Bice v. Commissioner Of Social Security

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
LARETTA L. B.,
Plaintiff,
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
v. 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:24-cv-4580
FRANK BISIGNANO,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Laretta L. B. (“Plaintiff”) filed this lawsuit against Defendant
Frank Bisignano1 (“Commissioner”) seeking review of the denial of benefits
under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. 	(ECF Nos. 1, 13). 	Pending before
the Court2 is the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment. 	(ECF No.
15). 	Plaintiff has also filed an opening brief in support of her suit. 	(ECF No.
13). Based on a review of the motion, arguments, and relevant law, the Court
RECOMMENDS Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No.
15) 	be 	GRANTED. 	The 	Court 	FURTHER 	RECOMMENDS 	the
1 Frank Bisignano was sworn in as the Commissioner of Social Security on May 7,
2025. Bisignano is “automatically substituted” as the defendant in this suit. FED . R. CIV. P.
25(d); see also 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (“Any action instituted in accordance with this subsection
shall survive notwithstanding any change in the person occupying the office of Commissioner
of Social Security or any vacancy in such office.”).
2 On December 11, 2024, this case was referred to the Undersigned for all purposes
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72. (ECF
No. 7).
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
February 04, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:24-cv-04580 Document 17 Filed 02/04/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 12

2
Commissioner’s decision be AFFIRMED and the case be DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.
I. 	Background
Plaintiff filed a claim for supplemental security income on March 7, 2022,
alleging disability starting on March 7, 2022. (ECF No. 8-3 at 20).3 Plaintiff’s
claims were initially denied by the Social Security Administration on January
6, 2023, and again on reconsideration on February 8, 2024. (Id.). On February
13, 2024, Plaintiff requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge.
(Id.). On June 20, 2024, Administrative Law Judge David Hebert (the “ALJ”)
held a telephonic hearing. 	(Id.). 	Plaintiff was represented by counsel at the
hearing. 	(Id.). 	Kay S. Gilreath, a vocational expert (“VE”), appeared and
testified at the hearing. (Id.).
On July 15, 2024, the ALJ issued a decision, finding Plaintiff not disabled
at Step Five.4 	(Id. at 40–42). 	At Step One, the ALJ found Plaintiff had not
engaged in substantial gainful activity since March 7, 2022, the alleged onset
date. (Id. at 22). At Step Two, the ALJ found Plaintiff has the following severe
3 The Administrative Record in this case can be found at ECF No. 8.
4 In considering a disability claim, an ALJ must conduct a five-step evaluation that
examines: (1) whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2)
whether the claimant has a severe impairment; (3) whether the claimant’s impairment meets
or equals the severity of an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1;
(4) whether the impairment prevents the claimant from doing past relevant work; and (5)
whether the impairment prevents the claimant from doing any other work. 	Masterson v.
Barnhart, 309 F.3d 267, 271 (5th Cir. 2002) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520).
Case 4:24-cv-04580 Document 17 Filed 02/04/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 12

3
impairments: 	“obesity; 	degenerative 	disc 	disease 	of 	the 	lumbar 	spine;
degenerative changes of the right ankle; osteoarthritis and arthralgias of the
knees; ventral hernia; irritable bowel syndrome; bipolar disorder; depressive
disorder; 	generalized 	anxiety 	disorder; 	and 	posttraumatic 	stress 	disorder
(PTSD) (20 CFR 416.920(c)).” 	(Id. at 22–23). 	At Step Three, the ALJ found
Plaintiff: “does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that
meets or medically equals the severity of one of the listed impairments in 20
CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (20 CFR 416.920(d), 416.925 and
416.926).” 	(Id. at 24). 	The ALJ determined that Plaintiff has the Residual
Functional Capacity (“RFC”) to:
perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 416.967(b) except she
cannot climb ladders, ropes or scaffolds but she can occasionally
climb ramps and stairs; and occasionally stoop, bend, kneel, crawl
and crouch. The claimant can occasionally work with or around
hazards, dangerous machinery or equipment, and unprotected
heights. The claimant can understand, remember and carry out 1-
3 step simple, routine and repetitive tasks. The claimant cannot
have 	forced 	pace, assembly line 	or production 	rate 	jobs. The
claimant can occasionally deal with the general public and relate
to coworkers.
(Id. at 27–28). 	At Step Four, the ALJ found Plaintiff “has no past relevant
work.” (Id. at 40). At Step Five, the ALJ found there were jobs that existed in
significant numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff could perform—
such 	as 	a 	housekeeper, 	price 	tagger, 	and 	clerical 	router—and 	therefore
Case 4:24-cv-04580 Document 17 Filed 02/04/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 12

4
Plaintiff was not disabled as defined under the Social Security Act. (Id. at 40–
41).
Plaintiff appealed to the Appeals Council and the Appeals Council denied
Plaintiff’s request for review on September 23, 2024. (Id. at 7). Thus, the ALJ’s
decision represents the Commissioner’s final decision in the case. See Sims v.
Apfel, 530 U.S. 103, 106–07 (2000).
II. 	Legal Standard
The Court’s review of a final decision of the Commissioner on a Social
Security disability claim is exceedingly deferential. Taylor v. Astrue, 706 F.3d
600, 602 (5th Cir. 2012). “[R]eview of Social Security disability cases ‘is limited
to two inquiries: (1) whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence
on the record as a whole, and (2) whether the Commissioner applied the proper
legal standard.’” Copeland v. Colvin, 771 F.3d 920, 923 (5th Cir. 2014) (quoting
Perez 	v. 	Barnhart, 	415 	F.3d 	457, 	461 	(5th 	Cir. 	2005)). 	When 	the
Commissioner’s decision is reached by applying improper legal standards, the
decision is not supported by substantial evidence. 	Singletary v. Bowen, 798
F.2d 818, 823 (5th Cir. 1986). “Substantial evidence is ‘such relevant evidence
as a reasonable mind might accept to support a conclusion’ and constitutes
‘more than a mere scintilla’ but ‘less than a preponderance’ of evidence.”
Hardman v. Colvin, 820 F.3d 142, 147 (5th Cir. 2016) (quoting Newton v. Apfel,
209 F.3d 448, 452 (5th Cir. 2000)). “‘Any findings of fact by the Commissioner
Case 4:24-cv-04580 Document 17 Filed 02/04/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 12

5
which are supported by substantial evidence are conclusive.’” 	Heck v. Colvin,
674 F. App’x 411, 413 (5th Cir. 2017) (quoting Taylor, 706 F.3d at 602).
Even 	so, 	judicial 	review 	must 	not 	be 	“so 	obsequious 	as 	to 	be
meaningless.” 	Brown v. Apfel, 192 F.3d 492, 496 (5th Cir. 1999) (quotations
omitted). 	The substantial evidence standard is not a rubber stamp for the
Commissioner’s 	decision 	and 	involves 	more 	than 	a 	search 	for 	evidence
supporting the Commissioner’s findings. Singletary, 798 F.2d at 822–23; Cook
v. Heckler, 750 F.2d 391, 393 (5th Cir. 1985). Rather, a reviewing court must
scrutinize the record as a whole, taking into account whatever fairly detracts
from the substantiality of evidence supporting the Commissioner’s findings.
Singletary, 798 F.2d at 823. 	The Court “‘may not reweigh the evidence . . . ,
nor 	try 	the 	issues 	de 	novo, 	nor 	substitute 	[its] 	judgment 	for 	the
[Commissioner’s], 	even 	if 	the 	evidence 	preponderates 	against 	the
[Commissioner’s] decision.’” Johnson v. Colvin, 595 F. App’x 443, 444 (5th Cir.
2015) (quoting Harrell v. Bowen, 862 F.2d 471, 475 (5th Cir. 1988)).
III. 	Discussion
Plaintiff argues the ALJ “improperly rendered a lay interpretation of raw
medical evidence in crafting his physical RFC determination, and thus failed
to adequately develop the record with opinion evidence.” 	(ECF No. 13 at 5–
11). 	Specifically, Plaintiff argues that although the ALJ found Plaintiff’s
irritable bowel syndrome (“IBS”) to be a “severe impairment,” none of the
Case 4:24-cv-04580 Document 17 Filed 02/04/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 12

