Capan v. O'Malley

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Chambers of
Douglas R. Miller
United States Magistrate Judge
101 West Lombard Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21201
MDD_DRMChambers@mdd.uscourts.gov
(410) 962-7770
February 3, 2026
LETTER TO ALL COUNSEL OF RECORD
Re: 	Angela C. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner, Social Security Administration1
Civil No. 24-3484-DRM
Dear Counsel:
On December 2, 2024, Plaintiff Angela C.
Social Security benefits. ECF No. 1. This case was then referred to
See 	28 U.S.C. § 636; Loc. R. 301. I have considered the record in
. ECF Nos. 8, 14, 18, 19. I find that no hearing is necessary. 	See
Loc. R. 105.6. The Court must uphold the decision of the SSA if it is supported by substantial
evidence and if the SSA employed proper legal standards. 	See 	42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c)(3);
Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 589 (4th Cir. 1996). Under that standard, I will AFFIRM the
I. 	PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff 	filed 	for 	Title 	II 	Title 	XVI
Supplemental Security Income 	SSI 	October 3, 2018 and December 5, 2019, respectively,
alleging a disability onset date of October 1, 2015 in both applications. Tr. 200-203. Plaintiff was
denied initially on March 4, 2019, and upon reconsideration on August 2, 2019. Tr. 142-148. On
July 22, 2020 	14-34. Following the
hearing, on September 25, 2020, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff was not disabled within the
meaning of the Social Security Act2 	during the relevant time frame. Tr. 14-34. The Appeals
. Tr. 1-8. Plaintiff filed for judicial review and on
March 1, 2022, the Court remanded the case for further administrative review in accordance with
section 205(g) of the Social Security Act. On May 31, 2022, the Appeals Council vacated the final
decision of the Commissioner of Social Security and remanded the case to an ALJ for further
1 	Plaintiff filed this case against 	, the Acting Commissioner of Social Security on
December 2, 2024. ECF No. 1. Frank Bisignano became the Commissioner of Social Security on
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d). 	See 	Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d).
2 	42 U.S.C. §§ 301 et seq.
Case 1:24-cv-03484-DRM Document 20 Filed 02/03/26 Page 1 of 8

Angela C. v. Frank Bisignano
Civil No. 24-3484-DRM
February 3, 2026
Page 2
proceedings consistent with the 	. Tr. 572-576. The ALJ held another hearing on
October 26, 2022, and subsequently issued a partially-favorable decision, finding that Plaintiff
became disabled on August 14, 2022, but not before that date. Tr. 520-547. Plaintiff filed for
judicial review of the unfavorable portion of this decision on October 6, 2023, and the Court
remanded the case for further administrative review. 1342-1348. This time, on November 1, 2023,
the Appeals Council vacated the unfavorable portion of the final decision and remanded this case
to the ALJ. Tr. 1349-1353.
the ALJ to hold further proceedings regarding only the period between August 30, 2017, the
amended alleged onset date, and August 14, 2022, the date the claimant was found to be disabled
in the partially-favorable previous decision. Tr. 1286. The Court specifically instructed the ALJ to
the applicable regulations. Tr. 1286.
For the final time, on July 25, 2024, the ALJ held a hearing. Tr. 1309-1341. On September
27, 2024, the ALJ denied 	for the period at issue. Tr. 1283-1308.
Plaintiff filed this third action for judicial review.
for review, Tr. 1-8,
Sims v. Apfel, 530 U.S. 103, 106 	07 (2000); 	see also 	20 C.F.R. § 422.210(a).
II.
Under the Social Security Act,
substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment
which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a
§§ 404.1505(a), 416.905(a)
using a five-step sequential evaluation process. 	See
period of disability; (2) had a severe impairment; (3) had an impairment that met or equaled the
requirements of a listed impairment; (4) could return to [their] past relevant work; and (5) if not,
Kiser v. Saul
(4th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted) (quoting 	Hancock v. Astrue, 667 F.3d 470, 472 (4th Cir. 2012)).
Here, at step one, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful
activity since August 30, 2017, the amended alleged onset date. Tr. 1289. At step two, the ALJ
degenerative disc disease of the
lumbar spine, dysfunction of the right leg/foot status-post reconstructive surgery, osteoarthritis,
hypertension, and asthma 	Tr. 1289. At step three,
have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of
1289. The ALJ also
perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) and 416.967(b) except she can
occasionally climb ramps or stairs and is never able to climb ladders, ropes, or
scaffolds. She can occasionally balance, stoop, kneel, or crouch, but can never crawl.
Case 1:24-cv-03484-DRM Document 20 Filed 02/03/26 Page 2 of 8

