Case Name in Social Security Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 3:24-cv-01040-MR
SHEENA BELL, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) MEMORANDUM OF
) DECISION AND ORDER
FRANK J. BISIGNANO, )
Commissioner of Social Security, )
)
Defendant. )
_______________________________ )
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s appeal of the
Commissioner’s decision denying her benefits. The parties have fully briefed
the issues. [Docs. 6, 8, 9].
I. BACKGROUND
On August 29, 2022, Sheena Bell (the “Plaintiff”) applied for disability
and disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act (the
“Act”), alleging an onset date of September 1, 2021. [Transcript (“T.”) at
519]. The Plaintiff’s request was initially denied on March 1, 2023, and upon
reconsideration on September 12, 2023. [Id.]. At the Plaintiff’s request, a
hearing was held on April 10, 2024 before an Administrative Law Judge
(“ALJ”). [Id.]. On May 22, 2024, the ALJ issued a written decision denying
Case 3:24-cv-01040-MR Document 10 Filed 01/13/26 Page 1 of 13

2
the Plaintiff benefits, finding that the Plaintiff was not disabled within the
meaning of the Act since the alleged onset date of September 1, 2021. [Id.
at 527]. On September 26, 2024, the Appeals Council denied the Plaintiff’s
request for review. [Id. at 1-3]. The Plaintiff then filed a Complaint in this
Court. [Doc. 1].
The Plaintiff has exhausted all available administrative remedies, and
this case is now ripe for review pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court’s review of a final decision of the Commissioner is limited to
(1) whether substantial evidence supports the Commissioner’s decision,
Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971); and (2) whether the
Commissioner applied the correct legal standards, Hays v. Sullivan, 907
F.2d 1453, 1456 (4th Cir. 1990). “When examining [a Social Security
Administration] disability determination, a reviewing court is required to
uphold the determination when an ALJ has applied correct legal standards
and the ALJ’s factual findings are supported by substantial evidence.” Bird
v. Comm’r, 699 F.3d 337, 340 (4th Cir. 2012). “Substantial evidence is such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support
a conclusion.” Johnson v. Barnhart, 434 F.3d 650, 653 (4th Cir. 2005)
(citation modified). “It consists of more than a mere scintilla of evidence but
Case 3:24-cv-01040-MR Document 10 Filed 01/13/26 Page 2 of 13

3
may be less than a preponderance.” Hancock v. Astrue, 667 F.3d 470, 472
(4th Cir. 2012) (citation modified).
“In reviewing for substantial evidence, [the Court should] not undertake
to reweigh conflicting evidence, make credibility determinations, or substitute
[its] judgment for that of the ALJ.” Johnson, 434 F.3d at 653 (citation
modified). Rather, “where conflicting evidence allows reasonable minds to
differ,” the Court defers to the ALJ’s decision. Id. (citation modified). To
enable judicial review for substantial evidence, the “record should include a
discussion of which evidence the ALJ found credible and why, and specific
application of the pertinent legal requirements to the record evidence.”
Radford v. Colvin, 734 F.3d 288, 295 (4th Cir. 2013). It is the duty of the ALJ
to “build an accurate and logical bridge from the evidence to his conclusion.”
Monroe v. Colvin, 826 F.3d 176, 189 (4th Cir. 2016) (citation modified).
“Without this explanation, the reviewing court cannot properly evaluate
whether the ALJ applied the correct legal standard or whether substantial
evidence supports his decisions, and the only recourse is to remand the
matter for additional investigation and explanation.” Mills v. Berryhill, No.
1:16-cv-25-MR, 2017 WL 957542, at *4 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 10, 2017) (citing
Radford, 734 F.3d at 295).
Case 3:24-cv-01040-MR Document 10 Filed 01/13/26 Page 3 of 13

