REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

JACQUELYN D. AUSTIN, Magistrate Judge.

This matter is before the Court for a Report and Recommendation pursuant to Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(a), D.S.C., and 28 U.S.C. § 636.1 Plaintiff brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to obtain judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("the Commissioner"), denying Plaintiff's claim for disability insurance benefits ("DIB"). For the reasons set forth below, it is recommended that the decision of the Commissioner be reversed and remanded for administrative action consistent with this recommendation, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).2

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In November 2013, Plaintiff filed an application for DIB, alleging an onset of disability date of August 26, 2010. [R. 170-176.] The claim was denied initially and on reconsideration by the Social Security Administration ("the Administration"). [R. 97-101, 108-113.] Plaintiff requested a hearing before an administrative law judge ("ALJ") and, on September 14, 2016, ALJ Paul Elkin conducted a de novo hearing on Plaintiff's claims. [R. 27-64.]

The ALJ issued a decision on November 14, 2016, finding Plaintiff not disabled under the Social Security Act (?the Act"). [R. 9-22.] At Step 1,3 the ALJ determined that Plaintiff met the insured status requirements of the Act through March 31, 2016, and had not engaged in substantial gainful activity during the period from his alleged onset date of August 26, 2010, through his date last insured of March 31, 2016. [R. 11, Findings 1 & 2.] At Step 2, the ALJ found Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine with neuritis and radiculopathy, status post multiple operations; borderline intellectual functioning; pain disorder with anxiety and depression; and obesity. [R. 11, Finding 3.] The ALJ also found Plaintiff experienced a number of "non-severe" impairments including bilateral hip pain; kidney stones with stenting; and left foot pain, status post-surgical intervention. [R. 12.] At Step 3, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled the severity of an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. [R. 12, Finding 4.]

Before addressing Step 4, Plaintiff's ability to perform her past relevant work, the ALJ determined Plaintiff had the following residual functional capacity (?RFC"):

[R. 15, Finding 5.] Based on this RFC, the ALJ determined at Step 4 that Plaintiff was unable to perform his past relevant work as a construction laborer, turkey farmer, and dishwasher. [R. 20, Finding 6.] Considering Plaintiff's age, education, work experience, RFC, and the testimony of the vocational expert ("VE"), however, the ALJ found that, through the date last insured, there were jobs that existed in significant numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff could perform. [R. 21, Finding 10.] Consequently, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff had not been under a disability, as defined by the Act, at any time from August 26, 2010, the alleged onset date, through March 31, 2016, the date last insured. [R. 22, Finding 11.]

Plaintiff requested Appeals Council review of the ALJ's decision and the Council declined review. [R. 1-5.] Plaintiff filed this action for judicial review on November 14, 2017. [Doc. 1.]

THE PARTIES' POSITIONS

Plaintiff contends the Commissioner's final decision should be reversed and the case be remanded for an award of benefits or, in the alternative, for additional administrative proceedings. [Doc. 19 at 2.] Plaintiff argues that the ALJ failed to explain his RFC findings in accordance with SSR 96-8p and, specifically, failed to account for Plaintiff's moderate difficulties in concentration, persistence, and pace in the RFC. [Id. at 18-24.] Plaintiff also argues that the ALJ failed to account for his inability to sit for prolonged periods of time [id. at 24-25]; and failed to properly weigh the medical opinions in the record or explain his consideration of Plaintiff's subjective reports of pain in accordance with SSR 16-3p [id. at 25-31].

The Commissioner, on the other hand, contends that the ALJ's decision is well reasoned, is supported by substantial evidence, and should be affirmed. [Doc. 21.] The Commissioner argues the ALJ's decision properly accounts for all for Plaintiff's credibly established limitations, including his limitations in concentration, persistence, and pace, and inability to sit for prolonged periods of time. [Id. at 15-20.] The Commissioner also contends the ALJ complied with agency regulations and policies in evaluating the opinion evidence in the record. [Id. at 20-23.]

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Commissioner's findings of fact are conclusive if supported by substantial evidence. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla—i.e., the evidence must do more than merely create a suspicion of the existence of a fact and must include such relevant evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support the conclusion. See Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971) (quoting Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)); Laws v. Celebrezze, 368 F.2d 640, 642 (4th Cir. 1966) (citing Woolridge v. Celebrezze, 214 F.Supp. 686, 687 (S.D.W. Va. 1963))("Substantial evidence, it has been held, is evidence which a reasoning mind would accept as sufficient to support a particular conclusion. It consists of more than a mere scintilla of evidence but may be somewhat less than a preponderance. If there is evidence to justify a refusal to direct a verdict were the case before a jury, then there is `substantial evidence.'").

Where conflicting evidence "allows reasonable minds to differ as to whether a claimant is disabled, the responsibility for that decision falls on the [Commissioner] (or the [Commissioner's] designate, the ALJ)," not on the reviewing court. Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 589 (4th Cir. 1996); see also Edwards v. Sullivan, 937 F.2d 580, 584 n.3 (11th Cir. 1991) (stating that where the Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial evidence, the court will affirm, even if the reviewer would have reached a contrary result as finder of fact and even if the reviewer finds that the evidence preponderates against the Commissioner's decision). Thus, it is not within the province of a reviewing court to determine the weight of the evidence, nor is it the court's function to substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner so long as the decision is supported by substantial evidence. See Bird v. Comm'r, 699 F.3d 337, 340 (4th Cir. 2012); Laws, 368 F.2d at 642; Snyder v. Ribicoff, 307 F.2d 518, 520 (4th Cir. 1962).

The reviewing court will reverse the Commissioner's decision on plenary review, however, if the decision applies incorrect law or fails to provide the court with sufficient reasoning to determine that the Commissioner properly applied the law. Myers v. Califano, 611 F.2d 980, 982 (4th Cir. 1980); see also Keeton v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 21 F.3d 1064, 1066 (11th Cir. 1994). Where the Commissioner's decision "is in clear disregard of the overwhelming weight of the evidence, Congress has empowered the courts to modify or reverse the [Commissioner's] decision `with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing.'" Vitek v. Finch, 438 F.2d 1157, 1158 (4th Cir. 1971) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)). