Nathan H. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

NATHAN H., ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) 1:25CV958 ) FRANK BISIGNANO, ) Commissioner of Social ) Security, ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER AND MEMORANDUM OPINION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Nathan H. (“Nathan”) 13, 2023. (Tr. 199-205.) The brought this action to obtain review of applications were denied initially and a final decision of the Commissioner upon reconsideration. (Tr. 88-91, 101- of Social Security denying his claim 07.) After a hearing, the ALJ for social security disability insurance determined on December 10, 2024 benefits and a period of disability.1 that Nathan was not disabled under The Court has considered the certified the Act. (Tr. 29-65.) The Appeals administrative record and dispositive Council denied a request for review, briefing from the parties. Because the making the ALJ’s decision the final Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) decision for the purposes of judicial decision is not susceptible to judicial review. (Tr. 3-7.) review, the Court will grant Nathan’s request for remand, as set forth II. STANDARD OF REVIEW below. While Section 405(g) of Title 42 of the I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY United States Code “authorizes judicial review of the Social Security Nathan filed an application for Commissioner’s denial of social disability insurance benefits and a security benefits,” see Hines v. period of disability in August of 2023, Barnhart, 453 F.3d 559, 561 (4th Cir. alleging a disability onset date of June 2006), the scope of that review is

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). Docket Entry 10. specific and narrow, see Smith v. sequence, whether the Schweiker, 795 F.2d 343, 345 (4th claimant: (1) worked during the Cir. 1986). Specifically, review is alleged period of disability; (2) limited to determining if there is had a severe impairment; (3) substantial evidence in the record to had an impairment that met or support the Commissioner’s decision. equaled the requirements of a 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Hunter v. listed impairment; (4) could Sullivan, 993 F.2d 31, 34 (4th Cir. return to her [or his] past 1992); Hays v. Sullivan, 907 F.2d relevant work; and (5) if not, 1453, 1456 (4th Cir. 1990). In could perform any other work reviewing for substantial evidence, in the national economy. the Court does not re-weigh conflicting evidence, make credibility Id. at 472. A finding adverse to the determinations, or substitute its claimant at any of several points in judgment for that of the this five-step sequence forecloses a Commissioner. Craig v. Chater, 76 disability designation and ends the F.3d 585, 589 (4th Cir. 1996). Put inquiry. Id. at 473. “Through the simply: the issue before the Court is fourth step, the burden of production not whether Nathan is disabled but and proof is on the claimant. If the whether the finding that he is not claimant reaches step five, the burden disabled is supported by substantial shifts to the Secretary to produce evidence and based upon a correct evidence that other jobs exist in the application of the relevant law. Id. national economy that the claimant can perform considering his age, III. THE ALJ’S DECISION education, and work experience.” Hunter, 993 F.2d at 35 (internal The ALJ followed the correct process, citations omitted). set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520, to determine disability. See Albright v. The ALJ determined at step one that Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 174 F.3d Nathan had not engaged in 473, 475 n.2 (4th Cir. 1999). substantial gainful activity since the alleged onset date of June 13, 2023. “The Commissioner uses a five-step (Tr. 32.) The ALJ next found the process to evaluate disability claims.” following severe impairment at step Hancock v. Astrue, 667 F.3d 470, two: chronic lymphocytic leukemia. 472-73 (4th Cir. 2012) (citing 20 (Tr. 32.) At step three, the ALJ found C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)(4), that Nathan did not have an 404.1520(a)(4)). impairment or combination of impairments listed in, or medically Under this process, the equal to one listed in, Appendix 1. (Tr. Commissioner asks, in 33.) 