6
medical opinions the ALJ found “partially persuasive”—including those of the
state agency medical consultants at the initial and reconsideration levels—
accounted for IBS-related functional limitations, and the ALJ rejected the
opinion evidence without further developing the record. (Id. at 7–8). According
to Plaintiff, the ALJ erroneously determined Plaintiff’s RFC without medical
opinion evidence addressing the functional effects of Plaintiff’s impairments.
(Id. at 8). Plaintiff further asserts that the ALJ failed to build a “logical bridge”
between the medical evidence and the RFC, particularly by not assigning
environmental 	limitations 	that 	address 	IBS-related 	symptoms, 	such 	as
accomodations for frequent restroom use, excessive breaks, off-task behavior,
or absenteeism. (Id. at 9–10).
The Commissioner responds that the ALJ properly weighed all medical
and nonmedical evidence, including consultative examinations, state agency
opinions, 	treatment 	records, 	and 	Plaintiff’s 	testimony, 	and 	reasonably
concluded that IBS, while deemed “severe” at Step Two, was conservatively
treated and not shown by any medical source to impose additional work-related
functional limitations. 	(ECF No. 15 at 8–11). 	The Commissioner argues the
ALJ adequately explained that Plaintiff’s IBS symptoms were manageable
with over-the-counter medication and diet, and that consultative examiners
and state agency physicians did not assess IBS-related restrictions. (Id. at 10–
11). The Commissioner further notes Plaintiff’s counsel at the hearing declined
Case 4:24-cv-04580 Document 17 Filed 02/04/26 in TXSD Page 6 of 12

7
to 	question 	or 	cross-examine 	the 	VE, 	making 	additional 	limitations
speculative. 	(Id. at 6, 8, 12). 	Thus, the dispute centers on whether the ALJ’s
RFC reflects a permissible synthesis of the evidentiary record under the
regulations and Fifth Circuit law, or whether, as Plaintiff argues, the ALJ
crossed 	into 	impermissible 	lay 	interpretation 	by 	acknowledging 	IBS 	as
“severe” 	yet 	failing 	to 	include 	corresponding 	functional 	limitations 	or
adequately explain their omission. 	The Court disagrees with Plaintiff and
finds the ALJ properly determined Plaintiff’s RFC based on all record evidence.
“The RFC is not a medical finding; it is an administrative finding, and
the sole responsibility of the ALJ to determine.” 	Seago v. Kijakazi, No. 1:21-
cv-136, 2022 WL 17853369, at *4 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 15, 2022), report and
recommendation adopted, No. 1:21-cv-00136, 2022 WL 17852795 (S.D. Tex.
Dec. 22, 2022), aff’d sub nom. Seago v. O’Malley, 91 F.4th 386 (5th Cir. 2024)
(citing Taylor, 706 F.3d at 602–03). 	“This determination is based on the ALJ
weighing the evidence, resolving conflicts in the evidence, and creating an RFC
consistent with the entirety of the record.” 	Id. (citing Moore v. Sullivan, 919
F.2d 901, 905 (5th Cir. 1990)). 	“Although the ALJ is generally tasked with
weighing medical opinions and determining a plaintiff’s RFC, the ALJ is not
permitted to ‘draw [her] own medical conclusions from some of the data,
without relying on a medical expert’s help.’” 	Lee v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No.
Case 4:24-cv-04580 Document 17 Filed 02/04/26 in TXSD Page 7 of 12

