SUTTON v. KIJAKAZI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

ALEXIS S., )

Plaintiff,

v. 1:22CV263

KILOLO KIJAKAZI,

Acting Commissioner of Social Security, )

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Alexis S. (“Plaintiff”) brought this action pursuant to Section 1631(c)(3) of the

Social Security Act (the “Act”), as amended (42 U.S.C. § 1383(c)(3)), to obtain judicial review

of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying her claims for Supplemental

Security Income and Child Supplemental Security Income under Title XVI of the Act. The

parties have filed cross-motions for judgment, and the administrative record has been certified

to the Court for review.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff filed her application for Supplemental Security Income on February 15, 2018,

alleging a disability onset date of July 20, 2000. (Tr. at 127, 262-70.)! Her application was

denied initially (Tr. at 72-87), and that decision was upheld upon reconsideration (Tr. at 88-

104, 154-57). Thereafter, Plaintiff requested an administrative hearing de novo before an

| Transcript citations refer to the Sealed Administrative Record [Doc. #13].

Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). (Tr. at 168-71.) On November 15, 2019, Plaintiff

appeared and testified at the subsequent hearing. Although Plaintiff was informed of her right

to representation, she chose to appeat and testify without the assistance of a representative.

at 108.) Following the hearing, the ALJ issued a decision concluding that Plaintiff was

not disabled within the meaning of the Act. (Tr. at 113.) However, on August 19, 2020, the

Appeals Council vacated the AL]’s decision and remanded the case for a new heating. (Tr. at

118-23.) Accordingly, on December 14, 2020, the ALJ held a telephonic hearing at which

Plaintiff was represented by an attorney and during which both Plaintiff and an impartial

vocational expert testified. (Ir. at 128.) In a decision dated September 29, 2021, the ALJ again

concluded that Plaintiff was not disabled under the Act (Tr. at 153), and on Januaty 26, 2022,

the Appeals Council denied review, thereby making the AL]’s conclusion the Commissionet’s

final decision for purposes of judicial review (Tr. at 1-6).

Il. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal law “authorizes judicial review of the Social Security Commissionet’s denial of

social security benefits.” Hines v. Barnhart, 453 F.3d 559, 561 (4th Cir. 2006). However, the

scope of review of such a decision is “extremely limited.” Frady v. Harris, 646 F.2d 143, 144

(4th Cir. 1981). “The courts are not to try the case de novo.” Oppenheim v. Finch, 495 F.2d

396, 397 (4th Cir. 1974). Instead, “a reviewing court must uphold the factual findings of the

AL) if they are supported by substantial evidence and were reached through application of the

correct legal standard.” Hancock v. Astrue, 667 F.3d 470, 472 (4th Cir. 2012) (internal brackets

and quotation omitted).

“Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept

as adequate to support a conclusion.” Hunter v. Sullivan, 993 F.2d 31, 34 (4th Cir. 1993)

(internal quotation omitted). “It consists of more than a mete scintilla of evidence but may

be somewhat less than a preponderance.” Mastro v. Apfel, 270 F.3d 171, 176 (4th Cir. 2001)

(internal brackets and quotation omitted). “If there is evidence to justify a refusal to direct a

verdict wete the case before a jury, then there is substantial evidence.” Hunter, 993 F.2d at 34

(internal quotation omitted).

“In reviewing for substantial evidence, the court should not undertake to re-weigh

conflicting evidence, make credibility determinations, or substitute its judgment for that of the

[ALJ].” Mastro, 270 F.3d at 176 (internal brackets and quotation omitted). “Where conflicting

evidence allows teasonable minds to differ as to whether a claimant is disabled, the

responsibility for that decision falls on the ALJ.” Hancock, 667 F.3d at 472 (internal brackets

and quotation omitted). “The issue before [the reviewing court], therefore, is not whether [the

claimant] is disabled, but whether the ALJ’s finding that [the claimant] is not disabled is

supported by substantial evidence and was reached based upon a cortect application of the

relevant law.” Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 589 (4th Cir. 1996).

In undertaking this limited review, the Court notes that in administrative proceedings,

claimant for disability benefits bears the burden of proving a disability.” Hall v. Harris,

658 F.2d 260, 264 (4th Cir. 1981). Notably, the claim in this case involves periods of time

both before and after Plaintiff attained the age of 18. Therefore, her claim must be evaluated

using two different standards. A child under the age of 18 qualifies as disabled if he or she

has a medically determinable physical or mental impairment, which results in marked and

severe functional limitations, and 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. 20 C.F.R.

