The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ROBERT J., )
)
Plaintiff, )
v. ) 1:25CV997
)
FRANK BISIGNANO, )
Commissioner of Social Security, )
)
Defendant. )
ORDER AND MEMORANDUM OPINION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The plaintiff, Robert J. (“Robert”), has period of disability, and supplemental
sought review of a final decision of the security income alleging a disability
Commissioner of Social Security onset date of September 30, 2021. (Tr.
denying his claim for disability 228-240.) The application was denied
insurance benefits, a period of initially and upon reconsideration.
disability, and supplemental security (Tr. 123-32, 141-48.) After a hearing,
income.1 The Court has considered the ALJ determined on October 29,
the certified administrative record 2024 that Robert was not disabled
and dispositive briefs from each party. under the Act. (Tr. 29-80.) The
Because substantial evidence Appeals Council denied a request for
supports the determination of the review, making the ALJ’s decision the
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), final decision for the purposes of
the Court will deny Robert’s request judicial review. (Tr. 1-7.)
for the award of benefits or for a
remand, as set forth below. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY While Section 405(g) of Title 42 of the
United States Code “authorizes
In 2022, Robert filed an application judicial review of the Social Security
for disability insurance benefits, a Commissioner’s denial of social
1 Transcript citations refer to the Undersigned to conduct all proceedings
Administrative Transcript of Record filed in this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
manually with the Commissioner’s 636(c). See Docket Entry 13.
Answer. See Docket Entry 5. By Order of
Reference, this matter was referred to the
security benefits,” see Hines v. Under this process, the
Barnhart, 453 F.3d 559, 561 (4th Cir. Commissioner asks, in
2006), the scope of that review is sequence, whether the
specific and narrow, see Smith v. claimant: (1) worked during the
Schweiker, 795 F.2d 343, 345 (4th alleged period of disability; (2)
Cir. 1986). Specifically, review is had a severe impairment; (3)
limited to determining if there is had an impairment that met or
substantial evidence in the record to equaled the requirements of a
support the Commissioner’s decision. listed impairment; (4) could
42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Hunter v. return to her [or his] past
Sullivan, 993 F.2d 31, 34 (4th Cir. relevant work; and (5) if not,
1992); Hays v. Sullivan, 907 F.2d could perform any other work
1453, 1456 (4th Cir. 1990). In in the national economy.
reviewing for substantial evidence,
the Court does not reweigh conflicting Id. at 472. A finding adverse to the
evidence, make credibility claimant at any of several points in
determinations, or substitute its this five-step sequence forecloses a
judgment for that of the disability designation and ends the
Commissioner. Craig v. Chater, 76 inquiry. Id. at 473. “Through the
F.3d 585, 589 (4th Cir. 1996). Put fourth step, the burden of production
simply: the issue before the Court is and proof is on the claimant. If the
not whether Robert is disabled but claimant reaches step five, the burden
whether the finding that he is not shifts to the Secretary to produce
disabled is supported by substantial evidence that other jobs exist in the
evidence and based upon a correct national economy that the claimant
application of the relevant law. Id. can perform considering his age,
education, and work experience.”
III. THE ALJ’S DECISION Hunter, 993 F.2d at 35 (internal
citations omitted).
The ALJ followed the correct process,
set forth in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, Here, the ALJ determined at step one
416.920, to determine disability. See that Robert had not engaged in
Albright v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. substantial gainful activity since the
Admin., 174 F.3d 473, 475 n.2 (4th alleged onset date of September 30,
Cir. 1999). 2021. (Tr. 31.) The ALJ next found the
following severe impairment:
“The Commissioner uses a five-step “Nocturnal Seizures.” (Tr. 32.) At step
process to evaluate disability claims.” three, the ALJ found Robert did not
Hancock v. Astrue, 667 F.3d 470, have an impairment or combination
472-73 (4th Cir. 2012) (citing 20 of impairments listed in, or medically
C.F.R. §§ 416.920(a)(4), equal to one listed in, Appendix 1. (Tr.
404.1520(a)(4)). 34.) The ALJ next set forth Robert’s
Residual Functional Capacity (“RFC”)
and determined he could perform a
full range of work at all exertional A. The ALJ’s Step Three
levels with the following non- Determination.
exertional limitations: “the claimant
can never climb ladders, ropes, or As noted, Robert first objects that
scaffolds. He can never work at “[t]he ALJ erred in failing to consider
unprotected heights and never the overwhelming evidence
operate a motor vehicle, and other establishing that [his] impairments
seizure precautions as recommended satisfied § 11.02A of the Listing
by the claimant’s treating physicians.” impairments or the medical
(Tr. 35.) At the fourth step, the ALJ equivalence standard for disability.”
determined that Robert was unable to Docket Entry 10 at 7. This objection
perform his past relevant work. (Tr. has no merit.
44.) At step five, the ALJ concluded
that there were other jobs that Robert More specifically, the listings are
could perform. (Tr. 45-46.) examples of medical conditions that
ordinarily prevent a person from any
IV. DISCUSSION gainful activity. Sullivan v. Zebley, 493
U.S. 521, 532 (1990); see also 20 C.F.R.
Robert first contends that “[t]he ALJ §§ 404.1525(a), 416.925(a). A
erred in failing to consider the claimant’s severe impairment
overwhelming evidence establishing generally “meets” a listing if it
that [his] impairments satisfied § “satisfies all of the criteria of that
11.02A of the Listing impairments or listing, including any relevant criteria
the medical equivalence standard for in the introduction, and meets the
disability.” Docket Entry 10 at 7. That [one-year] duration requirement.” 20
is, Robert argues that his impairment C.F.R. §§ 404.1525(c)(3),
met those of epilepsy or its equivalent, 416.925(c)(3); Zebley, 493 U.S. at 530
satisfying step three of the ALJ’s (“For a claimant to show that his
analysis. impairment matches a listing, it must
meet all of the specified medical
Next, Robert contends that “[t]he ALJ criteria. An impairment that manifests
erred in improperly evaluating [his] only some of those criteria, no matter
statements about the intensity, how severely, does not qualify.”). An
persistence, and limiting effects of his impairment or combination of
symptoms based upon the ALJ’s impairments generally medically
opinion of [his] credibility.” Id. at 13. equals a listing when it is at least equal
Third, Robert contends that “[t]he in severity and duration to the criteria
ALJ’s findings regarding [his] of any listed impairment. 20 C.F.R. §§
residual functional capacity 404.1526(a)-(b), 416.926(a)-(b);
limitations were not supported by Zebley, 493 U.S. at 531 (“[T]o qualify
substantial evidence.” Id. at 17. As set for benefits by showing that his
forth below, these objections have no unlisted impairment, or combination
merit. of impairments, is ‘equivalent’ to a
listed impairment, he must present
medical findings equal in severity to all the person to lose postural control)
the criteria for the one most similar followed by a clonic phase (rapid cycles
listed impairment.”). of muscle contraction and relaxation,
also called convulsions).” Id. §
An adult claimant whose severe 11.00H1a. The required number of
medically determinable impairment(s) seizures must occur within the
satisfies a listing is presumed disabled relevant period. Id. § 11.00H4.
