Lewis

b

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LAKE CHARLES DIVISION

TODD A LEWIS, CIVIL DOCKET NO. 2:24-CV-00437

Plaintiff

VERSUS JUDGE JAMES D. CAIN, JR.

MARTIN J O'MALLEY, MAGISTRATE JUDGE PEREZ-MONTES

Defendants

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the Court is an appeal by Todd A. Lewis (“Lewis”) from the final decision

of the Commissioner of Social Security (the “Commissioner”) denying his Title II

application for disability insurance benefits. ECF No. 1.

Because the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) committed a harmful legal error,

IT IS RECOMMENDED that Lewis’s appeal (ECF No. 1) be GRANTED, the final

decision of the Commissioner be VACATED, and the case be REMANDED for further

proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I. Background

A. Procedural History

On November 18, 2020, Lewis filed an application for disability insurance

benefits alleging a disability onset date of July 1, 2019. ECF No. 6-1 at 199–202.

Lewis’s claim was denied initially and upon reconsideration. at 94–102, 106–14.

Lewis requested a hearing. at 115.

An ALJ convened a hearing. at 38–70. Lewis, Lewis’s attorney, and

a vocational expert (“VE”) were present. at 38. The ALJ found that Lewis was not

under a disability as defined in the Social Security Act (“SSA”) from the alleged

disability onset date through November 17, 2023, the date of decision. at 28. The

Appeals Council declined Lewis’s request for review, at 6–8, and the ALJ’s

decision became the final decision of the Commissioner.

Lewis appealed the Commissioner’s final decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

405(g). ECF No. 1.

B. Medical Records

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) has found that Lewis has the

following disabilities: degenerative arthritis, limited range of motion in his arm,

limited flexion of his forearm, lumbosacral or cervical strain, tinnitus, hypertensive

vascular disease, scars, and migraine headaches. ECF No. 6-1 at 415.

On February 22, 2019, Lewis completed a Disability Benefits Questionnaire

issued by the VA. at 395–97. Lewis complained that he had been suffering from

headaches since he received “Anthrax shots” in 2007. at 395. He reported that his

headaches occurred about three times a week, and the pain typically lasted one to

two days. at 396. He also reported that his sinusitis occasionally caused frontal

headaches. Lewis received a CT scan of the head and a chest X-ray. at 398,

410–11, 439–40. The CT scan indicated Lewis had sphenoid and ethmoid polypoid

sinusitis but was otherwise normal. at 398, 410, 439. The chest X-ray was

normal. at 411, 440. Lewis also received a plasma test, which was suggestive of

Stage 1 chronic kidney disease. at 447.

On April 11, 2019, Lewis met with Dr. Arnold Alper, M.D. (“Dr. Alper”) at the

VA. at 388–90. Lewis complained that his short-term memory was “quite poor.”

at 390. His immediate recall “of 3 words/objects [was] 0/3 at 5 minutes.”

On May 10, 2019, Lewis completed a Disability Benefits Questionnaire

administered by Dr. Williams Schmitz, Jr., PsyD (“Dr. Schmitz”), a clinical

psychologist at the VA. at 369–88. Lewis was diagnosed with unspecified anxiety

disorder manifesting as a “general sense of anxiety/tension, with concurrent sleep

problems.” at 369–70 (emphasis removed). Lewis reported that he got

approximately two to three hours of sleep and would wake up feeling more tired.

at 374. Lewis indicated he had been having anxiety attacks and military-related

movies and books made him anxious. at 377. He reportedly had not seen a mental

health professional in several years because he did not “trust people.” Lewis

additionally told Dr. Schmitz that he did not have hobbies or interests anymore

because his shoulders and back prevented him from playing sports or swimming.

at 377. Lewis reported that he was injured while serving in the military after “a

couple SPs . . . dumped [him] on [his] neck,” purportedly causing four herniated discs

and numbness in his arms and hands. at 375.

Lewis scored a fifty-six on a DSM 5 (PCL-5) post-traumatic stress disorder

(“PTSD”) checklist, which fell above the score normally associated with PTSD. at

382. His Beck Depression Inventory test indicated “moderate depressive symptoms,”

and his Personality Assessment Inventory indicated “moderate elevations that may

reflect sources of difficulty for” Lewis. at 382, 384. Dr. Schmitz found that Lewis’s

anxiety did not severely impact Lewis’s daily functioning. at 387.