§ 416.906. More specifically, the ALJ must follow a three-step sequential evaluation process

to consider whether the child in question (1) has engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) has

a severe impairment; and (3) has an impairment that meets, medically equals, or functionally

equals a listed impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 416.924(a).

At the third step, in determining whether a child’s impairment is functionally equivalent

to a listed impairment, the ALJ considers how the child functions in six domains: (1) acquiring

and using information, (2) attending and completing tasks, (3) interacting and relating with

others, (4) moving about and manipulating objects, (5) caring for herself, and (6) health and

physical well-being. 20 C.F.R. § 416.926a(b)(1). An impairment or combination of

impairments functionally equals a listed impairment if it results in “marked” limitations in two

domains of functioning or an “extreme” limitation in one domain. 20 C.F.R. § 416.926a(a),

(d). A child has a “marked” limitation in a domain when the impairment “interferes setiously

with [her] ability to independently initiate, sustain, or complete activities.” 20 C.F.R.

§ 416.926a(e)(2)@). A marked limitation “is ‘more than moderate’ but ‘less than extreme.’ It

is the equivalent of the functioning we would expect to find on standardized testing with

scotes that are at least two, but less than three, standard deviations below the mean.” 20

C.F.R. § 416.926a(e)(2)@). A child has an “extreme” limitation in a domain if her impairment

interferes “very setiously” with her ability to independently initiate, sustain, or complete

activities, and is the equivalent of functioning that would be expected on standardized testing

with scores that are at least three standard deviations below the mean. Id. § 416.926a(e)(3).

For each of the six domains, the regulations provide descriptions of relevant skills and theit

applications for various age groups, e.g., preschool children, school-age children, and

adolescents, as well as examples of limited functioning within each domain. See id. §

416.926a(g)-(1).

For claimants ages 18 and older, “[t]he Commissioner uses a five-step process to

evaluate disability claims.” Hancock, 667 F.3d at 472 (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4),

416.920(a)(4)). “Under this process, the Commissioner asks, in sequence, whether the

claimant: (1) worked during the alleged period of disability; (2) had a severe impairment; (3)

had an impairment that met or equaled the requirements of a listed impairment; (4) could

return to her past relevant work; and (5) if not, could perform any other work in the national

economy.” Id.

A finding adverse to the claimant at any of several points in this five-step sequence

forecloses a disability designation and ends the inquiry. For example, “[t]he first step

determines whether the claimant is engaged in ‘substantial gainful activity.’ If the claimant is

working, benefits ate denied. The second step determines if the claimant is ‘severely’ disabled.

If not, benefits are denied.” Bennett v. Sullivan, 917 F.2d 157, 159 (4th Cir. 1990).

On the other hand, if a claimant carries his or her burden at the first two steps, and if

the claimant’s impairment meets or equals a “listed impairment” at step three, the claimant is

disabled. Mastro, 270 F.3d at 177. Alternatively, if a clatmant clears steps one and two, but

falters at step three, 1e., “[i]f a claimant’s impairment is not sufficiently severe to equal or

exceed a listed impairment,” then “the ALJ must assess the claimant’s residual functional

capacity (RFC’).” Id. at 179.2 Step four then requires the AL] to assess whether, based on

that RFC, the claimant can “perform past relevant work”; if so, the claimant does not qualify

as disabled. Id. at 179-80. However, if the claimant establishes an inability to return to prior

work, the analysis proceeds to the fifth step, which “requires the [Government] to prove that

a significant number of jobs exist which the claimant could perform, despite the claimant’s

impairments.” Hines, 453 F.3d at 563. In making this determination, the AL} must decide

“whether the claimant is able to perform other work considering both [the claimant’s RFC]

and [the clatmant’s] vocational capabilities (age, education, and past work experience) to adjust

to a new job.” Hall, 658 F.2d at 264-65. If, at this step, the Government cannot carry its

“evidentiary burden of proving that [the claimant] remains able to work other jobs available

in the community,” the claimant qualifies as disabled. Hines, 453 F.3d at 567.

