Case Name in Social Security Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CENTRAL DIVISION
KAREEM TAVARES MARTIN 	PLAINTIFF
V. 	Case No. 4:24-CV-000978-LPR-BBM
FRANK BISIGNANO,1 Commissioner,
Social Security Administration 	DEFENDANT
RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION
This Recommended Disposition (“Recommendation”) has been sent to United
States District Judge Lee P. Rudofsky. Either party may file written objections to this
Recommendation. Those objections should be specific and should include the factual or
legal basis for the objection. To be considered, objections must be received in the office of
the Court Clerk within 14 days of this Recommendation. If no objections are filed, Judge
Rudofsky can adopt this Recommendation without independently reviewing the record. By
not objecting, parties may also waive the right to appeal questions of fact.
I. 	INTRODUCTION
Kareem Tavares Martin (“Martin”) applied for Title II disability benefits on January
22, 2021. (Tr. at 463). He alleged disability from patellofemoral disorder, flat feet, knee
pain, heel spurs, and adjustment disorder beginning December 1, 2020. (Tr. at 225). His
claim was denied both initially and upon reconsideration, and he requested a hearing before
an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). (Tr. at 228). Following the hearing, the ALJ denied
1 On May 7, 2025, Frank Bisignano was sworn in as Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration (“the Commissioner”). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), Commissioner
Bisignano is automatically substituted as the Defendant.
Case 4:24-cv-00978-LPR Document 12 Filed 11/20/25 Page 1 of 15

2
Martin’s claim on March 31, 2022. (Tr. at 167–85). Martin filed a Request for Review, and
the Appeals Council remanded on March 1, 2023. (Tr. at 190–92). Following a second
hearing on July 11, 2023, the ALJ denied Martin’s claim on October 5, 2023. (Tr. at 197–
211). Martin requested review of the ALJ’s decision, and the Appeals Council remanded
on December 21, 2023. (Tr. at 218–22). A third hearing was conducted on June 14, 2024,
before a different ALJ, who denied Martin’s claim again on August 7, 2024. (Tr. at 11–24,
116). The Appeals Council denied review on October 9, 2024, and the ALJ’s decision now
stands as the final decision of the Commissioner. (Tr. at 1).
Martin 	seeks 	judicial 	review, 	and 	for 	the 	reasons 	stated 	below, 	this 	Court
recommends that the decision of the Commissioner be reversed and that this case be
remanded for further proceedings.
II. 	THE COMMISSIONER’S DECISION
The ALJ found Martin had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since his
alleged onset date of disability—December 1, 2020. (Tr. at 13). At step two of the
sequential five-step analysis, 2 the ALJ found that Martin had the following medically
determinable and severe impairments: right knee degenerative joint disease with a
meniscus tear; pes planus deformity with degenerative joint disease of the feet; mild
degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine with radiculopathy; mild degenerative joint
2 Using a five-step sequence, the ALJ determines: (1) whether the claimant was engaged in
substantial gainful activity; (2) if not, whether the claimant had a severe impairment; (3) if so, whether the
impairment (or combination of impairments) met or equaled a listed impairment; (4) if not, whether the
impairment (or combination of impairments) prevented the claimant from performing past relevant work;
and (5) if so, whether the impairment (or combination of impairments) prevented the claimant from
performing any other jobs available in significant numbers in the national economy. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520,
416.920(a)(4).
Case 4:24-cv-00978-LPR Document 12 Filed 11/20/25 Page 2 of 15

3
disease of the right hip; carpal tunnel syndrome of the right wrist; and adjustment disorder.
(Tr. at 14). After finding that none of these impairments or combination of impairments
met or medically equaled a listed impairment, the ALJ determined that Martin had the
residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform light work with the following limitations:
never climbing ropes, ladders, or scaffolds; occasionally climbing ramps and stairs,
balancing, stooping, crouching, kneeling, or crawling; and frequently handling with his
right upper extremity. (Tr. at 17). The ALJ also found that Martin could use judgment to
make simple work-related decisions; maintain concentration, persistence, and pace for
simple 	tasks; 	understand, 	carry 	out, 	and 	remember 	simple 	work 	instructions 	and
procedures; adapt to changes in the work setting that are simple, predictable, and easily
explained; and have occasional interaction with coworkers, supervisors, and the public. Id.
The ALJ concluded that Martin was unable to perform his past relevant work. (Tr.
at 22). Based on the testimony of a vocational expert (“VE”), however, the ALJ found that
a significant number of jobs existed in the national economy for someone with the same
age, education, work experience, and RFC as Martin. (Tr. at 23). As a result, the ALJ
concluded that Martin was not disabled. (Tr. at 24).
III. 	DISCUSSION
A. 	Standard of Review
The Court’s function on review is to determine whether the Commissioner’s
decision is “supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole and whether it is
based on legal error.” Miller v. Colvin, 784 F.3d 472, 477 (8th Cir. 2015); see also 42
U.S.C. § 405(g). “Substantial evidence is that which a ‘reasonable mind might accept as
Case 4:24-cv-00978-LPR Document 12 Filed 11/20/25 Page 3 of 15

4
adequate to support a conclusion,’ whereas substantial evidence on the record as a whole
entails ‘a more scrutinizing analysis.’” Reed v. Barnhart, 399 F.3d 917, 920 (8th Cir. 2005)
(citations omitted). “Our review ‘is more than an examination of the record for the
existence of substantial evidence in support of the Commissioner’s decision. . . . [W]e also
take into account whatever in the record fairly detracts from that decision.’” Gann v.
Berryhill, 864 F.3d 947, 950–51 (8th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). “Reversal is not
warranted, however, ‘merely because substantial evidence would have supported an
opposite decision.’” Reed, 399 F.3d at 920 (citation omitted).
In 	clarifying 	the 	“substantial 	evidence” 	standard 	applicable 	to 	review 	of
administrative decisions, the Supreme Court has explained: “And whatever the meaning of
‘substantial’ in other contexts, the threshold for such evidentiary sufficiency is not high.
Substantial evidence . . . ‘is more than a mere scintilla.’” Biestek v. Berryhill, 587 U.S. 97,
103 (2019) (quoting Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 217 (1938)). “It
means—and means only—‘such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion.’” Id. (citation omitted).
B. 	Martin’s Arguments on Appeal
Martin asserts two grounds for reversal: (1) that the ALJ committed legal error in
failing to evaluate the medical opinion of Dr. Edwin Watson; (Doc. 9 at 3–11); and (2) that
the RFC is not supported by substantial evidence, id. at 11–20. The Court agrees that the
ALJ committed legal error regarding his evaluation of Dr. Watson’s opinion and confines
its analysis to that point, as it is outcome determinative.
Case 4:24-cv-00978-LPR Document 12 Filed 11/20/25 Page 4 of 15

5
1. 	Martin’s Relevant Medical History
In January 2020, Martin reported to his physician that he had right knee pain and
that he wore a knee brace. (Tr. at 712). For context, an October 2016 MRI revealed an
“oblique tear of the medial meniscus and the posterior midbody through the inferior margin
and extending in the extraarticular region with a small parameniscal cyst forming.” Id.
However, Martin also exhibited normal gait during the January 2020 examination, was
walking daily at work, and had a normal MRI on his right knee in 2019. (Tr. at 712–13).
The following month, in February 2020, Martin asked for another consult and more
physical therapy “due to his knee giving him more problems.” (Tr. at 710–11, 814).
At an examination on June 1, 2020, Martin reported that his right knee pain was
worse in the morning but eased as he moved. (Tr. at 695). He had difficulty with deep
squatting and reported that jogging and walking up or down hills caused pain. Id.
Examination notes state that his 2019 right knee MRI was “essentially normal,” with his
medial meniscus “somewhat small but otherwise normal in appearance.” Id. He had no
joint inflammation and a “stable knee to varus/valgus and Drawers test.” Id. Martin was
diagnosed with “clinical findings” of patellofemoral syndrome/maltracking, flat feet
(worse on the right), and limited dorsiflexion of the right ankle, and he was referred to
orthotics. (Tr. at 696).
In January 2021, during a telehealth podiatry consultation, it was recommended that
Martin continue to use orthotics and his knee brace. (Tr. at 760–62). He had small heel
spurs, a ples panus deformity, mild midfoot degenerative changes, and a mild valgus
deformity with minor spurring at the first metatarsophalangeal joint. (Tr. at 761). In April
Case 4:24-cv-00978-LPR Document 12 Filed 11/20/25 Page 5 of 15