regardless of his or her vocational
profile. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1525(c), In addition, Listing 11.00H4 indicates
416.925(c). Thus, proving “listing-level that (a) multiple seizures within a 24-
severity” requires the claimant to hour period count as one seizure; (b) a
demonstrate a greater degree of continuous series of seizures without
physical or mental impairment than return to consciousness between
the baseline statutory standard of seizures counts as one seizure; (c) a
being unable to perform “substantial dyscognitive seizure that progresses
gainful activity.” Zebley, 493 U.S. at into a tonic-clonic seizure counts as
532. A claimant who can satisfy a one seizure; (d) seizures occurring
listing, however, “is entitled to a during a period of noncompliance with
conclusive presumption that he [or prescribed treatment do not count
she] is disabled.” Radford v. Colvin, without good reason for the
734 F.3d 288, 291 (4th Cir. 2013) noncompliance; and (e) psychogenic
(citations omitted). Thus, the ALJ nonepileptic seizures or
generally must identify the relevant pseudoseizures do not count for
listed impairments and “compare[ ] Listing 11.02 and are instead
each of the listed criteria” to the considered under Listing 12.00. Id.
medical evidence in the claimant’s
record. Cook v. Heckler, 783 F.2d B. The ALJ’s Step Three
1168, 1173 (4th Cir. 1986). Determination Was Legally Correct
and Well-Supported.
Listing 11.02A, the relevant listing
here, requires evidence of epilepsy or Here, the ALJ found Robert’s
an equivalent impairment with a nocturnal seizures severe, addressed
detailed description of a typical seizure the evidence of record, and gave
and evidence of generalized tonic- reasons why Listing 11.02A was not
clonic seizures (see 11.00H1a), met or equaled. (Tr. 32, 34-44.) In so
occurring at least once a month for at doing, the ALJ found that Robert failed
least three consecutive months (see to establish that he had tonic-clonic
11.00H4) despite adherence to seizures that satisfied 11.02A’s
prescribed treatment (see 11.00C). 20 requirements. (Tr. 34.) The ALJ
C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, § applied the correct law, explained why
11.02A. Tonic-clonic seizures are Robert failed to meet the listing, and
“seizures . . . characterized by loss of substantial evidence supports his
consciousness accompanied by a tonic finding.
phase (sudden muscle tensing causing
1. The ALJ considered the origin started taking Dilantin and had been
and manifestation of the seizure free ever since. (Tr. 38, 678.)
impairment. The ALJ also acknowledged the
following notes Dr. Dawson made:
Specifically, the ALJ discussed “Eyewitnesses are not available, but
Robert’s testimony that he was beaten they tell him that he ‘makes noises,’
about the face around 2018, and that raises both arms, at times flexes both
the beating caused his seizure arms. He has on occasion dislocated
disorder. (Tr. 35, 63.) Robert his arms if the seizure occurs while he
attributed a hand tremor, which he is prone. He has experienced tongue
alleged prevented him from doing biting frequently and urinary
yardwork, and his symptoms of incontinence at least once.” (Tr. 38,
depression and memory loss and 678.)
difficulty focusing, to the beating. (Tr.
69-70, 133, 316, 322.) Robert testified The ALJ discussed Robert’s complete
that in 2021, he had a “very major physical exam in April 2021, around
seizure” and continued to have five months before the September 30,
“around two” or “two to three” seizures 2021 onset date. (Tr. 38.) He reported
a month but sometimes, they occurred doing well with no major issues or
in clusters of two in one week. (Tr. 67.) problems, and that he had taken
He described aftereffects such as a zonisamide regularly since 2011 to
severe headache, needing to sleep all prevent partial seizures. (Tr. 38, 607.)
day, feeling like he had been hit by a The ALJ noted that in August 2021,
truck when he woke up, joint Robert reported a breakthrough
dislocations, and shaky legs. (Tr. 67- seizure during sleep. (Tr. 38, 695.)
69.) Robert testified that he had Robert endorsed being sore and
experienced seizures at this severity lethargic for the following two days
and frequency since September 2021. and unable to go to work and denied
(Tr. 68.) biting his tongue or experiencing
incontinence. (Tr. 38, 695.)
The ALJ discussed the longitudinal
medical record, going back to before At a neurology follow-up in March
the relevant period (September 30, 2022, Robert said he had reduced his
2021 through October 29, 2024) began prescribed dose of zonisamide on his
when Robert saw neurologist William own a few months earlier due to
Dawson, M.D., in August 2016. (Tr. 38, excessive lethargy. (Tr. 39, 697.) He
678.) Robert reported being kicked in reported having approximately three
the head at least ten times without seizures over the past three months,
losing consciousness at age 18 (about the last one occurring about two weeks
1998) and that in 2007, he also earlier, all occurring in his sleep (Tr.
sustained head trauma without loss of 39, 697.) Dr. Dawson recommended
consciousness. (Tr. 38, 678.) After the trying another medication, tapering off
2007 incident, his seizures increased zonisamide, and returning in six
to occurring monthly and in 2011, he months. (Tr. 39, 698.)