III. DISCUSSION

In the present case, the ALJ first considered Plaintiffs childhood disability claim and

found that Plaintiff had not engaged in “substantial gainful activity” since her February 15,

2018 application date. (Tr. at 133.) The AL] next determined that Plaintiff suffered from a

single severe impairment, “ichthyosis vulgaris scattered over her body,” prior to attaining the

2 “REC is a measurement of the most a claimant can do despite [the claimant’s] limitations.” Hines, 453 F.3d

at 562 (noting that administrative regulations require RFC to reflect clatmant’s “ability to do sustained work-

related physical and mental activities in a work setting on a regular and continuing basis . . . [which] means 8

hours a day, for 5 days a week, or an equivalent work schedule” (internal emphasis and quotation omitted)).

The RFC includes both a “physical exertional or strength limitation” that assesses the claimant’s “ability to do

sedentary, light, medium, heavy, or very heavy work,” as well as “nonexertional limitations (mental, sensory, ot

skin impairments).” Hall, 658 F.2d at 265. “RFC is to be determined by the AL] only after [the AL] considers

all relevant evidence of a claimant’s impairments and any related symptoms (¢.g., pain).” Hines, 453 F.3d at

562-63.

age of 18. (Tr. at 133.)3 The AL] found at step three that this impairment failed to meet or

medically equal the adult or childhood listings for ichthyosis. (Tr. at 136.) He then conducted

an analysis as to whether Plaintiffs impairment functionally equaled the severity of the listings

based on the requirements of 20 C.F.R. § 416.926a, assessing Plaintiffs functioning in six

domains: (1) acquiting and using information, (2) attending and completing tasks, (3)

interacting and relating with others, (4) moving about and manipulating objects, (5) cating for

herself, and (6) health and physical well-being. (Tr. at 137-45.) The AL] determined that,

although Plaintiff had a marked limitation in health and physical well-being, she had no

limitations or less than marked limitations in the other five domains. Therefore, the AL]

concluded that, prior to attaining the age of 18, Plaintiff did not have an impairment or

combination of impairments that resulted in either “marked” limitations in two domains of

functioning or “extreme” limitations in one domain of functioning as required to demonstrate

disability under the Social Security Act.4

The AL] then proceeded to consider Plaintiffs disability claim under the sequential

evaluation process for adult applicants. He found at step two of the analysis that Plaintiff

“continued to have the severe impairment of ichthyosis vulgaris” and had “not developed any

new impairment of impairments since attaining age 18.” (Tr. at 145.) He then determined

3 Ichthyosis refers to a group of skin disorders that lead to dry, itchy skin that appears scaly, rough, and red.

The symptoms can range from mild to severe. Ichthyosis, Nat’l Inst. Arthritis & Musculoskeletal & Skin

Diseases, https://www.niams.nih.gov/health-topics /ichthyosis# (last reviewed Sept. 2023).

+ The Court notes that the record reflects that Plaintiffs claim for disability as a child was approved in 2002

after a hearing (Tr. at 289), and Plaintiffs brief in the administrative proceeding reflects that Plaintiff's “lamellar

ichthyosis is a congenital diagnosis that allowed [her] to receive child SSI benefits previously” (Tr. at 362).

However, it is not clear when or why that changed or whether that prior determination was considered by the

ALJ.

that Plaintiff's ichthyosis did not meet or equal a listing. (Tr. at 145.) Therefore, the AL]

assessed Plainuffs RFC and determined that she could perform medium work with the

following, additional limitations:

[S]he is limited to frequent, but not continuous use of her bilateral upper

extremities for pushing and pulling, and for handling activities; she must avoid

concentrated exposure to extreme cold and extreme heat; and she must avoid

concentrated exposure to unprotected workplace hazards such as dangerous

machinery.

(Tr. at 145.) The ALJ found at step four of the analysis that Plaintiff had no past relevant

work. (Tr. at 151.) However, the ALJ found at step five that, given Plaintiffs age, education,

REC, and the testimony of the vocational expert as to these factors, she could perform other

jobs available in significant numbers in the national economy. (Tr. at 152-53.) Accordingly,

the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff was not disabled under the Act. (Tr. at 153.)