Angela C. v. Frank Bisignano
Civil No. 24-3484-DRM
February 3, 2026
Page 3
She must avoid work at unprotected heights or around dangerous moving machinery
(i.e. Forklifts). She is limited to frequent use of either upper extremity for fine
fingering or grasping/handling of small objects. She is limited to occasional use of
the right lower extremity for pushing/pulling or operation of foot controls. She must
avoid concentrated exposure to extreme damp/wet conditions, vibrations, and fumes,
odors, dusts, gases, or other pulmonary irritants.
Tr. 1291. The ALJ determined that Plaintiff had no past relevant work but could perform jobs that
existed in significant numbers in the national economy such as price marker, office helper, and
mail clerk. Tr. 1298. Therefore, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff was not disabled. Tr. 1299.
III. 	LEGAL STANDARD
is limited to determining whether substantial evidence
s factual findings and whether the decision was reached through the application
of the correct legal standards. 	See 	Coffman v. Bowen
findings of the [ALJ] . . . as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive .
. .
Laws v. Celebrezze, 368 F.2d 640, 642 (4th Cir.
1966). It 	but may be 	Id. 	In
my review is limited to whether the ALJ analyzed
the relevant evidence and sufficiently explained their findings and rationale in crediting the
evidence. 	See, e.g., 	Sterling Smokeless Coal Co. v. Akers, 131 F.3d 438, 439 	40 (4th Cir. 1997);
DeLoatche v. Heckler, 715 F.2d 148, 150 (4th Cir. 1983) (
decision is impossible without an adequate explanation of that decision by the [ALJ] 	).
IV. 	ANALYSIS
On appeal,
argument is that the ALJ erred at step two by failing to evaluate her anxiety under the 	special-
technique 	regulation, which requires the ALJ to determine whether a mental impairment is
medically determinable, rate the four functional areas, and document that analysis. ECF No. 14 at
8. Plaintiff contends she repeatedly alleged anxiety, received diagnoses from treating providers,
was prescribed alprazolam and clonazepam, and exhibited symptoms documented in medical
screenings and treatment notes. 	Id. 	at 9. Plaintiff argues that once a colorable mental impairment
is identified, the ALJ is required to apply the special technique, and failure to do so warrants
remand because it undermines both the RFC assessment and the step-five finding. 	Id. 	at 10.
In response, the Commissioner contends that the ALJ acted reasonably in not identifying
as a severe medically-determinable impairment. ECF No. 18 at 7. According to
-status examinations were largely normal, there was no
objective evidence of functional limitations, and her symptoms were sporadic and improved with
minimal medication. 	Id. 	at 8. The Commissioner asserts that, even assuming error at step two, it is
harmless because the ALJ found other severe impairments, continued through the sequential
Case 1:24-cv-03484-DRM Document 20 Filed 02/03/26 Page 3 of 8

Angela C. v. Frank Bisignano
Civil No. 24-3484-DRM
February 3, 2026
Page 4
evaluation, and considered all impairments 	severe and non-severe 	in formulating the RFC. 	Id.
at 10.
retained the capacity for light work with certain limitations and that the vocational expert identified
jobs existing in significant numbers. 	Id. 	Plaintiff replies that once the record reflected repeated
anxiety diagnoses, symptoms, and prescribed medication, the ALJ was obligated to document
findings in the four functional areas, per the special-technique regulation. ECF No. 19 at 2. She
asserts that this omission is reversible error that cannot be excused as harmless because it prevents
meaningful judicial review. 	Id.
improper 	post hoc 	Id.
The March 4, 2019, Initial Disability Determination Explanation for the claim currently at
issue, Tr. 108- 	spinal fusion
Case 1:24-cv-03484-DRM Document 20 Filed 02/03/26 Page 4 of 8

Angela C. v. Frank Bisignano
Civil No. 24-3484-DRM
February 3, 2026
Page 5
need (lumbar) 	lumbar spine damage 	two plates and 8 screws from hip to foot 	3
4
3 	A July 10, 2018, Disability Determination Explanation for a previous claim (filed January 30,
2018) lists anxiety as one of six alleged impairments. Tr. 95-107. The Disability Examiner
explained that Plaintiff had no treatment history for a mental impairment and no recommendation
daily living revealed no work-related functional limitations attributable to a possible mental
impairment. Tr. 101. The Examiner conc
Id. 	(citing Program Operations Manual System (POMS) DI 24505.030.)
4 	, Disability Report, she lists
treatment from a specific provider, but did not add any of these to the list of conditions limiting
her ability to work.
Case 1:24-cv-03484-DRM Document 20 Filed 02/03/26 Page 5 of 8

Angela C. v. Frank Bisignano
Civil No. 24-3484-DRM
February 3, 2026
Page 6
debilitating mental impairment was supported by substantial evidence where claimant had not
reported to his provider
5
5
Case 1:24-cv-03484-DRM Document 20 Filed 02/03/26 Page 6 of 8

Angela C. v. Frank Bisignano
Civil No. 24-3484-DRM
February 3, 2026
Page 7
V. 	CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth herein, p
judgment is AFFIRMED.
Despite the informal nature of this letter, it should be docketed as a Memorandum Opinion.
A separate implementing Order follows.
Case 1:24-cv-03484-DRM Document 20 Filed 02/03/26 Page 7 of 8

Angela C. v. Frank Bisignano
Civil No. 24-3484-DRM
February 3, 2026
Page 8
Sincerely,
/s/
Douglas R. Miller
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:24-cv-03484-DRM Document 20 Filed 02/03/26 Page 8 of 8