OF REVIEW Albright v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 174 F.3d 473, 475 n.2 (4th While Section 405(g) of Title 42 of the Cir. 1999). United States Code “authorizes judicial review of the Social Security “The Commissioner uses a five-step Commissioner’s denial of social process to evaluate disability claims.” security benefits,” see Hines v. Hancock v. Astrue, 667 F.3d 470, Barnhart, 453 F.3d 559, 561 (4th Cir. 472-73 (4th Cir. 2012) (citing 20 2006), the scope of that review is C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)(4), specific and narrow, see Smith v. 404.1520(a)(4)). Schweiker, 795 F.2d 343, 345 (4th Cir. 1986). Specifically, review is Under this process, the limited to determining if there is Commissioner asks, in substantial evidence in the record to sequence, whether the support the Commissioner’s decision. claimant: (1) worked during the 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Hunter v. alleged period of disability; (2) Sullivan, 993 F.2d 31, 34 (4th Cir. had a severe impairment; (3) 1992); Hays v. Sullivan, 907 F.2d had an impairment that met or 1453, 1456 (4th Cir. 1990). In equaled the requirements of a reviewing for substantial evidence, listed impairment; (4) could the Court does not re-weigh return to her [or his] past conflicting evidence, make credibility relevant work; and (5) if not, determinations, or substitute its could perform any other work judgment for that of the in the national economy. Commissioner. Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 589 (4th Cir. 1996). Put Id. at 472. A finding adverse to the simply: the issue before the Court is claimant at any of several points in not whether Corey is disabled but this five-step sequence forecloses a whether the finding that he is not disability designation and ends the disabled is supported by substantial inquiry. Id. at 473. “Through the evidence and based upon a correct fourth step, the burden of production application of the relevant law. Id. and proof is on the claimant. If the claimant reaches step five, the burden shifts to the Secretary to produce evidence that other jobs exist in the national economy that the claimant 2 can perform considering his age, he could stand/walk for a total education, and work experience.” of four hours in an eight-hour Hunter, 993 F.2d at 35 (internal workday, but for only 30 citations omitted). minutes at a time, after which time he would have needed to Here, the ALJ concluded that Corey sit for 15 minutes; he could sit engaged in substantial gainful activity for a total of six hours in an beginning on November 1, 2022 eight-hour workday, but for through the date of the decision, May only one hour at a time, after 7, 2025. (Tr. 846-47.) Consequently, which time he would have the ALJ directed the remainder of his needed to stand/walk for 15 findings to the requested closed minutes; he could never climb period, December 26, 2020 through ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; he October 31, 2022. Specifically, the could occasionally climb ramps ALJ determined at step one that and stairs; he could frequently Corey had not engaged in substantial balance; he could occasionally gainful activity from December 26, stoop, kneel, crouch, and crawl; 2020 through October 31, 2022. (Tr. he needed to avoid 838.) The ALJ next found the concentrated exposure to following severe impairments from hazards; he could frequently December 26, 2020 through October reach in all directions with his 31, 2022 at step two: “degenerative right (dominant) upper disc disease of the lumbar spine, and extremity; and would have been pelvic floor dysfunction with right off-task for a maximum of 14 inguinal pain.” (Tr. 838.) At step percent in an eight-hour three, the ALJ found that from workday. December 26, 2020 through October 31, 2022 Corey did not have an (Tr. 839.) impairment or combination of impairments listed in, or medically At the fourth step, the ALJ equal to one listed in, Appendix 1. (Tr. determined that Corey was unable to 838.) perform his past relevant work from December 26, 2020 through October The ALJ next set forth Corey’s 31, 2022. (Tr. 844.) At step five, the Residual Functional Capacity (“RFC”) ALJ concluded that there were other and determined that from December jobs in the national economy that 26, 2020 through October 31, 2022 he Corey could perform. (Tr. 845.) could perform light work with the following additional limitations:
