Sutton v. King

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
CHAMBERS OF
TIMOTHY J. SULLIVAN
CHIEF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6500 Cherrywood Lane
Greenbelt, Maryland 20770
Telephone: (301) 344-3593
February 23, 2026
LETTER TO COUNSEL:
RE: 	Cleta S. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security1
Civil No. TJS-25-434
Dear Counsel:
On February 11, 2025, Plaintiff Cleta S. petitioned this Court to review the Social Security
her 	and
. ECF No. 1. The parties have filed cross-motions for
summary judgment. ECF Nos. 13 & 15. These motions have been referred to the undersigned with
2 	Having considered the
submissions of the parties (ECF Nos. 13, 15 & 16), I find that no hearing is necessary. 	See 	Loc. R.
105.6. This Court must uphold the decision of the agency if it is supported by substantial evidence
and if the agency employed the proper legal standards. 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c)(3); 	Mascio
v. Colvin, 780 F.3d 632, 634 (4th Cir. 2015). Following its review, this Court may affirm, modify,
or reverse the Commissioner, with or without a remand. 	See 	42 U.S.C. § 405(g); 	Melkonyan v.
Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89 (1991). Under that standard, I will deny both motions and remand the case
for further proceedings. This letter explains my rationale.
Cleta S. filed her applications for DIB and SSI on April 4, 2016, and April 8, 2015,
respectively. In both applications, she alleged a disability onset date of April 8, 2015. 	See 	ECF No.
13 at 1. Her applications were denied initially and upon reconsideration. After a 2018 hearing
before an ALJ, the ALJ found that Cleta S. was not disabled. Tr. 12-45. When the Appeals Council
denied her request for review, Cleta S. appealed to this Court, which remanded the case to the
agency for further proceedings. 	Cleta S. v. Saul, No. CBD-19-2906, 2020 WL 6565250 (D. Md.
Nov. 9, 2020). On remand, another hearing was conducted before an ALJ, and the ALJ again
concluded that Cleta S. was not disabled. Tr. 1324-1356. Cleta S. appealed to this Court a second
time, and with the consent of the agency, the Court remanded the case for further proceedings. 	See
ECF No. 17 in 	Cleta S. v. Kijakazi, No. BAH-22-1563 (D. Md. 2023). When the case was heard
for the third time before an ALJ, the ALJ again concluded that Cleta S. was not disabled, and the
decision dated December 12, 2024 (Tr. 2792-2810).
1 	Frank Bisignano became the Commissioner of Social Security on May 7, 2025. He is
therefore substituted as the defendant in this matter. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d); 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
2 	This case was originally assigned to Judge Douglas R. Miller. On January 8, 2026, it was
reassigned to me.
Case 1:25-cv-00434-TJS Document 18 Filed 02/23/26 Page 1 of 4

2
The ALJ evaluated Cleta S. 	claim for benefits using the five-step sequential evaluation
process set forth in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. At step one, the ALJ found that Cleta S. has
not engaged in substantial gainful activity since April 8, 2015. Tr. 2795. At step two, the ALJ
found that Cleta S. suffers from the following severe impairments: 	obesity, lumbar degenerative
disc disease (DDD) with radiculopathy, degenerative joint disease (DJD) of the bilateral knees,
with agoraphobia, obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD), Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD),
and Major depressive disorder (MDD). 	Id. 	At step three, the ALJ found that Cleta S.
impairments, separately and in combination, failed to meet or equal in severity any listed
impairment as set forth in 20 C.F.R., Chapter III, Pt. 404, Subpart P, App. 1 ( 	Listings 	). Tr. 2796.
The ALJ determined that Cleta S. retains the 	to:
perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) and 416.967(b) except: never
crawl or climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; occasionally climb ramps/stairs,
balance, stoop, kneel, and crouch. She can never be exposed to hazards such as
dangerous moving machinery and unprotected heights and can tolerate moderate
noise intensity level as defined in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) with
no work outdoors and no operation of a motor vehicle. She can understand,
remember, and carry out simple instructions and make simple work-related
decisions. She can work at a consistent pace throughout the workday, but not at a
production rate pace such as on an assembly line or work involving monthly or
hourly quotas. She can tolerate occasional interaction with coworkers, supervisors,
and the public. She can tolerate occasional changes in work setting.
Tr. 2799.
At step four, the ALJ determined that Cleta S. has no past relevant work. Tr. 2808. At step
five, considering the testimony provided by a 	, as well as the
age, education, work experience, and RFC, the ALJ determined that Cleta S. could perform jobs
that exist in significant numbers in the national economy, including survey worker, photocopying
machine operator, and office helper. Tr. 2809.
Cleta S. presents several arguments as to why the Court should reverse or remand the
finds that the ALJ failed to conduct the function-by-function assessment required by SSR 96-8p
and that the case must be remanded. Because the Court finds that remand is warranted on this
C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a), 416.945(a) 	RFC is an assessment of an individua 	s ability to do
sustained work-related physical and mental activities in a work setting on a regular and continuing
-8p, 1996 SSR LEXIS 5, *1 (July 2, 1996). 	regular and continuing basis means
Id.
RFC, an ALJ must include a narrative discussion describing the evidence that supports it. 	Dowling
, 986 F.3d 377, 387 (4th Cir. 2021). In doing so, an ALJ must consider
all of
function-by- 	Thomas v. Berryhill,
Case 1:25-cv-00434-TJS Document 18 Filed 02/23/26 Page 2 of 4