4
III. THE SEQUENTIAL EVALUATION PROCESS
A “disability” entitling a claimant to benefits under the Act, as relevant
here, is the “inability to engage in any 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 continuous period of not less than 12 months.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A).
The Social Security Administration Regulations set out a detailed five-step
process for reviewing applications for disability. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520,
416.920; Mascio v. Colvin, 780 F.3d 632, 634 (4th Cir. 2015). “If an
applicant’s claim fails at any step of the process, the ALJ need not advance
to the subsequent steps.” Pass v. Chater, 65 F.3d 1200, 1203 (4th Cir.
1995). The burden is on the claimant to make the requisite showing at the
first four steps. Id.
At step one, the ALJ determines whether the claimant is engaged in
substantial gainful activity. If so, the claimant’s application is denied
regardless of the medical condition, age, education, or work experience of
the claimant. Id. (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 416.920). If not, the case progresses
to step two, when the claimant must show a severe impairment. If the
claimant does not show any physical or mental deficiencies, or a combination
thereof, which significantly limit the claimant’s ability to perform work
Case 3:24-cv-01040-MR Document 10 Filed 01/13/26 Page 4 of 13

5
activities, then no severe impairment is established and the claimant is not
disabled. Id.
At step three, the ALJ must determine whether one or more of the
claimant’s impairments meets or equals one of the listed impairments
(“Listings”) found at 20 C.F.R. § 404, Appendix 1 to Subpart P. If so, the
claimant is automatically deemed disabled regardless of age, education or
work experience. Id. If not, before proceeding to step four, the ALJ must
assess the claimant’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”). The RFC is an
administrative assessment of “the most” a claimant can still do on a “regular
and continuing basis” notwithstanding the claimant’s medically determinable
impairments and the extent to which those impairments affect the claimant’s
ability to perform work-related functions. Social Security Ruling (“SSR”)
96-8p; 20 C.F.R. § 416.945.
At step four, the claimant must show that her limitations prevent her
from performing her past work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920; Mascio,
780 F.3d at 634. If the claimant can still perform her past work, then she is
not disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. Otherwise, the case
progresses to the fifth step and the burden shifts to the Commissioner. At
step five, the Commissioner must establish that, given the claimant’s age,
education, work experience, and RFC, the claimant can perform alternative
Case 3:24-cv-01040-MR Document 10 Filed 01/13/26 Page 5 of 13

6
work which exists in substantial numbers in the national economy. 20 C.F.R.
§§ 404.1520, 416.920; Hines v. Barnhart, 453 F.3d 559, 563 (4th Cir. 2006).
“The Commissioner typically offers this evidence through the testimony of a
vocational expert responding to a hypothetical that incorporates the
claimant’s limitations.” Mascio, 780 F.3d at 635. If the Commissioner
succeeds in shouldering his burden at step five, the claimant is not disabled
and the application for benefits must be denied. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520,
416.920. Otherwise, the claimant is entitled to benefits.
IV. THE ALJ’S DECISION
At step one, the ALJ found that the Plaintiff had not engaged in
substantial gainful activity since her alleged onset date of September 1,
2021. [T. at 521]. At step two, the ALJ found that the Plaintiff had the
following severe impairments: benign neoplasm of the pituitary gland and
lumbar dysfunction. [Id.]. At step three, the ALJ determined that the Plaintiff
did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or
medically equals the Listings. [Id. at 524]. The ALJ then determined that the
Plaintiff’s RFC, notwithstanding her impairments, allowed her to
perform sedentary work as defined in 20 CFR
404.1567(a) except she can never climb ladders,
ropes, or scaffolds; can occasionally climb ramps or
stairs; can occasionally crouch, crawl, balance, and
stoop; must avoid concentrated exposure to loud
noise levels; is able to work with levels of illumination
Case 3:24-cv-01040-MR Document 10 Filed 01/13/26 Page 6 of 13

7
similar to that found in a typical office setting (but may
not work in direct sunlight); and must avoid all
exposure to hazardous machinery and unprotected
heights.
[Id.].
At step four, the ALJ found that the Plaintiff was able to perform past
relevant work as a Customer Service Clerk. [Id. at 527]. The ALJ therefore
concluded that the Plaintiff was not “disabled” as defined by the Act from the
alleged onset date, September 1, 2021, through the date of the decision,
May 22, 2024. [Id.].
V. DISCUSSION1
In this appeal, one of the Plaintiff’s contentions is that the ALJ failed to
properly discuss and evaluate the evidence related to the Plaintiff’s mental
limitations, and that the ALJ failed to explain how he accounted for the mental
limitations in the Plaintiff’s RFC. [See Doc. 6 at 13]. This incomplete
analysis, the Plaintiff contends, led to an incomplete and inaccurate
assessment of her abilities and resulted in an unsubstantiated RFC. [Id.].
Social Security Ruling 96-8p explains how adjudicators should assess
residual functional capacity. The Ruling instructs that the RFC “assessment
must first identify the individual’s functional limitations or restrictions and
1 Rather than set forth the relevant facts in a separate section, the Court has incorporated
the relevant facts into its legal analysis.
Case 3:24-cv-01040-MR Document 10 Filed 01/13/26 Page 7 of 13