The ALJ also discussed that on July 12, medical visits—at which, notably,
2022, Robert presented at the Robert did not report recent seizures
emergency department complaining of or hand tremors. (Tr. 39-40.) For
tailbone pain after falling out of bed example, Robert went to an orthopedic
while sleeping on July 2, 2022. (Tr. 37, practice in May 2023 with complaints
612.) He did not recall a seizure and of hamstring pain after his left knee
said he had a very hazy memory of “gave out” going up steps. (Tr. 40,
falling out of bed and landing on his 774.) The ALJ noted that, as he had in
buttocks. (Tr. 37, 612.) the past, Robert did not seek medical
attention until about a week after the
The ALJ considered that Robert saw injury, so there were no signs of
Dr. Dawson in October 2022 and bruising and/or erythema. (Tr. 40.)
reported being compliant with The ALJ discussed the normal
levetiracetam and having ongoing findings. (Tr. 40, 775-76.)
nocturnal seizures approximately
twice per month. (Tr. 39, 703.) Dr. Robert did not exhibit knee pain on
Dawson offered a referral to an exam and had normal motor function
epilepsy clinic, increased the dose of of the bilateral lower extremities, with
levetiracetam, and recommended no sign of lymphadenopathy of the left
Robert keep track of his seizures on a knee, which was also negative for
calendar and return in six months. (Tr. crepitus or varus/valgus instability.
39, 704.) (Tr. 40, 775.) Robert’s left hip showed
no pain on range of motion, both knees
2. The ALJ noted that Robert did had normal patella track signs, and
not complain of symptoms of Robert had 5/5 quad strength. (Tr. 40,
the impairment during other 775.) Knee imaging revealed normal
medical appointments in 2023 joint spaces, no soft tissue swelling, no
and 2024. fractures, preserved patellofemoral
joint spaces, and no patellofemoral
As the ALJ pointed out, Robert did not malignment. (Tr. 40, 776.) Robert was
return to the neurologist until May diagnosed with left hamstring strain
2024, but he saw primary care and left quadricep weakness. (Tr. 40,
physician David Christopherson, M.D. 776.)
during the nineteen-month interim.
(Tr. 39, 772, 825.) In April 2023, The ALJ considered that about
Robert complained to Dr. nineteen months had elapsed between
Christopherson about left knee and when Dr. Dawson told Robert to track
calf pain but did not mention hand his seizures for possible follow-up with
tremors or seizures, recent or an epilepsy clinic and the time he
otherwise. (Tr. 39, 40, 772, 825.) He returned in May 2024. (Tr. 39-40, 704,
had a normal physical exam. (Tr. 39, 825.) Robert saw even more providers
772, 825.) during that gap. For example, the ALJ
noted that Robert went to physical
The ALJ discussed other interim therapy (“PT”) for his hamstring strain
and had an eye exam. (Tr. 40, 779-99, imaging in June 2024 and Dr.
820-21, 825.) At PT on June 29, 2023, Dawson’s normal findings the
Robert reported having a seizure about following month. (Tr. 41, 828-29, 857.)
a week before (Tr. 796); otherwise, he In July 2024, Robert reported the
did not mention seizures during this frequency of his nocturnal seizures
gap in seeing Dr. Dawson. remained the same, about two a
month. (Tr. 41, 825, 857.) He also
The ALJ also discussed Robert’s claimed to have two to four “major
August 2023 visit with his primary seizures” annually. (Tr. 41, 857.)
care physician for right flank pain that Robert said he had a “severe seizure”
had persisted for five days. (Tr. 40, about three weeks earlier, which
801.) Robert made no mention of resulted in a weeklong absence from
continued seizures or tremors and had work. (Tr. 41, 857.) But the ALJ noted
a normal physical exam. (Tr. 40, 801.) that Robert did not go to the
Although Robert saw other providers emergency room at the time of, or even
during the nineteen-month gap during shortly after, the reported seizures.
which he did not return to Dr. Dawson, (Tr. 40.) Robert claimed all of his
he told Dr. Dawson that a lapse in seizures, major and minor, occurred at
insurance coverage had prevented him night during sleep, and he often woke
from returning until May 14, 2024. up feeling tired with bite marks on the
(Tr. 40, 825.) Robert endorsed having inside of his cheek, which led him to
nocturnal seizures about twice a believe he may have had a seizure. (Tr.
month despite reported compliance 41, 857.) He also experienced
with medication. (Tr. 825.) He said bedwetting once or twice a year and
some seizures caused muscle soreness said he was compliant with
in the legs and excessive sedation that medication. (Tr. 41, 857.) Robert
affected his ability to work. (Tr. 825.) reported managing his hand tremors
Robert reported falling out of bed “last with “mild yoga.” (Tr. 857.) Dr.
summer” and resulting back pain. (Tr. Dawson found Robert had normal
825.) Robert also endorsed hand attention, memory, and heel-to-toe
tremors over the past year. (Tr. 825.) walking, and referred him to an
On exam, Robert had normal epilepsy specialist. (Tr. 41, 859.) As the
attention, memory, and gait. (Tr. 826.) ALJ noted, Robert again declined
Robert said he would track his seizures medication to address the hand
on a calendar, Dr. Dawson adjusted tremors. (Tr. 41, 859.) See Dunn v.
Robert’s medications and Colvin, 607 F. App’x 264, 275 (4th Cir.
recommended a referral to an epilepsy 2015) (unpublished) (“[W]hen a
clinic, and Robert declined medication claimant complains that her alleged
for his hand tremors. (Tr. 41, 826.) disability is so bad that she is unable to
work,” and the ALJ finds her treatment
3. The ALJ noted that Robert’s was not as aggressive as one would
impairment manifested at night. reasonably think given the allegations,
then it is reasonable for the ALJ to find
The ALJ also discussed normal brain
that bears on the claimant’s Robert’s alleged onset date was
credibility.). September 30, 2021. (Tr. 228-29.)