3 IV. DISCUSSION explains that the RFC ‘assessment must include a narrative discussion Corey contends that “[t]he ALJ erred describing how the evidence supports by failing to account for absences due each conclusion, citing specific to [his] extensive recovery medical medical facts (e.g., laboratory treatment in the RFC.” Docket Entry 9 findings) and nonmedical evidence at 5. As explained in greater detail (e.g., daily activities, observations).’” below, this objection has no merit. Monroe v. Colvin, 826 F.3d 176, 189 (4th Cir. 2016) (internal quotations A. Standard for the RFC omitted). An ALJ need not discuss Determination. every piece of evidence in making an RFC determination. See Reid v. The RFC measures the most a Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 769 F.3d 861, claimant can do in a work setting 865 (4th Cir. 2014). Yet, the ALJ despite the physical and mental “must build an accurate and logical limitations of his or her impairments bridge from the evidence to [the] and any related symptoms (e.g., pain). conclusion.” Brown v. Comm’r of Soc. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 416.945; Sec., 873 F.3d 251, 269 (4th Cir. see also Dunn v. Colvin, 607 F. App’x 2017). “The RFC assessment must 264, 272 (4th Cir. 2015) first identify the individual’s (unpublished) (defining the functional limitations or restrictions claimant’s RFC as “[a] medical and assess his or her work-related assessment of what an individual can abilities on a function-by-function do in a work setting in spite of the basis . . . . Only [then] may RFC be functional limitations and expressed in terms of the exertional environmental restrictions imposed levels of work, sedentary, light, by all of his or her medically medium, heavy, and very heavy.” SSR determinable impairment(s)”) 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184, at *1. (internal citation omitted); Hines v. Barnhart, 453 F.3d 559, 562 (4th Cir. The Fourth Circuit has held that 2006). The RFC includes both a “meaningful review is frustrated when “physical exertional or strength an ALJ goes straight from listing the limitation” that assesses the evidence to stating a conclusion.” claimant’s “ability to do sedentary, Thomas v. Berryhill, 916 F.3d 307, light, medium, heavy, or very heavy 311 (4th Cir. 2019) (explaining that “a work,” as well as “nonexertional proper RFC analysis has three limitations (mental, sensory or skin components: (1) evidence, (2) logical impairments).” Hall v. Harris, 658 explanation, and (3) conclusion”). As F.2d 260, 265 (4th Cir. 1981). noted earlier, the ALJ “must both identify evidence that supports his “Social Security Ruling 96-8p conclusion and ‘build an accurate and 4 logical bridge from [that] evidence to the objective medical evidence or if his conclusion.’” Woods v. Berryhill, the underlying impairment could not 888 F.3d 686, 694 (4th Cir. 2018) reasonably be expected to cause the (alteration in original) (quoting symptoms alleged. Id. Where the ALJ Monroe, 826 F.3d at 189), superseded has considered the relevant factors, on other grounds as recognized in see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), Rogers v. Kijakazi, 62 F.4th 872, 878- 416.929(c)(3), and heard the 80 (4th Cir. 2023). An ALJ’s failure to claimant’s testimony and observed his do so constitutes reversible error. See or her demeanor, the Court will defer Lewis v. Berryhill, 858 F.3d 858, 868 to the ALJ’s determination regarding (4th Cir. 2017). Where an ALJ’s those subjective complaints. Shively “analysis is incomplete and precludes v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 987, 989 (4th Cir. meaningful review,” remand is 1984). appropriate. Monroe, 826 F.3d at 191. Those relevant factors include: Moreover, “[a]n ALJ assesses the credibility of a claimant’s subjective (i) [Plaintiff’s] daily activities; statements about his condition as part of the RFC assessment,” Ladda v. (ii) The location, duration, Berryhill, 749 F. App’x 166, 170 (4th frequency, and intensity of Cir. 2018) (unpublished), using a two- [Plaintiff’s] pain or other part test: “First, there must be symptoms; objective medical evidence showing ‘the existence of a medical (iii) Precipitating and impairment(s) which results from aggravating factors; anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities and (iv) The type, dosage, which could reasonably be expected to effectiveness, and side effects produce the pain or other symptoms of any medication [Plaintiff] alleged,’” Craig, 76 F.3d at 594 (citing take[s] or [has] taken to 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.929(b), alleviate his pain or other 404.1529(b)). symptoms;