2 The ALJ next set forth Nathan’s Residual Functional Capacity (“RFC”) A. The RFC Determination. and determined that he could perform a reduced range of light work: The RFC measures the most a claimant can do in a work setting except he can frequently climb despite the physical and mental ramps, ladders or scaffolds, he limitations of his or her impairments can frequently climb ramps or and any related symptoms (e.g., pain). stairs, he can frequently See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1); see balance, stool [sic], kneel, also Dunn v. Colvin, 607 F. App’x crouch and crawl; and he can 264, 272 (4th Cir. 2015) avoid concentrated exposure to (unpublished) (stating that claimant’s extreme cold, extreme heat, RFC is “[a] medical assessment of vibrations, irritants such as what an individual can do in a work fumes, odors, dust and gases, setting in spite of the functional and hazards.2 limitations and environmental restrictions imposed by all of his or (Tr. 33.) At the fourth step, the ALJ her medically determinable determined that Nathan was unable impairment(s)”) (internal citation to perform his past relevant work. omitted); Hines, 453 F.3d at 562. The (Tr. 36.) Last, at step five, the ALJ RFC includes both a “physical concluded that there were other jobs exertional or strength limitation” that in the national economy that Nathan assesses the claimant’s “ability to do could perform. (Tr. 36-37.) sedentary, light, medium, heavy, or very heavy work,” as well as IV. DISCUSSION “nonexertional limitations (mental, sensory or skin impairments).” Hall v. In his appeal, Nathan asserts in Harris, 658 F.2d 260, 265 (4th Cir. pertinent part that “[t]he ALJ erred by 1981). failing to account for [his] need for additional unscheduled breaks due to “Social Security Ruling 96-8p frequent [bowel movements] in the explains that the RFC assessment RFC.” Docket Entry 9 at 4. As must include a narrative discussion explained in greater detail below, this describing how the evidence supports objection has merit and warrants a each conclusion, citing specific remand for further administrative medical facts (e.g., laboratory proceedings. findings) and nonmedical evidence

2 The RFC finding in the ALJ’s decision (Tr. 33.) The ALJ further appears to twice states that Nathan could frequently mean “stoop” instead of “stool.” (Tr. 33.) climb “ramps” and also omits any The Commissioner may, if he so chooses, reference to the ability to climb “ropes.” address this on remand. 3 (e.g., daily activities, observations).” Lewis v. Berryhill, 858 F.3d 858, 868 Monroe v. Colvin, 826 F.3d 176, 189 (4th Cir. 2017). Where an ALJ’s (4th Cir. 2016) (internal quotations “analysis is incomplete and precludes omitted). An ALJ need not discuss meaningful review,” remand is every piece of evidence in making an appropriate. Monroe, 826 F.3d at 191. RFC determination. See Reid v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 769 F.3d 861, Moreover, “[a]n ALJ assesses the 865 (4th Cir. 2014). Yet, the ALJ credibility of a claimant’s subjective “must build an accurate and logical statements about his condition as part bridge from the evidence to [the] of the RFC assessment,” Ladda v. conclusion.” Brown v. Commissioner, Berryhill, 749 F. App’x 166, 170 (4th 873 F.3d 251, 269 (4th Cir. 2017). Cir. 2018) (unpublished), using a two- “The RFC assessment must first part test: “First, there must be identify the individual’s functional objective medical evidence showing limitations or restrictions and assess ‘the existence of a medical his or her work-related abilities on a impairment(s) which results from function-by-function basis . . . . Only anatomical, physiological, or [then] may RFC be expressed in terms psychological abnormalities and of the exertional levels of work, which could reasonably be expected to sedentary, light, medium, heavy, and produce the pain or other symptoms very heavy.” SSR 96-8p, 1996 WL alleged,’” Craig, 76 F.3d at 594 (citing 374184, at *1. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.929(b), 404.1529(b)). The Fourth Circuit has held that “meaningful review is frustrated when If such an impairment exists, the ALJ an ALJ goes straight from listing the must then consider, as the second evidence to stating a conclusion.” prong of the test, all available Thomas v. Berryhill, 916 F.3d 307, evidence, including the claimant’s 311 (4th Cir. 2019) (explaining that “a statements about pain, to determine proper RFC analysis has three whether the claimant is disabled. Id. components: (1) evidence, (2) logical at 595-96. In so doing, the ALJ need explanation, and (3) conclusion”). As not credit them if they conflict with noted earlier, the ALJ “must both the objective medical evidence or if identify evidence that supports his the underlying impairment could not conclusion and ‘build an accurate and reasonably be expected to cause the logical bridge from [that] evidence to symptoms alleged. Id. Where the ALJ his conclusion.’” Woods v. Berryhill, has considered the relevant factors, 888 F.3d 686, 694 (4th Cir. 2018) see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3), and (alteration in original) (quoting heard the claimant’s testimony and Monroe, 826 F.3d at 189). Failure to observed his or her demeanor, the do so constitutes reversible error. See Court will defer to the ALJ’s 4 determination regarding those subjective complaints. Shively v. (vii) Other factors concerning Heckler, 739 F.2d 987, 989 (4th Cir. [Plaintiff’s] functional 1984). limitations and restrictions due to pain Those relevant factors include: or other symptoms.