Regarding 11.02A’s requirement that
4. The ALJ detailed the support for the seizures must occur at least once a
his finding that Robert’s month for at least three consecutive
impairment was not as or more months, the ALJ considered Robert’s
severe than epilepsy and similar reporting. He made the following
seizure-based ailments. reports: (1) he testified to having two
to three seizures a month, some that
Here, the ALJ set forth ample support occurred in clusters of two in one week
for his Listing 11.02A finding. As an (Tr. 67, 68); (2) in March 2022, he
initial matter, there was no detailed reported having approximately three
description of Robert’s typical seizure seizures over the past three months,
because his seizures occurred during the last one occurring about two weeks
sleep with no eyewitnesses, and he did earlier, but this was when Robert was
not seek medical attention for any noncompliant with the prescribed
resulting injuries such as dislocating dosage (Tr. 39, 697); (3) in October
his shoulder or from biting his tongue 2022, he reported approximately two
or cheek. See 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. seizures per month (Tr. 39, 703); (4)
P, App. 1, § 11.02 (listing introduction on June 29, 2023, Robert reported
stating that the condition must be having a seizure about a week earlier
“documented by a detailed description (Tr. 796); and (5) in May and July
of a typical seizure”). 2024, he endorsed ongoing nocturnal
seizures about twice a month (Tr. 40-
Regarding 11.02A’s requirement that
41, 825, 857.) However, as indicated
the seizures must occur at least once a
above and detailed in Part C below in
month for at least three consecutive
response to Robert’s second argument,
months “despite adherence to
the ALJ properly found Robert’s
prescribed treatment,” in March 2022,
subjective allegations at odds with
Robert acknowledged that he reduced
other evidence. (Tr. 35; see also Part C
his prescribed dose of zonisamide on
below.)
his own a few months earlier due to
excessive lethargy. (Tr. 39, 697.) The ALJ set forth additional support
Therefore, for several months at least, for his Listing 11.02A finding. First, in
Robert did not adhere to prescribed October 2022 and August 2024, Dr.
treatment. Dawson opined Robert’s nocturnal
seizures are “characterized by loss of
As demonstrated above, the ALJ also
consciousness accompanied by a tonic
pointed to Robert’s nineteen-month
phase (sudden muscle tensing causing
gap between neurology visits. (Tr. 39-
the person to lose postural control)
40, 704, 825.) This gap in treatment
followed by a clonic phase (rapid cycles
also supported the ALJ’s Listing
of muscle contraction and relaxation,
11.02A analysis.
also called convulsions).” (Tr. 707, 714,
835, 846.) 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, Robert objects, asserting that seizure
App. 1, § 11.00H1a. Yet, as the ALJ activity is not always visible with
pointed out (and Dr. Dawson medical imaging, Docket Entry 10 at
acknowledged), there were no 10. The ALJ did not, however, make his
eyewitnesses. (Tr. 36, 42, 43, 568, 579, listing finding based solely on normal
678.) brain imaging. He gave multiple
reasons supported by substantial
Second, the ALJ also noted that the evidence (that this Court has set forth
evidence did not show Robert sought above and below) for finding Robert
medical attention for the head traumas failed to meet Listing 11.02A.
that supposedly touched off the
seizures. (Tr. 42.) Third, the ALJ Dr. Dawson also opined that Robert
pointed out that Dr. Dawson’s opinion, had a marked limitation in physical
including its reference to supposed functioning, and in October 2022, that
frequency of Robert’s nocturnal Robert would miss more than three
seizures, relied entirely on Robert’s days of work a month due to related
subjective reporting, which the ALJ symptoms, and in August 2024, that
found inconsistent with the evidence. Robert’s absences would occur one to
(Tr. 35-36, 42; see also Part C below.) two times a month. (Tr. 707, 835.)
Robert does not argue that he met
Fourth, the ALJ also considered that Listing 11.02D, but the ALJ also
there were no records showing rejected the opinion that he had a
medically determinable signs of the marked limitation in physical
seizures on post-seizure presentation, functioning. (Tr. 43, 707, 835.) 20
20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, § C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, §
11.00H1a (defining “tonic-clonic 11.02D (requiring a marked limitation
seizures” as being accompanied by a in at least one area, including physical
tonic phase followed by a clonic functioning). The ALJ explained that
phase—i.e., convulsions), on which the Dr. Dawson’s opinion lacked support
diagnosis of nocturnal seizures was because the medical evidence showed
based (Tr. 42-43.) And when he Robert, only 41 years old on his alleged
rejected Dr. Dawson’s opinion that onset date, repeatedly had normal
Robert met Listing 11.02A, the ALJ coordination, gait, and
explained that testing did not support musculoskeletal exams. (Tr. 43.)
signs of epilepsy, nocturnal, or other Based on the foregoing, the ALJ found
seizure disorders; rather, Robert’s Dr. Dawson’s opinions not persuasive.
brain imaging was normal. (Tr. 43.) All (Tr. 43.) Despite Robert’s objection to
these reasons support the ALJ’s the contrary, the ALJ’s evaluation
decision that Listing 11.02A was not comports with 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c
met. and 416.920c and was supported by
substantial evidence.
5. Robert’s objections to the ALJ’s
Step Three analysis fail. Robert faults the ALJ for pointing out
that he did not present at the hospital
near the times he reported having inconsistent with the substantial
seizures, even major ones, because evidence, the ALJ may reasonably
Listing 11.02 does not require that. reject the opinion. See, e.g., Craig, 76
Docket Entry 10 at 10-11. Citing out of F.3d at 590 n.2 (“There is nothing
district and unpublished caselaw, objective about a doctor saying,
Robert also faults the ALJ for noting without more, ‘I observed my patient
that there were no eyewitnesses to the telling me she was in pain.’”); Laquita
seizures because the listing does not M. R. v. Bisignano, No. 1:24CV604,
require such a showing. Id. at 11-12 2025 WL 2689043, at *12 (M.D.N.C.
(citing Dodd v. Kijakazi, No. 4:22-CV Sept. 19, 2025) (finding ALJ did not err
00005-RN, at *18-19 (E.D.N.C. Jan. 5, in discounting an opinion in part
2023)).2 However, the Listing 11.02 because it over-relied on claimant’s
introduction requires evidence of subjective complaints) (collecting
epilepsy or an equivalent impairment cases); Lockard v. Berryhill, No.
with a detailed description of a typical 1:17CV358, 2018 WL 4565992, at *4
seizure. 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, (M.D.N.C. June 8, 2018) (upholding
App. 1, § 11.02. In addition, Robert’s giving an opinion little weight, in part,
arguments misapprehend how the ALJ because it was based heavily on
assesses a claimant’s RFC and subjective complaints).
evaluates a claimant’s subjective
allegations—in other words, how the Robert makes conclusory references to
ALJ makes a disability determination. the ALJ finding several of his
The ALJ considers all relevant impairments non-severe and the
evidence, including treatment sought, combined effect of his impairments.
in making a disability determination. See Docket Entry 10 at 12. This is
See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, insufficient to raise a claim on appeal.