If such an impairment exists, the ALJ (v) Treatment, other than must then consider, as the second medication, [Plaintiff] prong of the test, all available receive[s] or [has] received evidence, including the claimant’s for relief of his pain or other statements about pain, to determine symptoms; whether the claimant is disabled. Id. at 595-96. In so doing, the ALJ need (vi) Any measures [Plaintiff] not credit them if they conflict with use[s] or [has] used to relieve 5 his pain or other symptoms agents (“NSAIDs”) as needed and to (e.g., lying flat on [her] back, expect gradual improvement. (Tr. standing for 15 to 20 minutes 840, 572.) every hour, sleeping on a board, etc.); and The ALJ further considered that a few days later, Corey established care with (vii) Other factors concerning Kyle Obendorf, PA-C, and complained [Plaintiff’s] functional of pain from the accident but limitations and restrictions acknowledged not taking any due to pain or other NSAIDs. (Tr. 840, 568.) Corey had symptoms. bruising to his right lower back, tenderness to palpation to the right of 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), his lumbar spine, no midline 416.929(c)(3). tenderness, negative straight leg raise test, no gross neurological deficits, B. The ALJ Adequately Considered If slightly decreased grip strength on the Treatment Left Corey Off-Task or right due to pain, tenderness to Absent. palpation of the elbows, and full active and passive range of motion of the Here, as explained in greater detail elbows without pain. (Tr. 841, 570.) below, the ALJ adequately considered Corey could do a full standing squat the extent to which Corey’s treatment but with pain. (Tr. 841, 570.) PA would require him to be off-task or Obendorf assessed acute right-sided absent from work. More specifically, low back pain without sciatica and the ALJ discussed Corey’s bilateral elbow joint pain and advised presentation at the emergency Corey to take naproxen, to advance department on December 26, 2020 activity as tolerated, and to return in a when he reported right-sided lower few weeks. (Tr. 841, 570-71.) back/buttock pain and right forearm pain after being clipped by a car’s side The ALJ also discussed that on view mirror while riding his bicycle. January 4, 2021, about a week after (Tr. 840, 564, 568, 571). He was not the accident, Corey called PA in acute distress, had full range of Obendorf’s office, said he was still motion of the upper and lower having pain, and requested PA extremities, could stand without Obendorf “write him out until 1/12.” difficulty, and did not have any visible (Tr. 841, 567.) When he saw PA bruises, bleeding, or open wounds. Obendorf on January 12, 2021, Corey (Tr. 840, 572.) A pelvic x-ray was continued to complain of pain and negative for fracture or dislocation. said he could not perform his 12-hour (Tr. 840, 572.) Corey was advised to work shift with its heavy lifting and up take nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory to 23,000 steps. (Tr. 841, 564-65.) On 6 exam, Corey had full active range of 42, 563.) Corey could get up and motion of the bilateral elbows without down from the exam table without pain; tenderness to palpation at the assistance. (Tr. 842, 563.) posterior aspect of his right shoulder, right paracervical muscles, and neck; PA Obendorf assessed acute right- full strength; full active and passive sided low back pain with sciatica and range of motion of all joints with some recommended a prednisone taper and discomfort of the neck, right shoulder, physical therapy. (Tr. 841, 562.) PA and right hip; tenderness to palpation Obendorf noted Corey was still having of the lumbar spine; and negative pain and could not perform his job straight leg raise test. (Tr. 841, 566.) duties secondary to pain. (Tr. 841-42, Corey could stand from a