SELLERS

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

12