6
2021, Martin contacted his doctor’s office to request a cane due to losing his balance, which
he believed was related to his knee. (Tr. at 838). During a physical therapy consultation
that same month, Martin learned to walk, sit to stand, and climb up and down stairs with a
quad cane. (Tr. at 894–96). Overall, Martin’s course of treatment was conservative,
including taking 400 mg of ibuprofen for pain. (Tr. at 60–61). Martin declined the offer of
steroid injections. (Tr. at 771). Martin reported he was still using his knee brace and cane
in July 2022. (Tr. at 1139).
2. 	Medical Opinions Considered by ALJ
The ALJ considered medical opinions from four doctors who provided input on
Martin’s physical impairments: Dr. Tara Akunna and Dr. Bernard Crowell, who each
examined Martin, and Dr. Alice Davidson and Dr. Jim Takach, who reviewed Martin’s
medical records as state agency medical consultants. (Tr. at 20–22). Dr. Akunna saw
Martin 	in 	August 	2021 	and 	diagnosed 	him 	with 	degenerative 	disc 	disease, 	mild
osteoarthritis of the right hip, and knee pain. (Tr. at 962). During his visit with Dr. Akunna,
Martin’s gait was normal. (Tr. at 961). He was able to rise from sitting without assistance,
stand on tiptoes, stand on heels, and tandem walk. Id. He was also able to bend and squat
without difficulty. Id. Dr. Akunna found Martin had limitations in bending, prolonged
walking, and sitting due to mild osteoarthritis and decreased range of motion. (Tr. at 962).
Dr. Akunna noted that Martin required the use of a cane occasionally and a knee brace
daily. Id.
Dr. Crowell examined Martin on May 2, 2023. (Tr. at 1184). Dr. Crowell found
Martin could occasionally lift and carry twenty pounds; frequently lift and carry ten
Case 4:24-cv-00978-LPR Document 12 Filed 11/20/25 Page 6 of 15

7
pounds; sit or stand for fifteen minutes at a time; walk for eighty minutes total in a workday;
occasionally use his right upper extremity; occasionally operate foot controls with his right
side; occasionally climb ramps or stairs; occasionally stoop, kneel, or crouch; and never
climb ropes, ladders, or scaffolds. (Tr. at 1185–88).
Dr. 	Takach, 	who 	reviewed 	Martin’s 	records 	in 	March 	2021 	at 	the 	initial
determination, found his impairments non-severe. (Tr. at 149–50). In September 2021, at
the reconsideration level, Dr. Davidson found Martin could perform light work with
occasional balancing; stooping; kneeling; crouching; crawling; and climbing of ramps,
stairs, ladders, ropes, or scaffolds. (Tr. at 159–60). After finding three of the four medical
opinions unpersuasive, the ALJ determined that the opinion of Dr. Davidson was partially
persuasive. (Tr. at 22).
3. 	Medical Opinion of Dr. Edwin Watson
Martin argues that the ALJ erred by not considering the medical opinion of Dr.
Edwin Watson, a physician who performed an in-person examination of Martin as part of
a compensation and pension review for the Veteran’s Administration (“VA”). (Doc. 9 at
3–11). Martin asserts that the ALJ wholly ignored Dr. Watson’s opinion, providing no
evaluation of its persuasiveness. Id. at 3. The Commissioner, while acknowledging that the
ALJ did not “explicitly” evaluate Dr. Watson’s opinion, claims that “nothing in the vague
statement by Dr. Watson directly conflicts with the ALJ’s RFC finding . . . .” (Doc. 11 at
8).
On June 10, 2021, Dr. Watson examined Martin and completed a Disability Benefits
Questionnaire in conjunction with Martin’s VA disability benefits. (Tr. at 913). Dr. Watson
Case 4:24-cv-00978-LPR Document 12 Filed 11/20/25 Page 7 of 15