seated 563.) An MRI of the lumbar spine position but with complaints of right- performed on February 5, 2021 sided lower back pain. (Tr. 841, 566.) showed degenerative changes in the PA Obendorf wrote a work note for lower lumbar spine with lateral recess Corey and recommended he increase narrowing at L4-5. (Tr. 842, 634-35.) activity as tolerated, take naproxen, The MRI further showed lateral recess and follow up in two weeks. (Tr. 841, narrowing at L5-S1 with crowding of 566.) the descending left greater than right L5 and S1 nerve roots and foraminal The ALJ further discussed Corey’s stenosis, most pronounced and mild- appointment with PA Obendorf on to-moderate, bilaterally, at L5-S1. (Tr. January 26, 2021, a month after his 842, 634-35.) Corey also had an bicycle accident. (Tr. 841.) Corey initial physical therapy session on reported working at WingStop doing February 11, 2021, but was discharged “prep work and unloading [a] truck.” only a few days later because (Tr. 842, 562.) Corey no longer had reportedly, he was not benefitting elbow pain and reported being more from it, and all movement worsened active, which increased his pain (Tr. his right lower extremity symptoms. 842, 562.) Corey’s reported activities (Tr. 842, 549-51, 545-46, 521.) included cooking, cleaning around the house, and walking around the store. The ALJ discussed Corey’s (Tr. 842, 562.) Corey had a positive appointment with spine specialist, straight leg raise test on the right; Jennifer Betts Oliver, D.O., on pain with back rotation to the right, February 17, 2021. (Tr. 842, 545-49.) back flexion while touching his toes, On exam, he had a normal gait and with doing a standing squat; an without using an assistive device, antalgic gait; grossly intact sensation normal balance and fine motor skills, of the bilateral lower extremities; full normal strength, and positive straight strength of both knees; and no leg raise on the right. (Tr. 842, 548.) midline lumbar tenderness. (Tr. 841- A couple of weeks later, Dr. Oliver 7 treated Corey with a transforaminal 2022, Corey reported only on and off, epidural steroid injection. (Tr. 842, brief testicular pain, which he 540.) On March 17, 2021, Corey presently rated as 2-3/10. (Tr. 843, reported the injection resolved 710.) Corey continued with his symptoms below his knee, but he had treatment of physical therapy and ongoing pain of the right buttock and injections. (Tr. 843, 697-98, 712-13.) right posterior knee. (Tr. 842, 521, On September 6, 2022, Corey 534.) Corey declined Dr. Oliver’s reported feeling good and having no recommendation for a sacroiliac joint pain when he performed exercises. injection. (Tr. 842, 534.) She ordered (Tr. 842, 742.) additional physical therapy, explaining to Corey that physical The ALJ considered that when Corey therapy could increase his pain before followed up with PA Obendorf on reducing it. (Tr. 842, 534.) September 21, 2022, he had no midline lumbar pain and intact The ALJ discussed Corey’s physical sensation and strength. (Tr. 843, 781.) therapy results. (Tr. 842.) Corey Corey said he walked about two miles restarted physical therapy and in in the morning, with pain the last August 2021, he reported “only R quarter of a mile. (Tr. 843, 780.) PA buttock pain[,]” no longer having Obendorf noted that Corey was “very sleep disturbances, and being able to much improved” and planning to tolerate standing for about 30 return to sedentary work in three minutes. (Tr. 842, 452.) Physical weeks. (Tr. 843, 781.) therapy notes show Corey did “very well in PT.” (Tr. 453.) In November The ALJ noted that Corey generally 2021, Corey reported “no pain[,]” demonstrated a normal gait and neck tightness but “doing better normal strength. (Tr. 843, 396, 437, overall[,]” and still having “pain at 523, 548, 359.) He also considered times” with right-sided sciatic pain. that Corey returned to work in (Tr. 396.) Corey said sitting for about November 2022. (Tr. 843, 772.) an hour or standing for two plus hours Corey was working in a lumber yard caused pain. (Tr. 396.) and lifting no more than 10 pounds at a time. (Tr. 843, 772.) Corey does not At physical therapy in April 2022, challenge the ALJ’s finding that as of Corey reported a two on the numerical November 1, 2022, through the date pain score with pain primarily in the of the