404.1545(a)(3), 416.929, and See Grayson O Co. v. Agadir Int’l LLC,
416.945(a)(3). 856 F.3d 307, 316 (4th Cir. 2017) (a
party forfeits an argument “by failing
Additionally, Fourth Circuit precedent to develop [its] argument—even if [its]
recognizes that when an ALJ finds a brief takes a passing shot at the issue”)
claimant’s treatment was not (cleaned up). As the Fourth Circuit has
aggressive commensurate with his explained, courts “are not like pigs,
allegations, then the ALJ may hunting for truffles buried in briefs.”
reasonably find that this bears on the Hensley on behalf of N.C. v. Price, 876
claimant’s reporting. See Dunn, 607 F. F.3d 573, 581 n.5 (4th Cir. 2017). It is
App’x at 275. Relevant precedent also not the job of the Court to wade
notes that when a medical opinion is through the record and develop
based on subjective reporting Robert’s arguments for him, and these
2 Assuming arguendo that Dr. Dawson’s would still fail to meet Listing 11.02A for
notes (Tr. 678) were sufficient to meet all of the additional reasons set forth
the threshold requirement of a detailed herein.
description of Robert’s seizures, Robert
objections have been forfeited. findings.”). For all these reasons, the
Court overrules Robert’s first objection
And even assuming arguendo that because substantial evidence supports
these conclusory and undeveloped the ALJ’s finding that his nocturnal
objections were before the Court, they seizures did not meet or equal Listing
would fail. There is no material error in 11.02A.
the ALJ’s assessment of Robert’s non-
severe impairments, including C. The ALJ’s Subjective Complaints
limitations related to mental health. As Determination.
the ALJ explained, Robert did not seek
mental health treatment, performed Next, Robert contends that “[t]he ALJ
extensive activities of daily living, had erred in improperly evaluating [his]
generally normal mental status statements about the intensity,
reports, and appeared to be engaging persistence, and limiting effects of his
in symptom magnification. (Tr. 32-33, symptoms based upon the ALJ’s
35-36, 43.) See Anthony v. Kijakazi, opinion of [his] credibility.” Docket
No. 1:22CV562, 2023 WL 4353939, at Entry 10 at 13. This objection is also
*7 n.5 (M.D.N.C. May 16, 2023) (“It is unpersuasive.
well-established that non-severe
impairments do not require “An ALJ assesses the credibility of a
limitations in the RFC, if (as is the case claimant’s subjective statements
here for the reasons set forth in this about his condition as part of the RFC
Recommendation) there is substantial assessment,” Ladda v. Berryhill, 749
evidence and an adequate explanation F. App’x 166, 170 (4th Cir. 2018)
warranting their omission.”). (unpublished), using a two-part test:
“First, there must be objective
The ALJ also specifically stated that he medical evidence showing ‘the
considered Robert’s combination of existence of a medical impairment(s)
impairments and whether they met or which results from anatomical,
equaled Listing 11.02. (Tr. 34.) Robert physiological, or psychological
has failed to point to anything abnormalities and which could
suggesting otherwise and, in fact, the reasonably be expected to produce the
ALJ’s decision here was remarkably pain or other symptoms alleged,’”
thorough and particularized in Craig, 76 F.3d at 594 (citing 20 C.F.R.
assessing Robert’s impairments, §§ 416.929(b), 404.1529(b)).
separately and combined. See Prickett
v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., No. CV If such an impairment exists, the ALJ
9:22-00297-MHC, 2023 WL must then consider, as the second
10410423, at *4 (D.S.C. Mar. 29, 2023) prong of the test, all available
(“[B]ased on a reading of the decision evidence, including the claimant’s
as a whole, it is clear that the ALJ statements about pain, to determine
sufficiently considered Plaintiff’s whether the claimant is disabled. Id.
impairments in combination and at 595-96. In so doing, the ALJ need
made sufficiently particularized not credit them if they conflict with
the objective medical evidence or if due to pain or other
the underlying impairment could not symptoms.
reasonably be expected to cause the
symptoms alleged. Id. Where the ALJ 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3),
has considered the relevant factors, 416.929(c)(3).
see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3),
416.929(c)(3), heard the claimant’s 1. The ALJ’s subjective complaints
testimony, and observed their analysis is legally correct and well-
demeanor, the Court will defer to the supported.
ALJ’s determination regarding
subjective complaints. Shively v. Here, the ALJ completed the two-step
Heckler, 739 F.2d 987, 989 (4th Cir. Craig analysis. First, for step one, the
1984). ALJ stated that he had carefully
considered the evidence and found
Those relevant factors include: that Robert’s “medically determinable
impairments could reasonably be
(i) [Plaintiff’s] daily activities; expected to cause the alleged
(ii) The location, duration, symptoms.” (Tr. 36.) Second, at step
frequency, and intensity of two of the Craig analysis, the ALJ
[plaintiff’s] pain or other decided that Robert’s “statements
symptoms; concerning the intensity, persistence
(iii) Precipitating and and limiting effects of these
aggravating factors; symptoms are not entirely consistent
(iv) The type, dosage, with the medical evidence and other
effectiveness, and side effects evidence in the record for the reasons
of any medication [plaintiff] explained in this decision.” (Tr. 36.)
take[s] or [has] taken to
alleviate his pain or other The ALJ then provided a number of
symptoms; reasons for partially discounting
(v) Treatment, other than Robert’s subjective complaints. For
medication, [plaintiff] example, the ALJ contrasted Robert’s
receive[s] or [has] received claims of memory problems with
for relief of his pain or other findings of normal memory. (Tr. 33,
symptoms; 35, 39, 41; see, e.g., Tr. 324, 328, 568,
(vi) Any measures [plaintiff] 580, 597, 622, 637, 654, 680, 683,
use[s] or [has] used to relieve 859.) He also discussed Robert’s
his pain or other symptoms allegations of musculoskeletal
(e.g., lying flat on [her] back, problems, such as shoulder problems
standing for 15 to 20 minutes and overall problems with reaching,
every hour, sleeping on a lifting, walking, and sitting (Tr. 36,
board, etc.); and 64, 328, 410, 435, 697, 866), and
(vii) Other factors concerning noted the evidence that Robert had
[plaintiff’s] functional mostly normal physical findings, (Tr.
limitations and restrictions 36-37, 39, 40; see Tr. 534, 565, 578,
614, 620, 648, 680, 683, 696, 739, between Robert’s report that he fell
775). See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), out of bed the summer of 2023,
416.929(c)(2) (ALJ considers suggesting the fall was a result of a
objective evidence in evaluating seizure, and treatment notes stating
symptoms). that he fell going up steps, not due to
seizure activity. (Tr. 40, 774, 825.)3
As referenced above, the ALJ also
considered that Additionally, the ALJ pointed to
evidence that Robert was magnifying
(1) a nineteen-month gap his symptoms given the activities of
elapsed between Robert’s daily living he performed while at the
neurology visits (Tr. 39-40, same time “endorsing every possible
704, 825); physical and mental limitation.” (Tr.