(i) [Plaintiff’s] daily 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). activities; Here, the ALJ indicated that one of (ii) The location, duration, the side effects of Nathan’s leukemia frequency, and intensity was diarrhea. The ALJ indicated of [Plaintiff’s] pain or further that it imposed limitations on other symptoms; Nathan’s capacity to function. However, the ALJ then failed to set (iii) Precipitating and forth a logical bridge between aggravating factors; Nathan’s diarrhea and the ultimate RFC finding. This warrants remand. (iv) The type, dosage, effectiveness, and side More specifically, in his decision, at effects of any medication step two and without elaboration, the [Plaintiff] take[s] or ALJ noted Nathan’s chronic [has] taken to alleviate lymphocytic leukemia was a severe his pain or other impairment. (Tr. 32.) Next, at step symptoms; three, the ALJ noted that Nathan’s leukemia did not meet or equal a (v) Treatment, other than listing (Tr. 33.) medication, [Plaintiff] receive[s] or [has] The ALJ then assessed Nathan’s RFC. received for relief of his In pertinent part, the ALJ pain or other symptoms; summarized Nathan’s testimony as follows: (vi) Any measures [Plaintiff] use[s] or [has] used to The claimant, who was 44 years relieve his pain or other old at the time of the latest symptoms (e.g., lying flat hearing, alleged disability on [her] back, standing based on physical and mental for 15 to 20 minutes impairments. He alleged every hour, sleeping on a suffering from non-Hodgkins board, etc.); and lymphoma and its related symptoms. He indicated, due to 5 his impairments, he was unable which occurred while Nathan was still to perform basic work related working and before the alleged onset functions. He testified to being date: Nathan was diagnosed with diagnosed with leukemia in leukemia in early 2022. (Tr. 34, 776, 2022 and having to stop 830.) He complained of chronic working in 2023. He testified to diarrhea. (Tr. 35, 396.) having infusion treatment for 6 Gastrointestinal testing in 2022 did months and then pills for 6 not show celiac disease or infection or months. He testified to lymphocytic colitis. (Tr. 35, 352, 396, constant diarrhea and fatigue. 399.) Nathan “reported a dramatic He testified to doing 6 rounds improvement in his diarrhea from of immune therapy and having having 6-7 bowel movements a day to side effects of diarrhea, about 3 a day after starting a new increased nausea, and medication regimen.” (Tr. 35, 399.) A tiredness. He testified that diagnosis was made of lymphocytic because of his fatigue, he would lymphoma, and Nathan was referred sleep and lay on the couch on a to oncology. (Tr. 35, 354, 909, 390, daily basis. He testified to 406.) constant diarrhea and having to bring a change of clothing when The ALJ also noted the following, he was working. He testified to which occurred after the alleged onset still having continued diarrhea date of June 13, 2023, the day Nathan issues and often laying in bed stopped working at Harris Teeter due to lack of energy and where he had been employed for 23 exhaustion. years. (Tr. 46-48, 197, 199.) First line therapy began in September of 2023, (Tr. 34.) and treatment consisted of biopsy, medication, chemotherapy, Nathan thus placed the side effects of diagnostic imaging, blood panel his leukemia treatment at the heart of testing, and observation. (Tr. 34-35 his disability claim, including citing 516-981, 1017-1251, 1265- allegations of uncontrolled diarrhea. 1458.) Nathan was feeling “slightly However, the ALJ failed to adequately better” by October 2024 after coming assess these allegations during the off oral Venetoclax therapy and was relevant period: June 13, 2023 (the showing “slight improvement in alleged onset date and the date frequency of loose stool present.” (Tr. Nathan stopped working) through 34-35, 1278.) He indicated around December 10, 2024 (the date of the that time “that he continued to ALJ’s decision). (Tr. 29, 38, 229.) experience fatigue, nausea, vomiting, night sweats and watery diarrhea” Instead, the ALJ noted the following, (Tr. 34, 1313, 1320.) Nathan “had an 6 excellent response to first line therapy (M.D.N.C. Mar. 4, 2026) (remanding and was in remission [by November of under similar circumstances and 2024] despite suffering fatigue and noting that “the ALJ summarized diarrhea as side effects from his evidence and concluded that the RFC medication.” (Tr. 34-35, 1278.) accommodates [claimant’s] [irritable bowel syndrome]. However, . . . The ALJ then considered the medical meaningful review is