decision, May 7, 2025, he was pelvic floor/testicular area. (Tr. 301.) engaged in substantial gainful Dr. Oliver administered a activity. (Tr. 846-47.) (“Medical genitofemoral nerve injection a few improvement occurred such that the days later and again in June 2022. claimant returned to work full-time at (Tr. 842-43, 300, 731-32.) By July the SGA level on November 1, 2022, 8 and he remains employed full-time at month after his accident. (Tr. 841, the SGA level, to which he has 562.) Accordingly, the ALJ admitted.”). See Grayson O Co. v. reasonably determined that Corey’s Agadir Int’l LLC, 856 F.3d 307, 316 mostly normal exam findings, (4th Cir. 2017) (explaining that a improvement with physical therapy, party forfeits an argument “by failing and activities of daily living supported to develop [its] argument—even if that he had work-related limitations [its] brief takes a passing shot at the but not to the degree he alleged.2 20 issue”) (cleaned up). C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3); (Tr. 839-44.) Corey The ALJ also considered Corey’s does not challenge this finding. See reporting in January 2023 that he Grayson O Co., 856 F.3d at 316. used Flexeril (a muscle relaxer for pain) as needed, which was only three The ALJ also found the state agency times over the past two months. (Tr. experts’ assessment for light level 843, 772.) Corey was “sitting work with postural limitations mostly[,] so his pain [was] well- somewhat persuasive because he controlled.” (Tr. 843, 772.) The ALJ found Corey more limited and noted that despite pain, Corey assessed greater limitations. (Tr. 839, reported activities of making 844, 74-76, 80-82, 87-88, 93-94.) breakfast, getting his son ready for And he explained that PA Obendorf’s school, running errands, cleaning, reference to sedentary work was not making complete meals, doing persuasive because it was inconsistent laundry and some ironing, going with evidence of Corey having normal outside often, driving, shopping in sensation and strength and no stores regularly, and going to the park midline lumbar pain, being “much regularly. (Tr. 843-44, 249-52.) improved,” and walking about two miles in the morning, albeit with pain The ALJ also recounted Corey’s the last quarter of a mile. (Tr. 843, allegation that during the requested 780-81.) Corey does not challenge closed period, he could sit/stand for how the ALJ evaluated this evidence. only about 15 minutes at a time before See Grayson O Co., 856 F.3d at 316. needing to change postures. (Tr. 840, Against this backdrop, the ALJ 867-69.) He also noted that Corey assessed an RFC for a reduced range was doing prep work and unloading a of light work with a sit-stand option truck for work in January 2021, a for the period of December 26, 2020
2 Contrary to Corey’s assertion that his pain; in May 2021, he assessed 3/10 pain; pain level ranged from “5/10 at best,” in June and July 2022, he assessed 2- Docket Entry 9 at 5, he assessed his pain 4/10 pain. (Tr. 501, 504, 509, 552, 710, as 3/10 in February 2021. (Tr. 552.) In 731.) April 2021, Corey assessed 2/10 and 4/10 9 through October 31, 2022. (Tr. 839.) period of December 26, 2020 through October 31, 2022. (Tr. 839-44.) He Corey now argues that the ALJ erred noted the degree of physical by improperly considering whether therapy/treatment Corey had medical treatment during his two- following the accident. (Tr. 844.) The year long recovery from the bike ALJ explained that the prior accident would have resulted in work administrative medical findings were preclusive absenteeism. Docket Entry not restrictive enough. (Tr. 844.) The 9 at 5-24. He has failed to prove, ALJ also said that the reason he however, that he required limitations included an RFC limitation for being beyond the ALJ’s comprehensive off-task up to 14% of the time was RFC, which was specifically tailored because of the degree of medical to account for Corey’s limitations appointments Corey had during the following the bicycle accident. See recovery period after the accident. Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146 (Tr. 839, 844.) And the ALJ was not n.5 (1987) (concluding that a claimant required to include absences in the bears the burden of proving he meets RFC because Corey failed to prove the definition of disability). they were warranted in light of the record set forth above, which the ALJ Corey highlights testimony from the discussed at length. vocational expert that employers typically allow a worker to be absent The facts of this case are once a month, but if he is consistently distinguishable from those in Dennis absent for two or more days, which v. Kijakazi, No. 21-2078, 2023 WL includes arriving late/leaving early 2945903 (4th Cir. Apr. 14, 2023), and two or more days per month, that the other cases cited by Corey. See would be work-preclusive. Docket Docket Entry 9 at 6-9. In Dennis, the Entry 9 at 9; Tr. 885, 887. Corey Fourth Circuit stated it could not contends the record established he meaningfully review the decision would experience such absenteeism because the ALJ did not discuss the by virtue of the sheer volume of his evidence supporting the claimant’s medical treatment. Docket Entry 9 at alleged need to miss work or 10-24. adequately explain why the evidence should be rejected. 2023 WL But this objection is not persuasive. 2945903, at *5. Here, however, the At the outset, the ALJ was aware that ALJ did discuss this evidence (Tr. he needed to consider whether Corey 835) (ALJ stating the Appeals Council would be off-task or miss work due to remanded the case for consideration treatment. (Tr. 835, 839-40.) He of off-task percentage and absences); discussed Corey’s treatment history, (Tr. 839) (ALJ noting Corey’s including physical therapy, during the representative cited 100 medical 10 visits and argued Corey would have identify any hospitalizations, missed “a lot” of work); (Tr. 844) (ALJ overnight stays, or any other explaining that based on his unpredictable emergency room visits consideration of the degree of during the alleged disability period.”) physical therapy/treatment after (citations omitted). Corey’s accident, he assessed a limitation for being off task up to 14% The vocational expert may have of the workday). At best, Corey’s testified that too many absences a challenge amounts to a request for month would be work preclusive, but this Court to reweigh the evidence, the actual record failed to establish which, as explained at the outset of that Corey required such excessive this Order, it may not do. See Craig, absences. Substantial evidence 76 F.3d at 589. supports the ALJ’s conclusion that Corey could work with all of the Here, the ALJ found that sustained limitations the ALJ assessed. work activity was within Corey’s capability. Corey has failed to Last, to the extent Corey claims that undermine that finding. Corey’s the prior ALJ decision erred, the one appointments, by all appearances, that the Appeals Council vacated were regularly scheduled. Corey when it remanded that decision for presented no evidence that his further findings (Tr. 929-30), Docket appointment times were immovable Entry 9 at 6-10, any alleged errors in or that they otherwise could not be that vacated decision have no scheduled around work. See Belinda relevance to whether the decision S. v. Frank Bisignano, Soc. Sec. currently subject to review (Tr. 835- Admin., No. 1:25-CV-2081-JMC, 47) is supported by substantial 2026 WL 1295517, at *4 (D. Md. May evidence. See Hancock v. Barnhart, 12, 2026) (“[I]n Dennis, there was 206 F. Supp. 2d 757, 763-64 n.3 (W.D. evidence the ALJ ignored evidence Va. 2002) (explaining that, on tending to show that the claimant remand, the ALJ’s prior decision has needed to miss work based on her no preclusive effect, as it is vacated underlying medical conditions. Here, and the new hearing is conducted de the ALJ recognized Plaintiff's position novo). that she could not work due to having too many doctor’s appointments and For all of the reasons set forth above, after analyzing the underlying the Court will affirm. medical claims, the ALJ rejected such a position. Unlike the Dennis V. CONCLUSION claimant who was hospitalized for chronic conditions on multiple After careful consideration of the occasions, the Plaintiff here does not evidence of record, the Court finds 11 that the Commissioner’s decision is legally correct, supported by Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY substantial evidence, and susceptible ORDERED that the final decision of to judicial review. the Commissioner is upheld. jis Se McFadden nited States Magistrate Judge June 1, 2026