8
4:21-cv-1390, 2022 WL 4490176, at *7 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 27, 2022) (internal
citation omitted).
Here, the record contains multiple medical sources addressing Plaintiff’s
physical condition, including 	consultative 	examinations and 	state 	agency
medical opinions. 	In particular, two state agency medical consultants—Dr.
Patricia Nicol in January 2023 and Dr. Alison Caviness in February 2024–
opined that Plaintiff retained the capacity to fully perform “light work;”
however, the ALJ found these opinions “partially persuasive” because “based
on the totality of the evidence and [Plaintiff’s] allegations . . . the record
comports with a residual functional capacity for light work with the additional
postural and environment limitations” included in his RFC determination.
(ECF No. 8-3 at 34–35) (emphasis added). In other words, the ALJ declined to
adopt 	either 	opinion 	wholesale, 	explaining 	that 	additional 	postural 	and
environmental 	limitations 	were 	warranted 	after 	considering 	Plaintiff’s
conservative treatment history (including for IBS), largely benign examination
findings, and diagnostic imaging indicating an ability to perform light work.
(Id. at 35). The ALJ explicitly noted the environmental limitations in his RFC
determination “were also assigned to take into account [Plaintiff’s] complaints
of pain throughout her body, including in her abdomen, which was related to
her hernia and irritable bowel syndrome.” (Id.). Therefore, “[t]he ALJ did not
reject entirely all of the medical opinions and independently interpret[] the raw
Case 4:24-cv-04580 Document 17 Filed 02/04/26 in TXSD Page 8 of 12

9
medical data to craft an RFC based solely on his own interpretation of medical
data and without any supporting medical opinion[.]” Hess v. Kijakazi, No. 22-
cv-5305, 2023 WL 8696374, at *10 (E.D. La. Oct. 20, 2023), 	report and
recommendation adopted sub nom. Hess v. Soc. Sec. Administration, No. 22-cv-
5305, 2024 WL 1231327 (E.D. La. Mar. 22, 2024). 	Rather, “he found the
medical opinions somewhat persuasive and relied on them, coupled with other
record evidence, to exercise of his responsibility to determine [Plaintiff’s] RFC
based on all of the evidence of record.” Id. (concluding ALJ did not improperly
use 	lay 	interpretation 	of 	raw 	medical 	data when 	he 	imposed 	additional
postural limitations greater than set forth in the state medical consultants’
opinions, 	which 	he 	found 	to 	be 	somewhat 	persuasive, 	when 	determining
claimant’s RFC) (emphasis in original).
Plaintiff further argues that the ALJ failed to develop the record because
no medical opinion expressly quantified functional limitations arising from
Plaintiff’s IBS. 	(ECF No. 13 at 8–9). 	“The absence of such a [medical source]
statement, however, does not, in itself, make the record incomplete.” Ripley v.
Chater, 67 F.3d 552, 557 (5th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). Rather, the “inquiry
focuses upon whether the decision of the ALJ is supported by substantial
evidence in the existing record.” Id.
Here, the record shows that Plaintiff’s IBS was treated conservatively
with over-the-counter medications (e.g., Miralax), dietary recommendations
Case 4:24-cv-04580 Document 17 Filed 02/04/26 in TXSD Page 9 of 12