On August 14, 2020, Lewis completed a drug screen at the VA. at 399. He

received an unconfirmed positive result for both cannabinoids and cocaine. He also

received a plasma test, which was suggestive of Stage 2 chronic kidney disease. at

447.

On August 17, 2020, Lewis was contacted by the VA for a medication review.

at 367–69. Lewis complained of daily pain, a lump in his neck, a limited range of

motion in his neck, loss of muscle mass and function in his right arm, anxiety, and

sleeping problems. at 367. Lewis requested an X-ray of his shoulder.

On September 3, 2020, Lewis completed a Columbia Suicide Severity Rating

Scale screener at the VA. at 364–65. Lewis reported that he had not had suicidal

thoughts in the past month and had not, in his lifetime, done anything to prepare to

end his life. During a case management screening that same day, Lewis indicated

that he would like to schedule an appointment to treat his arm and shoulder pain.

at 366.

On April 6, 2021, Lewis received x-rays of his right hand, right shoulder, and

cervical spine. at 466. His hand and shoulder x-rays were normal. His cervical

spine x-ray showed a severe decrease in disc spacing from C3-C4, C4-C5, C5-C6, and

C6-C7 with approximately 20-30% vertebral body height loss around C4, C5, and

C6. The cervical spine x-ray also showed anterior osteophyte formation on the

aforementioned vertebral bodies. The x-ray was found to be indicative of severe

multilevel degenerative disc disease and spondylosis of the cervical spine.

C. Administrative Hearing

At his administrative hearing, Lewis testified that he received an associate’s

degree in general studies. ECF No. 6-1 at 42. From 1991 to 2011, he served in the

United States Air Force. at 45. He worked as an aircraft mechanic from 2008 to

2011. In 2017, Lewis moved to Louisiana and worked for several different

companies as a security officer. at 44. He reported that his work as a security

officer required him to “work[] the gate,” search vehicles and individuals, and conduct

area checks. In 2019, Lewis worked at Burger King. at 43–43. He testified that

he had not worked since July 2019 but had received disability payments and military

retirement.

Lewis reported that he lived alone. at 46. During the day, he would do “a

little bit” of cleaning and gardening. He testified that he could drive but did not

travel long distances. He reported that he occasionally went to the casino and

spent time with his family, but he did not frequently go out to eat. at 46–47.

Lewis then discussed his alleged disabilities. at 47. He reported that he had

experienced paralysis in his right arm after losing “all muscle mass” for an unknown

reason. at 47–48. He testified that the paralysis kept him from “do[ing] anything”

with his right arm. at 47. He further claimed that he had not been able to work at

Burger King because of the arm paralysis and believed he would not be able to return

to his previous work as a security guard. at 48–49, 58–59.

Lewis testified that his arm paralysis “created a pain” in his left hand because

he had to use that hand often when caring for his mother. at 59. He claimed that

a doctor was evaluating his left hand and that he had gone to the VA clinic a month

before the hearing to treat his arm. at 60. He took pain medication but had not

undergone any other specific treatments. at 48–49.

Lewis testified that both his shoulders were “bad,” but his right shoulder was

his “worst one.” at 50. Lewis additionally reported receiving an upper neck injury

after he was dropped on his neck while serving in the military. at 47, 50. He

claimed difficulty turning his neck and holding his head in one position. at 51, 53.

He also claimed that it was painful to lift his neck up and down. at 51. He rated

his neck pain as an eight out of ten but reported that pain medications could reduce

his pain level to a five. at 52–53. He testified that his pain interfered with his

ability to concentrate. at 53. He also reported that his neck pain caused daily

headaches lasting approximately thirty to forty minutes. at 56.

With respect to his arms and shoulders, Lewis testified that he had nerve pain

in both arms and that his thumbs, pointer fingers, and middle fingers were “numb

and tingling all the time.” at 53–54. He represented that he had difficulty

reaching overhead, to the side, and in front of him. at 54. He reported that it was

difficult to put his arms in a shirt, reach and pull up his pants, put on his belt, and use

buttons, zippers, and shoelaces. He used his left hand to shave and bathe.

Lewis then discussed his anxiety. at 55. He reported that he got anxiety

attacks twice a month that mimicked the symptoms of a heart attack. at 55, 57.

He did not know what triggered the anxiety attacks but purportedly was anxious

around other people. at 55, 58. Lewis additionally testified to having intrusive

thoughts and memories. at 58. However, he claimed that the intrusive thoughts

and memories began to occur less frequently after he started to “avoid certain things.”

at 58. He testified that he avoided “[m]ilitary personnel . . . and the base” because

it could trigger his PTSD. at 58.