8
noted that Martin had been diagnosed with right knee patellar femoral pain syndrome
(PFPS), ACL tear, and meniscus tear. (Tr. at 914). Dr. Watson observed decreased range
of motion in Martin’s right knee, pain during weight bearing, and pain in both active and
passive motion. (Tr. at 916–18). Dr. Watson noted tenderness or pain in the right knee upon
palpation. (Tr. at 918). Dr. Watson also wrote that Martin required the prescriptive use of
both a cane and knee brace. (Tr. at 926). As for functional limitations, Dr. Watson found
that Martin could walk a quarter of a mile, sit for two hours, stand still for ten to fifteen
minutes, and perform limited squatting. (Tr. at 932). These functional limitations were
identical to Martin’s self-reported limitations. (Tr. at 915).
4. 	Evaluation of Disability Decision by Other Governmental
Agency
On March 27, 2017, the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) implemented new
regulations for how ALJs treat disability decisions by other governmental agencies.
Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1504, a decision by another governmental agency (such as the
VA) establishing that a claimant is disabled is not binding on the ALJ.3 Because a decision
by another governmental agency is “inherently neither valuable nor persuasive,” the ALJ
“will not provide any analysis about how we considered such evidence in our determination
or decision, even under § 404.1520c.” See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520b(c).
However, § 404.1504 also explicitly provides that the ALJ is required to consider
3 Coinciding with the updated regulations, the SSA withdrew its Social Security Ruling (“SSR”)
No. 06-03p, which had instructed that the disability determination of another agency “cannot be ignored
and must be considered.” See Rescission of Social Security Rulings 96-2p, 96-5p, and 06-3p, 82 Fed. Reg.
15,263; 2017 WL 1105348 (Mar. 27, 2017), amended by 82 Fed. Reg. 16,869; 2017 WL 1245548 (Apr. 6,
2017).
Case 4:24-cv-00978-LPR Document 12 Filed 11/20/25 Page 8 of 15

9
all of the supporting evidence underlying the other governmental agency’s decision in
accordance with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513(a)(1)–(4).4 Section 404.1513(a) outlines what is
evidence, including statements from a medical source about what the claimant can still do
despite impairment and what impairment-related limitations or restrictions the claimant
may have. Additionally, § 404.1513(a) requires the ALJ to consider §§ 404.1520b and
404.1520c, evaluating medical opinions “according to the rules pertaining to the relevant
category of evidence.”
To that end, on January 28, 2017, the SSA promulgated new regulations governing
how ALJs assess medical opinion evidence. The new rules provide that an ALJ “will not
defer or give any specific evidentiary weight, including controlling weight, to any medical
opinion(s).” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(a). Instead, ALJs are required to analyze whether
opinion evidence is persuasive, based on: (1) supportability; (2) consistency with the
evidence; (3) relationship with the claimant [which includes; (i) length of treatment
relationship; (ii) frequency of examinations; (iii) purpose of the treatment relationship; (iv)
extent of the treatment relationship; and (v) examining relationship]; (4) provider
specialization; and (5) any other important factors. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(c). An
opinion is “more persuasive if it is supported by explanation and relevant objective medical
evidence, and it is consistent with other evidence in record.” Norwood v. Kijakazi, No. 21-
3560, 2022 WL 1740785, at *1 (8th Cir. May 31, 2022) (per curiam) (citing 20 C.F.R. §§
4 The 2017 update to § 404.1504 is consistent with Eighth Circuit precedent, which required the
Commissioner to consider findings of disability by other federal agencies, even though not binding.
Morrison v. Apfel, 149 F.3d 625, 628 (8th Cir. 1998). Where the Commissioner had fully considered the
evidence underlying the final disability decision of the third-party governmental agency, that requirement
was met. Pelkey v. Barnhart, 433 F.3d 575, 579 (8th Cir. 2016).
Case 4:24-cv-00978-LPR Document 12 Filed 11/20/25 Page 9 of 15

10
404.1520c(c), 416.920c(c)). The ALJ must give good reasons for his findings about an
opinion’s persuasiveness. Phillips v. Saul, No 1:19-CV-00034-BD, 2020 WL 3451519, at
*2 (E.D. Ark. June 24, 2020) (citing Revisions to Rules Regarding the Evaluation of
Medical Evidence, 82 FR 5844-01, at 5854, 5858 (January 18, 2017), & Articulation
Requirements for Medical Opinions and Prior Administrative Medical Findings – Claims
filed on or after March 27, 2017, SSA POMS DI 24503.030).
In summary, current SSA regulations provide that the ALJ is not bound by a
disability decision made by another governmental agency and is not required to explain
any consideration of that decision. However, the ALJ is required to consider the underlying
evidence supporting that governmental agency’s disability decision in accordance with the
rules pertaining to the specific category of evidence at issue. When considering the
underlying medical opinions supporting another governmental agency’s decision, the ALJ
must abide by the persuasiveness standard outlined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c. In essence,
there is a difference between the disability determination of another governmental
agency—which is not entitled to any deference—and the evidence supporting that
disability determination, such as medical opinions—which the ALJ is required to consider.
Here, the evidence at issue was the medical opinion of Dr. Watson that helped form the
basis 	for 	the 	VA 	disability 	decision, 	and 	the 	ALJ 	was 	required 	to 	consider 	the
persuasiveness of Dr. Watson’s opinion.
5. 	The ALJ Failed to Consider Dr. Watson’s Medical Opinion
Turning to the ALJ’s decision in this case, it makes no mention of Dr. Watson’s
medical opinion. In fact, the ALJ’s decision makes no mention of Dr. Watson at all. The
Case 4:24-cv-00978-LPR Document 12 Filed 11/20/25 Page 10 of 15