Plaintiff now raises three challenges to the ALJ’s decision. First, she argues that the

ALJ “erred by failing to perform a function-by-function analysis of Plaintiffs contested and

relevant limitations and by failing to form a logical bridge between the evidence and his

conclusions.” Second, Plaintiff contends that the ALJ failed to sufficiently address whether

her severe impairment of ichthyosis met or equaled Listing 8.02 under 20 C.F.R., Part 404,

Subpt. P, Appx. 1, § 8.02 (hereinafter “Listing 8.02”). Third, Plaintiff asserts that the AL]

“erred in his treatment of the medical opinion of dermatologist Dr. Aaron Wever.” (PL’s Br.

[Doc. #15] at 1.) In considering these challenges, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs

contentions watrant remand with regard to the Listing analysis, and the remaining contentions

can be further addressed on remand.

In undertaking the Listing analysis at step three, an AL] is not requited to explicitly

identify and discuss every possible Listing, but he is compelled to provide a coherent basis for

his step three determination, particularly where the “medical record includes a fair amount of

evidence” that a claimant’s tmpairment meets a disability listing. Radford v. Colvin, 734 F.3d

288, 295 (4th Cir. 2013). Where such evidence exists but is rejected without discussion,

“insufficient legal analysis makes it impossible for a reviewing court to evaluate whether

substantial evidence supports the AL]J’s findings.” Id. In reviewing the AL]’s analysis, it is

possible that even “[a] cursory explanation” at step three may prove “satisfactory so long as

the decision as a whole demonstrates that the AL] considered the relevant evidence of record

and there is substantial evidence to support the conclusion.” Meador v. Colvin, No. 7:13-CV-

214, 2015 WL 1477894, at *3 (W.D. Va. Mar. 27, 2015) (citing Smith v. Astrue, 457 F. App’x

326, 328 (4th Cir. 2011)). However, the AL]’s decision must include “a sufficient discussion

of the evidence and explanation of its reasoning such that meaningful judicial review is

possible.” Id. If the decision does not include sufficient explanation and analysis to allow

meaningful judicial review of the AL]’s listing determination, remand 1s appropriate. Radford,

734 F.3d at 295-96.

In this case, with respect to the analysis of the Listings, in analyzing the period prior to

Plaintiff attaining age 18, the ALJ stated:

Prior to July 20, 2018, the claimant’s ichthyosis vulgaris did not meet or

medically equal the criteria of either adult Listing 1.08 for ichthyosis or

childhood Listing 108.02 for ichthyosis.

at 136.) The ALJ then used the general framework for analyzing whether a combination

of impairments would generally equal listing-level disability, but did not otherwise address or

analyze the listing itself. Similarly, in analyzing the period after Plaintiff turned 18, the AL]

stated:

Since July 20, 2018, the claimant’s ichthyosis vulgaris has not met or medically

equaled the criteria of Listing 1.08 for ichthyosis.

(Tr. at 145.) Notably, the AL] referenced the incorrect Listing, as Skin Disorders are evaluated

under Listing 8.00, and Ichthyosis specifically under Listing 8.02, not Listing 1.08. More

importantly, the ALJ included no additional analysis applying the relevant criteria for Listing

8.02. As Defendant correctly recounts,

Listing 8.02 requites that a claimant present evidence of ichthyosis, with

extensive skin lesions that persist for at least 3 months despite continuing

treatment as prescribed. See 20 C.F.R., pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1, § 8.02. In turn,

the lesions must result in a “very serious” limitation; such as, interference with

the motion of a clatmant’s joints and that very seriously limit her use of more

than one extremity; lesions on the palm of a claimant’s hands that very seriously

limit her ability to do fine and gross motor movements; or skin lesions on the

soles of the feet, perineum, or other inguinal areas that very seriously limit her

ability to ambulate. See id. at § 8.00(C)(1)(a)-(c). Flareups may qualify a claimant

for purposes of the Listing where she has been unable to do any gainful activity

fot a continuous petiod of at least 12 months or where she could be expected

to be unable to do any gainful activity for a continuous period of at least 12

months. See id. at § 8.00(C)(2).

(Def.’s Br. [Doc. #18] at 16.)