Lewis also testified that he had tinnitus. at 56. He testified to experiencing

ringing in his ears “a couple of times a month” for about ten to fifteen minutes each

time. at 57. He claimed he could only hear ringing when the tinnitus began, which

made conversations with others difficult.

Lewis testified he could walk a block or two before needing to stop, could only

stand or sit for about twenty minutes before needing to shift positions, and could lift

and carry about five pounds across a room. at 55. He testified he could not pick

coins off a table one at a time and instead would have to slide and scoop them into

the other hand. at 55–56. He testified that he dropped “anything that [he] tr[ied]

[to] pick up” because he could not “hold it for long.” at 56. He reportedly could

reach and grasp things with his left hand.

During the VE’s testimony, she classified Lewis’s previous work as a security

guard as light duty and his previous work as a supervisor in the avionics shop as

medium duty. at 61–63. The VE testified that neither occupation had transferable

skills at the sedentary level. at 64.

The ALJ then examined the VE. at 63–66. The ALJ asked the VE to assume

a hypothetical individual with the same age, education, and past relevant work as

Lewis. at 64. The ALJ then limited that individual to light work, only occasional

postural activities, no climbing of ladders, ropes, or scaffolds, only occasional frequent

overhead reaching, and frequent handling and fingering bilaterally. at 64–65. The

VE testified that this individual would be able to perform Lewis’s past work as a

security guard. at 65.

The ALJ then further reduced the hypothetical individual’s fingering and

handling to only occasional. The VE testified that this individual would not be

able to perform any of Lewis’s past work. The VE further testified that this

individual would not have transferable skills. Finally, the VE testified that this

individual would be able to work as an investigator of accounts, boat rental clerk, and

sandwich board carrier.

Lewis’s attorney then examined the VE. at 66–69. The VE testified that the

aforementioned jobs would not tolerate being absent more than one day per month,

taking more than the standard three fifteen-minute breaks, or engaging in off-task

behavior for more than 10% of the workday on a sustained basis. at 66. She further

testified that if an individual needed to go off-task for more than 10% of the workday

to sit, stand, and/or walk, he would not be able to find competitive work in the

national economy. at 67. Finally, she testified that if an individual could only

occasionally hold their head in one position to look at a computer screen or to look

down, he would not be able to work as an investigator of accounts. at 67–68.

Lewis’s attorney then modified the hypothetical to limit the individual to only

occasional contact with coworkers and supervisors. at 68. The VE testified that

the individual could still work as an investigator of accounts, boat rental clerk, and

sandwich board carrier. Lewis’s attorney then modified the hypothetical to

additionally limit the individual to only occasional contact with the public. at 69.

The VE testified the individual would not be able to perform the selected jobs because

“[t]hey all involved public contact.”

D. ALJ’s Findings and Conclusions

The SSA promulgated a five-step sequential process to determine whether an

individual is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a). This process requires the ALJ to

determine whether a claimant (1) is engaging in substantial gainful activity; (2) has

a medically determinable severe impairment or a combination of impairments that is

severe; (3) has an impairment or combination of impairments listed in or medically

equivalent to those listed in 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1 (“Appendix 1”); (4)

has the residual functional capacity to perform her past relevant work; and (5) has

the residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience to perform any

other type of work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i)–(v).

A finding that a claimant is disabled or is not disabled at any point in the five-

step review is conclusive and terminates the analysis. , 38

F.3d 232, 236 (5th Cir. 1994) (citing , 813 F.2d 55, 58 (5th Cir.

1987)). To be entitled to benefits, an applicant bears the initial burden of showing he

is disabled. Under the regulations, this means the claimant bears the burden of proof

on the first four steps of the sequential analysis. Once this initial burden is satisfied,

the Commissioner bears the burden of establishing that the claimant is capable of

performing work in the national economy. , 38 F.3d at 237.

Here, the ALJ found Lewis had not engaged in substantial gainful activity

since his alleged disability onset date. ECF No. 6-1 at 22. At Step Two, the ALJ found

that Lewis had the following severe impairment: degenerative disc disease. But

at Step Three, the ALJ determined that Lewis did not have an impairment or

combination of impairments listed in or medically equivalent to one listed in

Appendix 1. at 24.