11
ALJ states that Martin indicated in June 2021 that he could walk one quarter of a mile, sit
for two hours, stand still for ten to fifteen minutes, and squat with limitations. (Tr. at 18).
Martin reported these limitations to Dr. Watson, but the ALJ never considers that Dr.
Watson agreed with these limitations following examination. Id. The ALJ neglects to
discuss any of the details of Dr. Watson’s physical examination of Martin. Consequently,
the ALJ makes no finding regarding the persuasiveness of Dr. Watson’s opinion. The ALJ
did consider the “VA findings of total disability,” finding that the VA disability
determination “is based on a completely different body of law with standards inconsistent
with the Social Security Act” and did “not have much probative value in evaluating the
claimant’s functional ability.” (Tr. at 22). The ALJ’s finding regarding the VA disability
determination is consistent with the law, specifically 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520b(c), but the
ALJ neglects to consider explicitly Dr. Watson’s medical opinion that supported the VA’s
disability determination as required by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1504. At a minimum, the ALJ
needed to articulate the supportability and consistency of Dr. Watson’s opinion, as he did
with 	the 	opinions 	of Drs. 	Akunna, 	Crowell, 	Takach, 	and 	Davidson. 	20 	C.F.R. 	§
404.1520c(b)(2); (Tr. at 20–22). The ALJ in this case did not do so, essentially ignoring
Dr. Watson’s medical opinion all together.
6. 	Harmless-Error Analysis
When an ALJ commits a legal error, remand is required unless the error was
harmless. Lucus v. Saul, 960 F.3d 1066, 1067 (8th Cir. 2020). To be considered harmless,
there must be “‘no indication that the ALJ would have decided it differently’ if the error
had not occurred.” Grindley v. Kijakazi, 9 F.4th 622, 629 (8th Cir. 2021) (quoting Van
Case 4:24-cv-00978-LPR Document 12 Filed 11/20/25 Page 11 of 15

12
Vickle v. Astrue, 539 F3d 825, 830 (8th Cir. 2008)). Here, the Commissioner argues that
Dr. Watson’s opinion regarding Martin’s physical limitations does not directly conflict
with the ALJ’s RFC finding of light work with certain postural limitations; thus, any error
in considering (or not considering) Dr. Watson’s opinion was harmless.
Light work involves “a good deal of walking or standing” or “sitting most of the
time with some pushing and pulling of arm or leg controls.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(b).
“[T]he full range of light work requires standing or walking, off and on, for a total of
approximately 6 hours of an 8-hour workday.” SSR 83–10, 1983 WL 31251, at *6. Dr.
Watson’s physical examination of Martin showed a decreased range of motion in his right
knee, pain with weight bearing, and tenderness upon palpitation. Dr. Watson noted the
prescriptive use of both a knee brace and cane. Dr. Watson’s opinion was that Martin could
walk up to one quarter mile, sit for two hours, and stand still for ten to fifteen minutes.
On its face, Dr. Watson’s opinion regarding Martin’s physical limitations is
inconsistent with the requirements of light work, including “a good deal of walking or
standing” or “standing or walking, off and on, for a total of approximately 6 hours.”
Furthermore, Dr. Watson’s opinion is consistent with the severe impairments the ALJ
found in this case, which included right knee degenerative joint disease with a meniscus
tear. Although good reasons to find Dr. Watson’s opinion unpersuasive may exist, this
Court is left to speculate what those might be.5 Certainly, this is not a case where there is
5 The Commissioner contends that it is unclear whether Dr. Watson’s limitations for walking,
standing, and sitting were in connection with an eight-hour workday, which the ALJ should have addressed
in considering Dr. Watson’s medical opinion.
Case 4:24-cv-00978-LPR Document 12 Filed 11/20/25 Page 12 of 15