frustrated where opinions. Specifically, the ALJ noted an ALJ goes straight from listing that he found “mostly persuasive” the evidence to stating a conclusion.”). opinions of the non-examining state agency medical consultants who Specifically, the ALJ does not suggested in December of 2023 and acknowledge or address evidence July of 2024 that Nathan could suggesting that after he began first perform a reduced range of medium line treatment for leukemia, Nathan’s work with additional postural and diarrhea appears to have worsened. environmental limitations. (Tr. 35, Both objective and subjective 73, 83.) The ALJ explained that the evidence support this conclusion. For “record supported limitations that example, Nathan visited the were more severe at the less than light emergency room on August 30, 2023, exertional level. Particularly, the where he “report[ed] having diarrhea claimants continuing complaints of secondary to chemo and fe[lt] like he fatigue and diarrhea as a result of his [was] dehydrated.” (Tr. 526, 516- medication side effects.” (Tr. 35-36.) 530.) Treatment included IV fluids. However, the RFC did not (Tr. 527 (“IV fluids ordered”).) In accommodate additional bathroom March 2024, Nathan took a breaks or time off task. (Tr. 33.) “treatment holiday” because of his diarrhea. (Tr. 1053, (“Chart reviewed, The ALJ thus summarizes evidence patient is currently on a treatment and concludes without explanation holiday for diarrhea. If his symptoms that the RFC accommodates Nathan’s improve during break then Venclexta diarrhea, one side effect of his may be reduced to 300 mg daily”).) In leukemia treatment. This is April of 2024, Nathan’s potassium problematic. The ALJ’s summary of was low “probably due to the loose the evidence goes straight from listing stool.” (Tr. 1041.) In September of evidence to stating a conclusion and 2024, Nathan still complained to his in so doing also fails to address or treatment providers of 10-12 bowel reconcile material evidence related to movements a day. (Tr. 1321.) On Nathan’s diarrhea that could impact November 1, 2024, his diarrhea was the outcome of this analysis. See again noted in a treatment record next Shawn R. v. Bisignano, No. to a statement that he “lost about 15 1:25CV118, 2026 WL 607376, at *8 pounds since August 2024.” (Tr. 7 1269.) one’s ability to work.” Dowling v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 986 F.3d The ALJ does not mention any of this. 377, 389 (4th Cir. 2021) (“[T]he ALJ Instead, the ALJ listed some of the should evaluate the frequency at relevant evidence and then sets forth which Appellant needed to use the an RFC that does not include any time bathroom and analyze how that off task or bathroom breaks. Thus, the restriction impacted her ability to ALJ’s analysis implicitly rejects any work.”). Thus, while the ALJ here did need for these accommodations with not necessarily have to include little to no discussion. This cursory accommodations for bathroom analysis is inadequate. breaks in the RFC, he did need to explain (and support with substantial Beyond this, the ALJ relied heavily on evidence) his implicit finding that the fact that Nathan had a period of bathroom breaks beyond normal “dramatic improvement” with his breaks in a workday were diarrhea in October of 2022 before unnecessary. See SSR, 1996 WL the alleged period of disability and 374185, at *6 (characterizing eight- before he began his first line hour workday as having “a morning treatment for leukemia. (Tr. 399, 35 break, a lunch period, and an (ALJ noting Nathan’s “dramatic afternoon break at approximately 2- improvement in his diarrhea from hour intervals”). having 6-7 bowel movements a day to about 3 a day after starting a new This error is not harmless. Nathan medication regimen”).) Given the testified that his treatment included evidence that first line treatment for intravenous infusions for six months leukemia may have exacerbated and then he was on a pill version of his Nathan’s gastrointestinal issues, this medication for another six months. brief period of improvement before (Tr. 49-50; see, e.g., 1147-48.) He the alleged period of disability and the explained that his bowel issues start of chemotherapy is insufficient worsened such that he now to support the RFC. The ALJ had to do experiences at least “16 to 20 bowel more here. movements a day. That’s just my normal day.” (Tr. 50.) According to To that end, Fourth Circuit precedent Nathan, his chronic diarrhea is makes clear that meaningful review is usually “explosive” stating “when I got frustrated where an ALJ goes straight to go, I got to go.” (Tr. 51.) Back when from listing evidence to stating a he was working, he had soiled himself conclusion. See Woods, 888 F.3d at requiring him to go home and change. 