(2) Robert saw other providers 43 (Robert “was working part-time
during that gap and did not cleaning at a grocer[y] store; and had
routinely complain about reported signs on a 2022 function
seizures or tremors (Tr. 39- report of parenting his children,
40, 779-99, 801, 820-21); cooking, engaging in household tasks,
(3) Robert declined medication driving, going places alone, shopping
for his tremors even though in stores working puzzles, texting and
he claimed they prevented using video chat, going to church”),
him from doing a range of 322-28.) This evidence undermines
activities (Tr. 41, 69, 857, Robert’s claims. See 20 C.F.R. §§
859, 826); 404.1529(c), 416.929(c) (in
(4) Robert consistently failed to evaluating symptoms ALJ considers
seek medical attention near opinions, treatment sought,
the times of his seizures, frequency of symptoms, and
including “major” or inconsistencies between claimant’s
“severe” ones, that allegedly statements and other evidence).
caused injuries or other
accidents that he alleged The ALJ balanced the evidence and
caused injuries, so there was explained why Robert’s complaints
often no supporting medical were not borne out. His insistence
documentation (Tr. 40, 41, that the ALJ should have balanced the
42, 774, 796, 857); and evidence differently, see Docket Entry
(5) Dr. Dawson told Robert to 10 at 13-17, does not meaningfully
track his seizures, and undermine the ALJ’s subjective
Robert said he would but did complaints assessment. Robert
not (Tr. 39, 41, 704, 826). essentially asks the Court to reweigh
the evidence in his favor, which it
The ALJ also noted the inconsistency cannot do, see Craig, 76 F.3d at 589.
3 A year earlier in July 2022, Robert his tailbone. (Tr. 612.)
reported falling out of bed and injuring
For all these reasons, this objection impairments).” Hall v. Harris, 658
fails. F.2d 260, 265 (4th Cir. 1981).
D. The RFC Determination. “Social Security Ruling 96-8p
explains that the RFC ‘assessment
Robert next challenges the ALJ’s RFC must include a narrative discussion
determination by contending that describing how the evidence supports
“[t]he ALJ’s findings regarding [his each conclusion, citing specific
RFC] limitations were not supported medical facts (e.g., laboratory
by substantial evidence.” Docket findings) and nonmedical evidence
Entry 10 at 17. More specifically, (e.g., daily activities, observations).’”
Robert contends that “this RFC fails Monroe v. Colvin, 826 F.3d 176, 189
to consider [his] likelihood of (4th Cir. 2016) (internal quotations
absenteeism or tardiness, as is omitted). An ALJ need not discuss
required by SSR 96-8p.” Id. at 18. He every piece of evidence in making an
further contends that “this RFC failed RFC determination. See Reid v.
to consider [Robert’s] well- Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 769 F.3d 861,
established exertional limitations.” 865 (4th Cir. 2014). Yet, the ALJ
Id. As explained in greater detail “must build an accurate and logical
below, these objections have no merit. bridge from the evidence to [the]
conclusion.” Brown v. Commissioner,
The RFC measures the most a 873 F.3d 251, 269 (4th Cir. 2017).
claimant can do in a work setting “The RFC assessment must first
despite the physical and mental identify the individual’s functional
limitations of his or her impairments limitations or restrictions and assess
and any related symptoms (e.g., pain). his or her work-related abilities on a
See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545, 416.945; function-by-function basis . . . . Only
see also Dunn, 607 F. App’x at 272 [then] may RFC be expressed in terms
(claimant’s RFC is “[a] medical of the exertional levels of work,
assessment of what an individual can sedentary, light, medium, heavy, and
do in a work setting in spite of the very heavy.” SSR 96-8p, 1996 WL
functional limitations and 374184, at *1.
environmental restrictions imposed
by all of his or her medically The Fourth Circuit has held that
determinable impairment(s)”) “meaningful review is frustrated when
(internal citation omitted); Hines v. an ALJ goes straight from listing
Barnhart, 453 F.3d 559, 562 (4th Cir. evidence to stating a conclusion.”
2006). The RFC includes both a Thomas v. Berryhill, 916 F.3d 307,
“physical exertional or strength 311 (4th Cir. 2019) (explaining that “a
limitation” that assesses the proper RFC analysis has three
claimant’s “ability to do sedentary, components: (1) evidence, (2) logical
light, medium, heavy, or very heavy explanation, and (3) conclusion”). As
work,” as well as “nonexertional noted earlier, the ALJ “must both
limitations (mental, sensory, or skin identify evidence that supports his
conclusion and ‘build an accurate and his seizures, supporting the ALJ’s
logical bridge from [that] evidence to conclusion that Robert’s seizures
his conclusion.’” Woods v. Berryhill, were not as frequent as he alleged.
888 F.3d 686, 694 (4th Cir. 2018) Robert has failed to prove he required
(alteration in original) (quoting absenteeism or tardiness limitations
Monroe, 826 F.3d at 189). An ALJ’s in the RFC. Therefore, he cannot
failure to do so constitutes reversible establish any error in the ALJ not
error. See Lewis v. Berryhill, 858 F.3d including them in the RFC.4
858, 868 (4th Cir. 2017). Where an
ALJ’s “analysis is incomplete and Next, Robert unpersuasively contends
precludes meaningful review,” that “this RFC failed to consider his
remand is appropriate. Monroe, 826 well-established exertional
F.3d at 191. limitations.” Docket Entry 10 at 18.