3
916 F.3d 307, 311 (4th Cir. 2019), 	as amended 	(Feb. 22, 2019) (internal quotation marks and
-8p, 1996 WL 374184, at *7. Once the ALJ has completed this function-by-
function analysis, the ALJ can m 	Id.; 	Thomas, 916 F.3d at
iece of evidence, so long as she builds a
logical bridge from the evidence to her conclusion. 	, 769 F.3d 861,
865 (4th Cir. 2014).
Cleta S. argues that the ALJ failed to perform a function-by-function assessment of her
work-related functions, as required by the regulations. ECF No. 13 at 14. She notes that while the
ALJ determined that she could perform light work, as defined in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1567(b) and
416.967(b), the ALJ did not discuss her ability to perform the functions involved in light work
(lifting, carrying, pushing, pulling, sitting, standing, and walking). 	Id. 	at 13. Notably, while the
state with specificity how Cleta S. was so limited. Tr. 2800. Because the ALJ did not perform a
function-by-function assessment of the functions involved in light work, Cleta S. argues that the
Id. 	Rather than performing a function-by-function
analysis to determine her RFC, Cleta S
Id. 	at 16. But conducting a
symptom-based analysis and not a function-by-function analysis is not what the regulations
require. 	Dowling, 986 F.3d at 387. A 	symptoms are relevant to the RFC evaluation, but
an RFC assessment is a 	Id.
The Court is persuaded by Cleta S
-based analysis in
this case is analogous to those that other judges have rejected. 	See Nicole C. v. Kijakazi, No. JMC-
22-2123, 2023 WL 4027481 (D. Md. June 15, 2023); 	Henderson v. Kijakazi, No. AAQ-20-3346,
2022 WL 1555408 (D. Md. May 17, 2022); 	Nancy G. v. Kijakazi, No. GLS-20-3440, 2022 WL
363824 (D. Md. Feb. 4, 2022). The Court cannot supply a function-by-function analysis that the
ALJ did not perform and then review the analysis as though it was written by the ALJ.
during an eight-hour workday, nor does it state how much she can lift, carry, push, or pull. This
substantial evidence and compliance with the governing legal standards. And as noted above, this
limitations in these functional areas are entirely consistent with the RFC. But because the ALJ has
not explained what she has found Cleta S. to be capable of doing, the Court cannot adequately
review the decision.
Cleta S
because she does not point to evidence that would lead to a more restrictive RFC. ECF No. 15 at
Case 1:25-cv-00434-TJS Document 18 Filed 02/23/26 Page 3 of 4

4
1 	-by-
to conduct the required review. The Court cannot, as the Commissioner implies, simply assume
claimant proves otherwise.
-
by-function analysis always
deficient as to frustrate meaningful review. 	See Mascio v. Colvin, 780 F.3d 632, 636 (4th Cir.
Because the ALJ did not perform a function-by-function assessment, the Court cannot find that
the RFC determination is supported by substantial evidence. The case must be remanded for further
proceedings. The Court expresses no opinion on the ultimate issue of Cleta S
13 & 15) are 	DENIED. Pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g),
judgment is 	REVERSED IN PART 	due to inadequate analysis. The case is 	REMANDED 	for
further proceedings in accordance with this opinion. The Clerk is directed to 	CLOSE 	this case.
Sincerely yours,
/s/
Timothy J. Sullivan
Chief United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:25-cv-00434-TJS Document 18 Filed 02/23/26 Page 4 of 4