The ALJ then found that Lewis had the residual functional capacity to perform

light work except he could only perform occasional stooping, kneeling, crouching,

crawling, balancing, and climbing ramps and stairs; could never climb ladders, ropes,

or scaffolds; and could engage in occasional bilateral overhead reaching and frequent

handling and fingering. At Step Four, the ALJ determined that Lewis had the

residual functional capacity to return to his past work as a security guard. at 27.

Accordingly, the ALJ concluded that Lewis had not been under a disability as

defined in the SSA from his alleged disability onset date through November 17, 2023,

the date of the ALJ’s decision. at 28.

II. Law and Analysis

A. Scope of Review

A court’s review of Social Security disability claims is “exceedingly deferential

and limited to two inquiries: whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s

decision, and whether the ALJ applied the proper legal standards when evaluating

the evidence.” , No. 23-40401, 2023 WL 9018388, at *1 (5th Cir.

Dec. 29, 2023) (quoting , 706 F.3d 600, 602 (5th Cir. 2012)).

“When substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s findings, these findings ‘shall

be conclusive’ and must be affirmed.” , No. 22-30721, 2023 WL

4501865, at *1 (5th Cir. July 12, 2023) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)). For the evidence to

be substantial, it must be “more than a scintilla and less than a preponderance,” and

“of such relevance that a reasonable mind would accept it as adequate to support a

conclusion.” , 27 F.3d 160, 162 (5th Cir. 1994) (citing

, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971)); , 587 U.S. 97, 103

(2019).

“[T]he substantial evidence test does not involve a simple search of the record

for isolated bits of evidence which support the [Commissioner’s] decision. [The Court]

must consider the record as a whole. The substantiality of evidence must take into

account whatever in the record fairly detracts from its weight.”

, 798 F.2d 818, 823 (5th Cir. 1986). A court reviewing the Commissioner’s

decision “may not retry factual issues, reweigh evidence, or substitute [its] judgment

for that of the fact finder.” , 705 F.2d 123, 125 (5th Cir. 1983);

, 810 F.2d 1296, 1302 (5th Cir. 1987). The resolution of conflicting

evidence and credibility choices is for the Commissioner and the ALJ, rather than a

court. , 642 F.2d 799, 801 (5th Cir. 1981); , 2023

WL 4501865, at *1.

A court does have authority, however, to set aside factual findings that are not

supported by substantial evidence and to correct errors of law. , 705 F.2d

at 125. But to make a finding that substantial evidence does not exist, a court must

conclude that there is a “conspicuous absence of credible choices” or “no contrary

medical evidence.” See , 864 F.2d 340 (5th Cir. 1988); , 705

F.2d at 125.

Here, Lewis argues remand is required because the ALJ (1) did not adequately

explain why the opinion of Dr. Tosheiba Holmes, M.D. (“Dr. Holmes”) was only

partially persuasive, (2) substituted his lay opinion for Dr. Holmes’s opinion, (3) failed

to explain why he did not include limitations from an opinion he found persuasive,

and (4) failed to develop the evidence of record. ECF No. 7.

B. The ALJ Erred When Evaluating Dr. Holmes’s Opinion.

Dr. Holmes opined that Lewis had “limited ability to reach, handle[,] or grasp”

and could only lift and carry less than five pounds “on an occasional basis on the right

side.” ECF No. 6-1 at 435. The ALJ found Dr. Holmes’s opinion “partially persuasive,”

stating:

The claimant attended a consultative examination on February 13, 2021

with Dr. Holmes. Dr. Holmes provided the following restrictions: limited

ability to reach, handle or grasp, only lift and carry under 5 pounds

occasionally on the right side, which is consistent with the testing

performed at the examination. [] The undersigned finds this opinion

partially persuasive. Dr. Holmes’ opinions are supported by clinical

findings. The claimant stated that he had difficulty lifting more than 5-

10 pounds with both arms. [] He said that he had difficulty standing for

30-60 minutes, and can only drive a car for no more than an hour at a

time. [] He estimated that he could walk a mile on level ground and

stand 30-60 minutes [] However, testing revealed that claimant’s right

grip strength was 4-/5 and his left grip strength was 4/5, with difficulty

picking up coin on right at 6/10 and difficulty picking up a coin on the

left at 8/10. Dr. Holmes measured the claimant’s right arm weakness at

3/5, and his left at 4-/5[.] [] His right arm had atrophy on the right

shoulder girdle and bicep []. The claimant also had decreased cervical

spine and shoulder range of motion with, limited ability to reach, handle

and grasp []. The claimant’s gait was normal, and he was able to toe/heel

walk and squat; he could not bend over and touch his toes. [] The

undersigned is persuaded by Dr. Holmes’ opinion on the claimant’s

ability to reach, handle, or grasp, however Dr. Holmes’ opinion about

claimant’s ability to lift and carry is not consistent with the testing

performed.