Here, there is evidence that Plaintiff had extensive skin lesions that persisted for a least

3 months despite treatment. Specifically, the record reflects that Plaintiff was diagnosed with

Lamellar Ichthyosis,°? and throughout the period from 2017 through 2020, she was observed

° “Lamellar ichthyosis is a condition that mainly affects the skin.... People with lamellar ichthyosis typically

have large, dark, plate-like scales covering their skin on most of their body. Infants with lamellar ichthyosis

may develop infections, an excessive loss of fluids (dehydration), and respiratory problems. Affected

individuals may also have hair loss (alopecia), abnormally formed fingernails and toenails (nail dystrophy), a

decreased ability to sweat (hypohidrosis), an increased sensitivity to heat, and a thickening of the skin on the

palms of the hands and soles of the feet (Keratoderma).” Lamellar Ichthyosis, MedlinePlus,

https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/condition/lamellar-ichthyosis/#resources (last visited Sept. 28, 2023).

10

to have “widespread ichthyosis” (I'r. at 425), “[d]iffusely dry, cracked skin with crusting noted

to entite body” (Tr. at 478), “dry skin that is sloughing” (Tr. at 509), chronic “diffuse scaly

tash” (Tr. at 523), “[w]hole body scaling and skin flaking” (Tr. at 582), “completely scaly” skin

(Tr. at 639), “[d]iffuse dry, cracked skin with multiple excoriated lesions diffusely” (Tr. at 660),

“{c]hronic ichthy[Josis, thickened acanthotic epidermis” (Tr. at 751), “scaling of the skin and

its entirety” (Ir. at 778), “[d]iffuse hyperkeratosis with adherent scales” (Tr. at 813), “severe

ichthyosis” with “allergic reactions” (Tr. at 1108), and “significant scaling skin over entire

body” (Tr. at 1205), including on her arms and hands (Tt. at 447).°

There is also evidence of very setious limitations under two of the possible scenarios

set out in the Listing. First, there is evidence that lesions on the palms of her hands very

seriously limit her ability to do fine and gross motor movements. 20 C.F.R., pt. 404, Subpt.

P, App. 1, § 8.00(C)(1)(b). Notably, the Consultative Examination, which the ALJ accepted

as persuasive (Tr. at 148), reflects “widespread ichthyosis” with “frequent infections,” and

specifically “widespread scaling of the skin in the upper and lower extremities as well as the

trunk with hardening of the skin in the palmar surfaces of both hands.” (Ir. at 772.) The

Consultative Examiner, Dr. Earl Epps, noted “decreased grip strength and dexterity in her

hands secondary to her ichthyosis and hardening of the skin in the palmar area of both hands.”

(Ir. at 772.) Dr. Epps noted that while she had normal range of motion of her shoulders,

Lamellar Ichthyosis is a rare genetic condition and “[fJewer than 5,000 people in the U.S. have this disease.”

Lamellar Ichthyosis, Genetic & Rare Diseases Info. Ctr., https://ratediseases.info.nih.gov /diseases/10803/

lamellar-ichthyosis (last visited Sept. 28, 2023).

Older medical records reflect a similar condition when she was younger, and records from a suicide attempt

when she was 13 reflect that she was engaging in self-injurious behaviors including cutting with “multiple cuts,

scratches on her body, but due to skin disease (lamellar ichthyosis) it’s barely noticeable.” (Tr. at 1075.)

11

elbows, wrists, and hands, she had “decreased dexterity and grip strength in the right and left

hand secondary to her ichthyosis and hyperkeratosis of the skin on the palmar surface of both

hands.” (Tr. at 773.) Dr. Epps estimated reduced grip strength of 4/5 in both her right hand

and left hand. (Tr. at 773). With respect to her “ability to pinch, grasp and manipulate small

and large objects,’ Dr. Epps wrote “Decreased dexterity & grip strength — Right & Left

Hand.” (Tr. at 774.) ‘This is consistent with Plaintiffs testimony that she cannot form a fist,

cannot open bottles or cans, and will drop things because she lacks grip strength. (Tr. at 28-

29.)

Alternatively under the Listing, there is evidence that skin lesions on the soles of the

feet very seriously limit her ability to ambulate. 20 C.F.R., pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, §

8.00(C)(1)(c). With respect to walking and standing, Dr. Epps in the Consultative

Examination noted that Plaintiff experiences “episodic swelling in her lower extremities”

which “affect her mobility and ability to perform her activities of daily living.” (Ir. at 772.)