694. And beyond this, “[o]bviously, (Tr. 52.) He still has trouble with this, the need to visit the bathroom many he testified, but he explained “because times throughout the day impacts I’m home and have access to a 8 bathroom that don’t happen as much effect on Claimant’s RFC of the as it did. But it’s like at night ongoing Crohn’s-related sometimes it’ll happen.” (Tr. 52.) He symptoms—particularly the continues to experience significant frequency of diarrhea fatigue and ongoing diarrhea despite episodes—that he did find being off of immunotherapy credible. Nor did the ALJ medications. (Tr. 53.) He has to stay provide any analysis as to near a bathroom due to the urgent whether or not the ‘ongoing nature of his diarrhea. (Tr. 58.) symptoms of Crohn’s disease’ post-bowel resection would The vocational expert (“VE”) testified cause her to be off-task a that Nathan would not be significant portion of the competitively employable with two or workday.” Sharee B. v. more unexcused absences per month. Bisignano, No. 5:25-CV- (Tr. 62.) Additionally, she testified 00045, 2025 WL 4065846, at that he would not be employable if he *16 (S.D.W. Va. Dec. 17, 2025); required up to six unscheduled breaks • “[W]hile the ALJ was not for 5-10 minutes each during the day. necessarily required to impose (Tr. 63.) RFC limitations based on Claimant’s stated need for However, despite its materiality, the frequent breaks, the ALJ was ALJ did not analyze whether Nathan certainly required to set forth needed additional bathroom breaks an explanation in the written when assessing the RFC. (Tr. 33-36.) decision of the basis for her Nor did he make an allowance for determination that no RFC time off task or explain why an limitations were necessary. . . . allowance was unnecessary (Tr. 33- The ALJ’s complete failure to 36), even though he found Nathan’s analyze how this factor leukemia at step two to be a severe impacted her ability to work—if impairment and discussed evidence indeed it did so—requires (summarized above) related to that reversal[.]” Joanne P. v. Dudek, impairment in the decision (Tr. 32- No. 5:24-CV-00384, 2025 WL 36). The ALJ’s medical summary 1510664, at *18 (S.D.W. Va. contains an insufficient logical bridge Apr. 22, 2025); to the RFC which does not account for • “Here, the ALJ summarizes these issues. (Tr. 33-36.) And they are some of the evidence without critical, as multiple courts have so citation to the record and then found: states conclusively that the RFC accommodates Laura’s • “[T]he ALJ provided absolutely diarrhea and abdominal pain. zero analysis regarding the Fourth Circuit precedent makes 9 clear that meaningful review is bathroom. Docket Entry 9 at 5. frustrated when an ALJ goes straight from listing evidence to Next, the Commissioner contends stating a conclusion.” Laura J that the ALJ adequately explained v. O’Malley, No. 7:22-CV- why Nathan did not require 00402, 2024 WL 1954157, at *5 additional breaks or time off task (W.D. Va. Feb. 14, 2024) beyond normal breaks to account for (citation omitted); his bathroom usage. Docket Entry 11 • “[T]he RFC determination is at 9-14. In support, he points to devoid of any accommodation medical evidence relied upon by the for Sharp’s need for breaks to ALJ indicating that Nathan reported manage his severe medical improvement with his bowel impairment. Thus, the ALJ medication and also tested negatively appears to have rejected the for gastrointestinal abnormalities. testimony regarding the need (Tr. 353-54, 760, 952-54, 1039.) for unscheduled breaks. The Nevertheless, much of this evidence ALJ does not, however, discuss predated (or discussed evidence that or otherwise provide any predated) the alleged onset date as analysis of Sharp’s need for well as the date Nathan started first periodic bathroom breaks line therapy. See id. And, the ALJ during the workday.” Sharp v. failed to address and reconcile this Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:21- older evidence with other newer CV-00015-FDW, 2022 WL evidence (both objective and 949873, at *4 (W.D.N.C. Mar. subjective) suggesting that Nathan 29, 2022). experienced diarrhea more frequently after he started first line therapy (i.e., Thus, a remand for further a visit to the emergency room administrative proceedings is in complaining of diarrhea, low order. potassium, and weight loss).