. . .

Dr. Holmes performed x-rays, on April 6, 2021 at the request of DDS. X-

rays of the claimant’s right hand and shoulder were normal []. The X-

rays of his cervical spine showed severe multilevel degenerative disc

disease and spondylosis. [] As the right upper extremity x-rays were

normal, but the cervical spine x-ray revealed abnormal findings, it is

reasonable to conclude that the claimant’s right arm limitations

originate from the cervical degenerative disc disease.

ECF No. 6-1 at 25–26.

Lewis assigns two errors to this analysis. First, Lewis argues the ALJ “did not

describe any of the treatment records, exams, objective testing, or other opinion

evidence that allegedly contradicted” Dr. Holmes’s opinion. ECF No. 7 at 3. Second,

Lewis urges that the ALJ “independently speculated” that Lewis’s right arm

limitations originated from his cervical degenerative disc disease and thus rejected

Dr. Holmes’s “based on his unfounded interpretation of raw medical findings.” at

4. Ultimately, the Court agrees the ALJ erred when evaluating Dr. Holmes’s opinion.

For claims filed on or after March 27, 2017, the Commissioner will no longer

“defer or give any specific evidentiary weight, including controlling weight, to any

medical opinion(s),” including those from treating physicians.

, No. 22-CV-01055, 2022 WL 3509035, at *7 (W.D. La. 2022),

, 2022 WL 3448676 (W.D. La. 2022) (citing 20 C.F.R. §

404.1520c(a); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920c(a)).

Under the new regulations, rather than assigning weight to the medical

opinions, the Commissioner must articulate “how persuasive” he finds the medical

opinions. , 2022 WL 3509035, at *7 n.5 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 416.920c(b)). And

the Commissioner’s consideration of the persuasiveness of medical opinions is guided

by the following factors: (1) supportability; (2) consistency; (3) relationship with the

claimant (including the length of the treatment relationship, the frequency of

examinations, the purpose of the treatment relationship, the extent of the treatment

relationship, and the examining relationship); (4) specialization of the medical source;

and (5) any other factors that tend to support or contradict the opinion. ,

2022 WL 3509035, at *7 n.5 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(c)(1)–(5); 20 C.F.R. §

416.920c(c)(1)–(5)).

“Supportability” and “consistency” are the most important factors. ,

2022 WL 3509035, at *7 n.5 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(b)(2); 20 C.F.R. §

416.920c(b)(2)). The ALJ must explain these two factors, but he need not expound on

the remaining three unless he finds that two or more non-identical medical opinions

are equally well-supported and consistent with the record. , 2022 WL

3509035, at *7 n. 5 (citing § 416.920c(b)(2)–(3)). The fact that a medical source

examined the claimant or specializes in an area germane to the claimant’s medical

issues is not a primary or dispositive consideration in assessing the medical opinion.

, 2022 WL 3509035, at *7 n.5 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(c); 20 C.F.R. §

416.920c(c)).

The regulations direct an ALJ to consider a medical opinion’s persuasiveness

based on how much the objective medical evidence and the medical source’s

explanation support the medical opinion and how consistent the medical opinion is

with the evidence from other sources. ,

No. 20-CV-00910, 2022 WL 421121, at *9 (W.D. La. 2022) (citing 20 C.F.R. §

416.920c(c)).

“Supportability” looks to “the objective medical evidence and supporting explanations

presented by a medical source [] to support his . . . medical opinion(s).” 20 C.F.R. §

404.1520c(c)(1). “Consistency” looks to how “consistent a medical opinion(s) . . . is with

the evidence from other medical sources and nonmedical sources in the claim.” 20

C.F.R. § 404.1520c(c)(2).

Here, the ALJ did not explain how or whether Dr. Holmes’s opinion was

consistent “with the evidence from other medical sources and nonmedical sources in

the claim.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(c)(2). And the ALJ’s supportability analysis is, at

best, inexplicably inconsistent. That is, the ALJ states that Dr. Holmes’s opined

lifting and carrying restriction is both consistent and inconsistent “with the testing

performed at the examination.” ECF No. 6-1 at 25 (“Dr. Holmes provided

the following restrictions: . . . only lift and carry under 5 pounds occasionally on the

right side, which is consistent with the testing performed ”) at 26 (“Dr.