13
“no indication” that the ALJ would have made a different decision. Rather, the ALJ could
have been persuaded by Dr. Watson’s opinion. In fact, had the ALJ found Dr. Watson’s
opinion even partially persuasive, the ALJ might have limited Martin to sedentary work.
Even without considering Dr. Watson’s opinion, the ALJ questioned the VE about limiting
a hypothetical claimant to sedentary work. (Tr. at 135). Dr. Watson’s opinion could have
shifted the ALJ’s decision in Martin’s favor.
Had the ALJ limited Martin to sedentary work, whether the ALJ would have found
the number of sedentary jobs available to Martin in the national economy significant is also
unclear. The ALJ posed three hypotheticals to the VE. The first hypothetical corresponded
to the RFC the ALJ found—light work with some postural limitations. (Tr. at 134). The
VE identified two examples of jobs available in the national economy that fit that profile,
representing 	approximately 	330,000 	jobs nationally. 	(Tr. 	at 	134–135). 	The 	second
hypothetical was identical except that the claimant would be limited to sedentary work.
(Tr. at 135). The VE responded that there were two jobs that fit the profile—circuit board
assembly with 1,100 jobs nationally and addresser with 2,000 jobs nationally. Id. The ALJ
asked for an additional job, and the VE identified tube operator with 1,000 jobs nationally.
Id. In the third hypothetical, the ALJ added the use of a single point cane for ambulation,
and the VE stated that the same sedentary jobs would still fit the profile. Id.
Work exists in significant numbers in the national economy when it “exists in
significant numbers either in the region where [the claimant] lives or in several regions of
the country.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A). It does not matter if work “exists in the immediate
area in which [the claimant] lives, or whether a specific job vacancy exists for [the
Case 4:24-cv-00978-LPR Document 12 Filed 11/20/25 Page 13 of 15

14
claimant], or whether [the claimant] would be hired if he [or she] applied for work.” Id.
The determination of whether the Commissioner has satisfied the significant numbers
requirement is “[left] to the trial judge’s common sense application of the . . . requirement
to a particular claimant’s factual situation.” Hall v. Chater, 109 F.3d 1255, 1259 (8th Cir.
1997) (citations omitted). Although the Eighth Circuit has not identified a definitive
number of jobs that constitutes the lower threshold for a significant number of jobs in the
national economy, it has held that as few as 10,000 jobs in the national economy is
sufficient to constitute significant national work. Johnson v. Chater, 108 F.3d 178, 180
(8th Cir. 1997). Here, the VE testified that there were just 4,100 jobs nationally available
at the sedentary level. Utilizing a common-sense application, it is unclear whether the ALJ
would have found 4,100 jobs significant.
Accordingly, on these facts, this Court “cannot determine whether the ALJ would
have reached the same decision denying benefits, even if he had followed the proper
procedure.” Brueggemann v. Barnhart, 348 F.3d 689, 694 (8th Cir. 2003). Because the
ALJ failed to articulate a finding of persuasiveness regarding Dr. Watson’s opinion and
that error is not harmless, this Court recommends remand. 6 Consequently, the Court need
not address Martin’s remaining argument that the RFC is not supported by substantial
6 As a final point, the Court notes that the Fourth Circuit and district courts within the Eighth
Circuit appear to support this Court’s conclusion. See Rogers v. Kijakazi, 62 F.4th 872, 881 (4th Cir. 2023)
(holding that an ALJ erred when he did not discuss certain medical evidence related to the claimant’s
menstrual cycle, and “to the extent that the VA’s disability determination relied on the menstrual cycle
evidence, the new SSA rules required the SSA ALJ to consider that evidence.”) (citing 20 C.F.R. §
404.1504)); Mowrer v. Kijakazi, 686 F. Supp. 3d 764, 767 (S.D. Iowa 2023) (reversing and remanding
because, in part, “the ALJ did not follow binding case law and regulations requiring the Commissioner to
consider the documentation underlying an agency action.”) (citations omitted).
Case 4:24-cv-00978-LPR Document 12 Filed 11/20/25 Page 14 of 15

15
evidence.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court recommends that the Commissioner’s
decision be reversed and that this case be remanded for further proceedings.
DATED this 20th day of November, 2025.
___________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 4:24-cv-00978-LPR Document 12 Filed 11/20/25 Page 15 of 15