1. The RFC is legally correct and Here, the ALJ found Robert, who was
substantial evidence supports 41 years of age on his onset date, could
it. perform work at all exertional levels
because he had mostly normal
Robert contends that “this RFC fails physical findings with minimal
to consider [his] likelihood of treatment. (Tr. 45, 36-41.) Substantial
absenteeism or tardiness, as is evidence supports that finding. (Tr.
required by SSR 96-8p.” Docket Entry 36-37, 39, 546-57 (10/20/17), 732
10 at 18. However, the ALJ explained (6/1/2018), 412 (10/5/18), 417
why the record did not support (2/11/19, “Normal range of motion,
Robert’s claims about his seizures and Normal strength, No tenderness, No
other impairments. (Tr. 35-44.) That swelling, No deformity, Normal
explanation (which includes the ALJ’s gait.”), 648 (4/9/21, “Normal range of
subjective complaints analysis) is motion. Normal strength.”), 534
supported by substantial evidence as (7/13/21), 704 (10/5/2022), 756
discussed above. This evidence also (3/28/2022, “Normal range of
includes (but is not limited to) motion, normal strength, no
Robert’s long stretches without seeing deformity, normal gait”), 758
a neurologist combined with not (3/28/2022, “Normal range of
seeking medical help near the time of motion, normal strength, no
4 In making this objection, Robert relies 10 at 20 citing Tr. 815 and 102. However,
on Dr. Dawson’s opinions. Docket Entry the ALJ discounted these opinions, (Tr.
10 at 20 (citing Tr. 707, 835). As 43), and Robert does not challenge the
explained above, the ALJ gave good ALJ’s decision to find them unpersuasive
reasons for discounting those opinions. in whole or in part. Robert’s objection is
Robert also relies on the opinion of the a request for the Court to reweigh the
state agency psychological consultant evidence, which it will not do.
and a non-examining state agency
psychological consultant. Docket Entry
deformity, normal gait”), 772 1/3 to 2/3 of the time”); Linen Grader,
(4/18/2023, “Normal range of 361.687-022, 1991 WL 672993
motion, Normal strength, tender left (same); Marker, 209.587-034, 1991
calf No swelling, No deformity.”), 801 WL 671802 (same); (see also Tr. 86,
(8/9/23, “Normal range of motion, 104.)
Normal strength, No tenderness, No
swelling, No deformity.”), 826 Robert’s RFC arguments to the
(5/14/24), 831 (6/25/2024, “Normal contrary amount to an invitation for
range of motion, Normal strength, No the Court to reweigh the evidence.
tenderness, No swelling, No Docket Entry 10 at 21-23. But where,
deformity.”), 867 (9/4/2024, as here, the ALJ adequately explains
“Normal range of motion, Normal the RFC finding, and that finding is
strength, No tenderness, No swelling, supported by substantial evidence,
No deformity.”); Tr. 43, 322-28 the Court will affirm.
(extensive daily activities and
evidence of symptom magnification).) E. The ALJ’s Step Five Determination.
Beyond this, even though the ALJ Last, Robert contends that “[t]he
concluded that Robert could perform ALJ’s Hypothetical to the Vocational
a full range of work at all exertional Expert did not Include All Relevant
levels, he identified three positions at Limitations.” Docket Entry 10 at 18.
the light exertional level that Robert As explained below, this objection is
could perform. (Tr. 45-46.) Thus, unpersuasive.5
even if Robert were limited to only
In questioning a vocational expert
light work, there are jobs in the
(“VE”) in a Social Security disability
national economy he could perform.
hearing, an ALJ must propound
See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1567(b),
hypothetical questions that account
416.967(b) (“Light work involves
for all of the claimant’s limitations.
lifting no more than 20 pounds at a
Walker v. Bowen, 889 F.2d 47, 50-51
time with frequent lifting or carrying
(4th Cir. 1989). The claimant bears
of objects weighing up to 10
the initial burden of proving the
pounds.”). Moreover, none of these
existence of a disability. 42 U.S.C. §
jobs require more than frequent
423(d)(5); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1512,
reaching, further undermining
416.912; Smith v. Califano, 592 F.2d
Robert’s objection that his purported
1235, 1236 (4th Cir. 1979). Once the
exertional limitations have not been
claimant has established at step four
accounted for. See Inspector,
that she cannot do any work she has
727.687-062, 1991 WL 679674
done in the past because of her severe
(“Reaching: Frequently - Exists from
5 Although Robert couches this objection finding. The Court has consequently
as the first of his challenges to the ALJ’s addressed this objection last to track the
RFC determination, Docket Entry 10 at sequential evaluation process.
18, it implicates the ALJ’s step five
impairments, the burden shifts to the assume that this individual is
Commissioner at step five to show limited to the following . . . non
that jobs exist in significant numbers exertional limitations only.
in the national economy which the This individual shall never
claimant could perform consistent climb ladders, ropes or
with her RFC, age, education and past scaffolds. Shall not work at
work experience. Hunter, 993 F.2d at unprotected heights. Shall not
35; Wilson v. Califano, 617 F.2d 1050, operate a motor vehicle for
1053 (4th Cir. 1980). An ALJ may, and work.
frequently does, rely on the testimony
of a VE in satisfying this burden. See (Tr. 76.) The VE explained that an
20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1566(e), 416.966(e); individual so limited could work as an
Hammond v. Apfel, 5 F. App’x 101, inspector, a linen grader, and a
105 (4th Cir. 2001) (unpublished). In marker. (Tr. 77.)
order for a VE’s opinion to be
relevant, it must be in response to a The ALJ later adopted the following
proper hypothetical question that RFC:
fairly sets out all of the claimant’s
After careful consideration of
impairments. Walker, 889 F.2d at
the entire record, the
50–51; see also Mickles v. Shalala, 29
undersigned finds that the
F.3d 918, 929 n.7 (4th Cir. 1994)
claimant has the residual
(concluding that the hypothetical
functional capacity to perform
presented to the VE need only include
a full range of work at all
the impairments and limitations that
exertional levels but with the
the ALJ finds credible); Fisher v.
following nonexertional
Barnhart, 181 F. App’x 359, 365 (4th
limitations: the claimant can
Cir. 2006) (unpublished)
never climb ladders, ropes, or
(hypothetical question is
scaffolds. He can never work at
unimpeachable if it reflects an RFC
unprotected heights and never
for which the ALJ had sufficient
operate a motor vehicle, and
evidence).
other seizure precautions as
Here, Robert asserts that a remand is recommended by the
in order because of a variance in the claimant’s treating physicians.
hypothetical question the ALJ posed
(Tr. 34-35 (emphasis added).) The
to the VE and the RFC he ultimately
ALJ also found that an individual so
adopted. Docket Entry 10 at 18-19.
limited could work as an inspector, a
More specifically, the ALJ asked the
linen grader, and a marker. (Tr. 45-
VE to
46.)