10
(e.g., 	FODMAP 	diet),5 	and 	intermittent 	prescription 	medications 	(e.g.,
Imodium, Bentyl) during acute episodes. 	(ECF No. 8-3 at 28–32). 	Multiple
medical 	providers 	acknowledged 	Plaintiff’s 	reports 	of 	constipation 	and
diarrhea, yet none imposed work-related functional restrictions attributable to
IBS. (Id. at 30, 32; see also ECF Nos. 8-8 at 236–42; 8-9 at 392–96; 8-10 at 8–
10). For instance, the ALJ noted that in December 2022, Plaintiff presented to
Dr. Dalton Carter “for a consultative examination and alleged disability due to
obesity, hernia, irritable bowel syndrome, and knee pain;” however, the ALJ
further noted that Dr. Carter’s assessed workplace limitations were “vague”
and more tailored to Plaintiff’s orthopedic issues (e.g., carpal tunnel syndrome,
knee pain). (Id. at 30, 37–38). Nonetheless, the ALJ “considered Dr. Carter’s
exam findings when formulating the residual functional capacity.” (Id. at 38).
Similarly, 	state 	agency 	medical 	consultants, 	like 	Dr. 	Nalanni 	Dave,
acknowledged 	Plaintiff’s 	IBS 	but 	did 	not 	identify 	functional 	limitations
resulting from the condition. (Id. at 32 (“Dr. Dave diagnosed the claimant with
obesity, history of irritable bowel syndrome, and history of left hip and back
5 When people say “FODMAP diet,” they usually mean a diet low in FODMAP—
certain sugars that may cause intestinal distress. This diet is designed to help people with
irritable bowel syndrome. FODMAP stands for fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides,
monosaccharides and polyols, which are short-chain carbohydrates (sugars) that the small
intestine absorbs poorly. 	Some people experience digestive distress after eating them.
Symptoms include: Cramping, Diarrhea, Constipation, Stomach bloating, Gas and flatulence.
See Hazel Marie Galon Veloso, MD, FODMAP Diet: What You Need to Know, J OHN HOPKINS
M EDICINE, 	https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/wellness-and-prevention/fodmap-diet-
what-you-need-to-know (last visited Feb. 4, 2026).
Case 4:24-cv-04580 Document 17 Filed 02/04/26 in TXSD Page 10 of 12

11
pain. . . . Notably, she did not render an opinion regarding the claimant’s
functional limitations.”).
Moreover, Plaintiff did not testify at the administrative hearing that
IBS-related symptoms—such as frequent restroom use, off-task behavior, or
absenteeism—prevented her from working. 	The ALJ expressly stated he
considered Plaintiff’s:
own testimony and statements, wherein, she admitted she could
attend to her personal care, prepare meals for herself and her
elderly roommate, babysit a child, perform household chores, care
for 	her 	pets, 	shop 	online, 	engage 	in 	social 	media, 	schedule
appointments, find directions using the internet, and budget for
daily needs and expenses adequately. . . . Hence, after carefully
assessing [Plaintiff’s] subjective complaints as well as reviewing
her medical records, the undersigned finds her allegations are not
consistent with the evidence.
(Id. at 40). 	“The ALJ is not required to address impairments that are based
solely on the testimony of a claimant if there is no medical evidence to support
a claimant’s contentions.” Carrillo v. Astrue, No. 08-cv-774, 2009 WL 4667122,
at *21 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 30, 2009) (concluding ALJ did not err by failing to
address plaintiff’s problem with his eye and vision where there was no
medical evidence in the record to substantiate plaintiff’s testimony).
Viewed as a whole, the record contains substantial evidence supporting
the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff retained the capacity to perform a limited range
of light work and the corresponding RFC. 	While Plaintiff identifies evidence
that could arguably support a different conclusion, “[t]he Court may not
Case 4:24-cv-04580 Document 17 Filed 02/04/26 in TXSD Page 11 of 12

12
reweigh the evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner.”
R.P. v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 6:24-cv-55, 2025 WL 1223567, at *2 (N.D.
Tex. Apr. 28, 2025) (quoting Hernandez v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 23-cv-
00633, 2024 WL 4126699, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Sep. 5, 2024)).
IV. 	Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS Commissioner’s
Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 15) be GRANTED. 	The Court
FURTHER RECOMMENDS the Commissioner’s decision be AFFIRMED
and the case be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
The Clerk shall send copies of this Memorandum and Recommendation
to the respective parties who have fourteen days from the receipt thereof to file
written objections thereto pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)
and General Order 2002-13. Failure to file written objections within the time
period mentioned shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking the factual
findings and legal conclusions on appeal.
SIGNED in Houston, Texas on February 4, 2026.
______________________________
Richard W. Bennett
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:24-cv-04580 Document 17 Filed 02/04/26 in TXSD Page 12 of 12