8
assess his or her work-related abilities on a function-by-function basis,
including the functions” listed in the regulations.2 SSR 96-8p; see also
Mascio, 780 F.3d at 636-37 (finding that remand may be appropriate when
an ALJ fails to assess a claimant’s capacity to perform relevant functions,
despite contradictory evidence in the record).
When a plaintiff’s claim is based in whole or in part on mental health
impairments, the Social Security Rules and Regulations require an in-depth
review and analysis of the plaintiff’s mental health history. The mechanism
for this type of review and documentation, known as the “special technique,”
assists ALJs in assessing a claimant’s mental RFC. 20 C.F.R. §§
404.1520a, 416.920a.
The special technique “requires adjudicators to assess an individual’s
limitations and restrictions from a mental impairment(s) in categories
identified in the ‘paragraph B’ and ‘paragraph C’ criteria of the adult mental
disorders listings.” SSR 96-8p. Paragraph B of the listings provides the
functional criteria assessed, in conjunction with a rating scale, to evaluate
2 The functions listed in the regulations include the claimant’s (1) physical abilities, “such
as sitting, standing, walking, lifting, carrying, pushing, pulling, or other physical functions
(including manipulative or postural functions, such as reaching, handling, stooping or
crouching)”; (2) mental abilities, “such as limitations in understanding, remembering, and
carrying out instructions, and in responding appropriately to supervision, coworkers, and
work pressures in a work setting”; and (3) other work-related abilities affected by
“impairment(s) of vision, hearing or other senses, and impairment(s) which impose
environmental restrictions.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.945(b)-(d).
Case 3:24-cv-01040-MR Document 10 Filed 01/13/26 Page 8 of 13

9
how a claimant’s mental disorder limits her functioning. These criteria
represent the areas of mental functioning a person uses in the performance
of gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, § 12.00A. The criteria
are: “Understand, remember, or apply information; interact with others;
concentrate, persist, or maintain pace; and adapt or manage oneself.” Id.
The ALJ uses the special technique to “evaluate the severity of mental
impairments . . . when Part A of the Listing of Impairments is used.” 20
C.F.R. § 404.1520a(a).
Under the special technique, we must first evaluate
your pertinent symptoms, signs, and laboratory
findings to determine whether you have a medically
determinable mental impairment(s). . . . If we
determine that you have a medically determinable
mental impairment(s), we must specify the
symptoms, signs, and laboratory findings that
substantiate the presence of the impairment(s) and
document our findings.
20 C.F.R. § 404.1520a(b)(1). For mental health issues, the determination of
mental RFC is crucial to the evaluation of a claimant’s substantial gainful
activity when the impairment does not match the criteria of the Listings. The
RFC assessment is formulated in light of a claimant’s physical and mental
impairments. Rule 96-8p provides:
The adjudicator must remember that the limitations
identified in the “paragraph B” and “paragraph C”
criteria are not an RFC assessment but are used to
rate the severity of mental impairment(s) at steps 2
Case 3:24-cv-01040-MR Document 10 Filed 01/13/26 Page 9 of 13