Holmes’ opinion about claimant’s ability to lift and carry is not consistent with the

testing performed.”). Thus, the ALJ improperly failed to address both the

supportability and consistency factors adequately.

Even accepting that the ALJ found the testing inconsistent with the opined

limitation, the ALJ failed to adequately explain the basis for that finding. Certainly,

“an ‘ALJ is not always required to do an exhaustive point-by-point discussion’ of the

evidence []he reviews.” , No. 22-51045, 2023 WL 3723628, at *1 (5th

Cir. May 30, 2023) (quoting , 501 F.3d 446, 448 (5th Cir. 2007)). But

the ALJ’s explanation “must ‘enable[] the court to undertake a meaningful review of

whether his finding about the particular medical opinion was supported by

substantial evidence’ and must not ‘require the [c]ourt to merely speculate about the

reasons behind the ALJ’s persuasiveness finding or lack thereof.’” ,

No. 22-CV-00286, 2023 WL 3237435, at *4 (W.D. Tex. May 3, 2023) (alteration

original) (quoting , 587 F. Supp. 3d 489, 499 (S.D. Miss.

2021)). Courts in this circuit have found that this standard requires “a discernible

logic bridge between the evidence and the ALJ’s persuasiveness finding.”

, No. 22-CV-1026, 2024 WL 737306, at *6 (M.D. La. Jan. 22, 2024)

(quotations omitted), , No. 22-CV-1026, 2024 WL

735375 (M.D. La. Feb. 22, 2024).

The Court cannot draw the requisite logic bridge here. The ALJ’s vague

reference to “the testing performed,” ECF No. 6-1 at 26, prevents the Court from

meaningfully determining whether that finding is supported by substantial evidence.

As it stands, the Court would be forced to speculate as to why the ALJ found only

some aspects of the testing inconsistent with Dr. Holmes’s opinion. The Court will

not do so.

Because the ALJ did not adequately explain why he found Dr. Holmes’s opined

lifting and carrying limitation unpersuasive, the ALJ erred.

C. The ALJ’s Error Was Not Harmless.

“Procedural perfection in administrative proceedings is not required. Th[e]

court will not vacate a judgment unless the substantial rights of a party have been

affected.” , 837 F.2d 1362, 1364 (5th Cir. 1988). “Remand is required

only when there is a realistic possibility that the ALJ would have reached a different

conclusion absent the procedural error.” , No. 13-CV-3014, 2014 WL

2931884, at *5 (N.D. Tex. June 30, 2014).

Here, the ALJ’s errors were prejudicial. At Step Four, the ALJ found Lewis

was not disabled because he could return to his past relevant work as a security

guard, which was classified as a light exertion job. ECF No. 6-1 at 27. Light work

“involves lifting no more than 20 pounds at a time with frequent lifting or carrying of

objects weighing up to 10 pounds.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.967(b). As indicated above, Dr.

Holmes found that Lewis could only lift and carry less than five pounds “on an

occasional basis on the right side.” ECF No. 6-1 at 435. A proper evaluation of that

opinion could lead to a more limited residual functional capacity determination

inconsistent with light work. If the opined limitations were to be included, a different

result could be reached. Therefore, this error is not harmless.

Lewis’s case should be remanded for a proper evaluation of Dr. Holmes’s

opinion, including his opinion that Lewis could only occasionally lift and carry less

than five pounds on the right side. Because this error alone is dispositive and

warrants remand, the Court does not consider any other allegations of error.

III. Conclusion

Because the ALJ committed a harmful legal error, IT IS RECOMMENDED

that Lewis’s appeal (ECF No. 1) be GRANTED, the final decision of the Commissioner

be VACATED, and the case be REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with

this opinion.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), a party may file

written objections to this Report and Recommendation within 14 days of service,

unless the Court grants an extension of time to file objections under Fed. R. Civ. P.

6(b). A party may also respond to another party’s objections to this Report and

Recommendation within 14 days of service of those objections, again unless the Court

grants an extension of time to file a response to objections.

No other briefs may be filed without leave of court, which will only be granted

for good cause. A party’s failure to timely file written objections to this Report and

Recommendation will bar a party from later challenging factual or legal conclusions

adopted by the District Judge, except if the challenge asserts “plain error.”

SIGNED on Tuesday, August 4, 2026.

□□

JOSEPH H.L. PEREZ-MONTES

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18