Assume a hypothetical
Robert points to the emphasized
individual of the Claimant’s age
language above (“other seizure
and education and with the past
precautions as recommended by the
work described. Further
claimant’s treating physicians”) and is because there are no specific
asserts that seizure precautions in the record
endorsed by any of Robert’s treating
It is unclear what the ALJ physicians. Despite that, the ALJ
meant by “other seizure included both motor vehicle and
precautions as recommended height restrictions in his hypothetical
by claimant’s treating to the VE and in the RFC.
physicians,” as Plaintiff’s Consequently, there were no “other
treating physician has seizure precautions as recommended”
repeatedly endorsed the by Robert’s “treating physicians” to be
opinion that Plaintiff is unable incorporated into the RFC.
to work due to his seizure
disorder and related injuries. Beyond this, in limiting Robert’s
(R. 707; 835). This alone should exposure to heights and driving (Tr.
require reversal or remand, as 35), the ALJ essentially adopted the
the ALJ’s RFC was clearly seizure-related limitations prescribed
unsupported by the evidence, by the non-examining state agency
and there is no evidence that consultant, who on reconsideration
the occupations listed would be noted that Robert had “some
available considering the “other nocturnal episodes” of seizures that
seizure precautions” the ALJ were “relatively well controlled” and
envisioned. (R. 31-80). then limited Robert’s exposure to
environmental hazards such as
Docket Entry 10 at 19. heights and machinery. (Tr. 115-16.)
The jobs the VE and the ALJ
It is true that an ALJ generally cannot identified involve neither heights nor
rely on a VE’s testimony in response moving machinery. (See Tr. 76-77);
to an incomplete hypothetical—i.e., a see also Inspector, 727.687-062, 1991
hypothetical that omits functional WL 679674 (“Moving Mech. Parts:
limitations that are assessed in the Not Present - Activity or condition
RFC. See Walker, 889 F.2d at 50-51. does not exist”); Linen Grader,
Here, however, Robert has not 361.687-022, 1991 WL 672993
identified any specific limitation that (same); Marker, 209.587-034, 1991
was omitted from the hypothetical. At WL 671802 (same). Nor, for that
most, Robert has identified language matter, do they appear to expose the
employed by the ALJ in the RFC that worker to any other kind of
did not set forth a functional environmental hazard. See id. Thus,
limitation. the ALJ presented the only seizure
precautions found in the medical
In other words, there is no prejudicial
record to the VE (which were
error in the ALJ’s omission of “other
ultimately adopted in the RFC). There
seizure precautions as recommended
is no material error here. See
by the claimant’s treating physicians”
Sparkman v. Kijakazi, No. CV 7:20-
from his hypothetical to the VE. This
155-KKC, 2022 WL 2110321, at *4 work due to his seizure disorder and
(E.D. Ky. June 10, 2022) (“Because related injuries.” Docket Entry 10 at
inclusion of the limitations 19 (citing Tr. 707 (Dr. Dawson’s
mentioned by [claimant] would not 10/17/22 check box opinion); 835
have affected the selection of at least (Dr. Dawson’s 8/6/24 check box
the ‘routing clerk’ and ‘price marker’ opinion)). Thus, Robert appears to be
jobs by the vocational expert, any arguing that these opinions are the
error on the part of the ALJ was “other seizure precautions” endorsed
harmless, and the decision must be by his treating physician that the ALJ
affirmed.”). incorporated by reference into the
RFC, but which were omitted from the
For all these reasons, the omission of hypothetical to the VE. This, Robert
the language Robert focuses on from suggests, undercuts the ALJ’s step
the ALJ’s hypothetical to the VE had five finding.
no impact on the outcome of this
proceeding. See Tanner v. Comm’r of But this is not so. Robert does not
Soc. Sec., 602 F. App’x 95, 101 (4th explain how being “unable to work” is
Cir. 2015) (unpublished) (noting that a specific functional limitation. After
“the ALJ posed hypotheticals to the all, statements that a claimant is
VE that set out all of [the claimant’s] unable to work are inherently neither
credible limitations”) (emphasis valuable nor persuasive. See 20 C.F.R.
added); see also Reece v. Colvin, No. §§ 404.1520b(c), 416.920b(c). The
7:14-CV-428, 2016 WL 658999, at *2 ALJ cannot have erred by failing to
(W.D. Va. Jan. 25, 2016) (finding include such a limitation in his
“that the ALJ did pose proper hypothetical to the VE. Second, even
hypothetical questions to the setting this reason entirely aside, the
vocational expert that accounted for ALJ specially addressed these two
all of [the claimant’s] credibly opinions and found them
established limitations”); Kyle G. v. unpersuasive. (Tr. 42-43.) The ALJ
Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. C20-5099- had no obligation to present this
BAT, 2020 WL 4463221, at *3 (W.D. purported functional limitation to the
Wash. Aug. 4, 2020) (finding no VE where the ALJ found it lacked
material error where “Dr. Zendler did credibility. (Tr. 42-43.) For all of these
not indicate that any workplace reasons, Robert’s objections are
seizure precautions were required, without merit.
other than not driving, and the ALJ
included this limitation in the RFC V. CONCLUSION
and VE hypothetical”).
After careful consideration of the
Robert’s argument to the contrary is evidence of record, the Court finds
unpersuasive. He points to two that the Commissioner’s decision is
medical opinions from a treating legally correct, supported by
physician (Dr. Dawson, discussed in substantial evidence, and susceptible
detail above) that he “is unable to to judicial review.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that the final decision of
the Commissioner is upheld.
J ot cFadden
United States Magistrate Judge
August 19, 2026
20