10
and 3 of the sequential evaluation process. The
mental RFC assessment used at steps 4 and 5 of the
sequential evaluation process requires a more
detailed assessment by itemizing various functions
contained in the broad categories found in
paragraphs B and C of the adult mental disorders
listings in 12.00 of the Listing of Impairments, and
summarized on the [Psychiatric Review Technique
Form].
SSR 96-8p. Rule 96-8p further explains as follows:
The RFC assessment must include a narrative
discussion describing how the evidence supports
each conclusion, citing specific medical facts (e.g.,
laboratory findings) and nonmedical evidence (e.g.,
daily activities, observations). In assessing RFC, the
adjudicator must discuss the individual’s ability to
perform sustained work activities in an ordinary work
setting on a regular and continuing basis (i.e., 8
hours a day, for 5 days a week, or an equivalent work
schedule), and describe the maximum amount of
each work-related activity the individual can perform
based on the evidence available in the case record.
Id. “Only after that may RFC be expressed in terms of the exertional levels
of work, sedentary, light, medium, heavy, and very heavy.” Id.
In this case, the ALJ found at step two that the Plaintiff suffers from
mild limitation in understanding, remembering, or applying information; mild
limitation in interacting with others; mild limitation in concentration,
persistence, or pace; and no limitation in adapting or managing oneself. [Id.
at 523]. These findings indicate that there are limitations on the Plaintiff’s
ability to carry out the areas of mental functioning listed in paragraph B. The
Case 3:24-cv-01040-MR Document 10 Filed 01/13/26 Page 10 of 13

11
ALJ then made clear that these identified limitations “are not a residual
functional capacity assessment but are used to rate the severity of mental
impairments at steps 2 and 3 of the sequential evaluation process. The
mental residual functional capacity assessment used at steps 4 and 5 of the
sequential evaluation process requires a more detailed assessment.” [Id. at
523-24 (emphasis added)].
But when formulating the RFC, instead of engaging in “a more detailed
assessment,” the ALJ failed to explain how the RFC accounted for the
Plaintiff’s mental limitations. While acknowledging that two psychiatrists had
opined that the Plaintiff had “mild mental limitations,” the ALJ went on to
conclude that the Plaintiff possessed “normal cognition, insight, and
judgment,” as well as “normal attention and thought content and
[cooperation].” [Id. at 526]. Other than a conclusory reference to the “overall
record” [id.], the ALJ failed to point to any specific evidence for this
conclusion. A “proper RFC analysis has three components: (1) evidence, (2)
logical explanation, and (3) conclusion.” Thomas v. Berryhill, 916 F.3d 307,
311 (4th Cir. 2019). Because the ALJ did not logically explain why the
Plaintiff’s mild limitations in mental functioning did not require any RFC
restrictions, this case must be remanded.
Case 3:24-cv-01040-MR Document 10 Filed 01/13/26 Page 11 of 13

12
A reviewing court cannot be “left to guess about how the ALJ arrived
at his conclusions on [a plaintiff’s] ability to perform relevant functions and
indeed, remain uncertain as to what the ALJ intended.” Mascio, 780 F.3d at
637. It is the duty of the ALJ to “build an accurate and logical bridge from
the evidence to his conclusion.” Monroe, 826 F.3d at 189 (citation modified).
Because the ALJ neglected this duty here, this case must be remanded.
VI. CONCLUSION
Because this Court lacks an adequate record of the basis for the ALJ’s
decision, it cannot conduct a meaningful review of that ruling. See Radford,
734 F.3d at 295. Upon remand, the ALJ must perform a function-by-function
analysis of the Plaintiff’s mental limitations and work abilities, and thereafter
“build an accurate and logical bridge from the evidence to his conclusion.”
Monroe, 826 F.3d at 189. The ALJ’s analysis should include a narrative
assessment describing how the evidence supports each conclusion, as
required by SSR 96-8p, accounting for the Plaintiff’s limitations in
understanding, remembering, or applying information; interacting with
others; concentration, persistence or pace; and adapting or managing
oneself, if any, including an assessment of whether the Plaintiff can perform
work-related tasks for a full work day. See Scruggs v. Colvin, No. 3:14-cv-
00466-MOC, 2015 WL 2250890, at *5 (W.D.N.C. May 13, 2015) (applying
Case 3:24-cv-01040-MR Document 10 Filed 01/13/26 Page 12 of 13

13
Mascio to find an ALJ must not only provide an explanation of how a plaintiff’s
mental limitations affect his ability to perform work-related functions, but also
his ability to perform them for a full workday).
In light of this decision, the Plaintiff’s other assignments of error need
not be addressed at this time but may be addressed by her on remand.
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that, pursuant to the power of this
Court to enter judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the
Commissioner under Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the decision of
the Commissioner is REVERSED, and the case is hereby REMANDED for
further administrative proceedings consistent with this opinion.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed: January 13, 2026
Case 3:24-cv-01040-MR Document 10 Filed 01/13/26 Page 13 of 13