On examination, Dr. Epps noted “slight brawny edema in the lower extremities below the

knees.” (Ir. at 773.) In addition, in her testimony, Plaintiff noted that the dry, scaly skin on

the soles of her feet would often crack and bleed, limiting her ability to stand and walk for

extended periods. (Tr. at 26, 31, 34, 59.) Plaintiff testified that she could only stand for 30

minutes (T'r. at 43), and during a visit with her treating dermatologist, Dr. Wever, on Februaty

5, 2020, Plaintiff reported that as a result of her ichthyosis, at times she was unable to walk

(Tr. at 1292). The ALJ noted that Plaintiff was regularly assessed to have an unimpaired gait,

but there is no indication that the skin condition on her feet would affect her gait or her range

12

of motion, and the AL] did not address her ability to stand and walk in light of the condition

of the skin on her feet.

The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit considered a similar scenario in Radford

and held that:

The AL]’s decision regarding the applicability of Listing 1.04A is devoid of

reasoning. He summarily concluded that Radford’s impairment did not meet

ot equal a listed impairment, but he provided no explanation other than writing

that he “considered, in particular,” a variety of listings, including Listing 1.04A,

and noting that state medical examiners had also concluded “that no listing

[was] met or equaled.” This insufficient legal analysis makes it impossible for a

reviewing court to evaluate whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s

findings. See Cook v. Heckler, 783 F.2d 1168, 1173 (4th Cir. 1986) (reversing

and remanding when ALJ “failed to compare [the claimant’s] symptoms to the

requirements of any of the four listed impairments, except in a very summaty

way’). A full explanation by the ALJ is particularly important in this case

because Radford’s medical record includes a fair amount of evidence supportive

of his claim, Murphy v. Bowen, 810 F.2d 433, 437 (4th Cir. 1987).

Radford, 734 F.3d at 295 (internal citation to record omitted). In the present case, as in

Radford, there was at least some evidence in the record to support application of Listing 8.02,

but the ALJ failed to include any analysis in his decision sufficient to allow judicial review of

his step three determination. In light of the Fourth Circuit’s guidance in Radford, remand is

necessaty so that the ALJ can undertake this listing analysis in the first instance. Id. (“If the

reviewing court has no way of evaluating the basis for the ALJ’s decision, then the proper

coutse, except in rate citcumstances, is to remand to the agency for additional investigation or

explanation.” (internal quotation omitted)); see also Brown v. Colvin, 639 F. App’x at 921, 923

(4th Cir. 2016) (“We conclude that Brown’s medical record is not so one-sided that one could

clearly decide, without analysis, that Listing 4.04C is not implicated. Further, we do not accept

Brown’s and the Commissionet’s invitations to review the medical record de novo to discover

13

facts to support or refute the ALJ’s finding at Step Three, and it was error for the district court

to do so.”); Dial v. Colvin, No. 1:16CV70, 2016 WL 6997502, at * (M.D.N.C. Nov. 30, 2016)

(“The ALJ’s failure to addtess any of the physical listings in this case, including particularly

Listing 4.04, is thus more than a ‘technical error,’ and is instead a situation where the AL]’s

failure to adequately explain his reasoning precludes this Court from undertaking a ‘meaningful

review.” (internal ellipsis and quotation omitted)).

Having reached this decision, the Court need not also consider Plaintiffs additional

contentions. The Court does note, however, that it appears that the AL] did not fully explain

his function-by-function analysis, particularly as to Plaintiffs ability to stand for extended

periods and her ability for handling or fingering in light of the limitations recognized by Dr.

Epps. In addition, the AL] rejected the opinion evidence from Plaintiffs treating

dermatologist, Dr. Wever, but the most important factors when evaluating the persuasiveness

of an opinion ate supportability and consistency. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(a), (b)(2), (c)(1)-(2).

It is not clear how Dr. Wever’s medical opinion was unsupported by or inconsistent with his

treatment records or the Consultative Examination of Dr. Epps and the other evidence in the

recotd. In light of the remand under Radford, these issues can be further considered and

addressed by the ALJ on a full review of the record.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Commissionet’s decision finding no

disability is REVERSED, and that the matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner under

sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). ‘The Commissioner 1s directed to remand the matter to

the ALJ for further consideration of Plaintiffs claim. Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on

the Pleadings [Doc. #17] is DENIED, and Plaintiffs Motion for Judgment Reversing the

14

Commissioner [Doc. #14] is GRANTED to the extent set out herein. However, to the extent

Plaintiff seeks an immediate award of benefits, her Motion is DENIED.

This, the 28 day of September, 2023.

___/s/ Joi Elizabeth Peake

United States Magistrate Judge

15