And the Commissioner’s objections Setting this all aside, even if the ALJ are not persuasive; he asserts that accurately found that Nathan’s Nathan’s objection “amount[s] to diarrhea-related symptoms little more than an improper request improved, the ALJ did not find that to re-weigh the evidence to reach a they ceased entirely. Therefore, the conclusion more favorable to him.” Court cannot assess whether Docket Entry 11 at 6. Not so. Rather, substantial evidence supports the Nathan argues that the ALJ’s analysis ALJ’s determination. See Sharee B., here lacks a logical bridge between the 2025 WL 4065846, at *16 (relying on RFC and the omission or exclusion of similar reasoning). time off task or extra breaks to use the 10 The Commissioner also points to the As such, the analysis is incomplete medical opinions of the non- and precludes meaningful review. A examining state agency physicians remand is therefore necessary. who concluded that Nathan could perform a reduced range of medium In the end, the record does not work. Docket Entry 11 at 10-11. necessarily compel accommodations However, the ALJ only found these for time off task, absenteeism, or extra opinions “mostly persuasive” in light breaks in the RFC, but the evidence of Nathan’s “continuing complaints of triggers the ALJ’s duty to explain their fatigue and diarrhea as a result of his omission. The ALJ did not adequately medication side effects.” (Tr. 35-36.) do that here, and this is sufficient to Therefore, it was the ALJ who warrant remand for further emphasized Nathan’s “diarrhea as a consideration. result of his medication side effects.” Having raised the issue, the ALJ here Finally, because the issue discussed was required to create a logical bridge here is sufficient to warrant remand, between his RFC determination and there is no need to decide the further the evidence related to it. Instead, the issue(s) Nathan has raised. Hancock ALJ’s cursory explanation about what v. Barnhart, 206 F. Supp. 2d 757, impact, if any, Nathan’s diarrhea 763-64 n.3 (W.D. Va. 2002) (on would have on his ability to work fell remand, the ALJ’s prior decision has far short of his obligation to provide a no preclusive effect, as it is vacated narrative discussion of how the and the new hearing is conducted de evidence supported his conclusion.3 novo).4

3 The Commissioner also points to Nathan’s daily activities to support the 4 Nathan’s final objection is that “[t]he ALJ’s omission of any need for bathroom ALJ erred by failing to adequately breaks or time off task, including his account for [his] persistent fatigue status ability to tend to personal care, prepare post chemotherapy for chronic leukemia simple meals, perform light household in the RFC.” Docket Entry 9 at 9. While chores, and shop in stores with some not decided now, Nathan’s argument difficulty. Docket Entry 11 at 11 citing Tr. carries some force. There is very little 34, 47-60, 243-65, 284-99. However, direct analysis of fatigue in the ALJ’s almost all of these activities appear to decision (Tr. 33-36) and the Fourth have occurred at home, where Nathan Circuit has explained in Monroe v. explained he had ready access to a Colvin, 826 F.3d 176, 188 (4th Cir. 2016) bathroom. Tr. 52. And, in any event, the that more analysis may be required ALJs recitation of this evidence was under certain circumstances. The insufficient on its own to draw a logical Commissioner may, if he so chooses, bridge between his cursory analysis of evaluate this further on remand. Nathan’s gastrointestinal issues and the RFC for a reduced range of light work. 11 V. CONCLUSION IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Commissioner’s decision finding no disability be REVERSED and that the matter be REMANDED to the Commissioner under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The Commissioner should be directed to remand the matter to the ALJ for proceedings consistent with this Order. To the extent that Nathan seeks an immediate award of benefits, the request is DENIED. A Judgment remanding this action will be entered contemporaneously with this Order.

J fe G. “| adden United States Magistrate Judge August 4, 2026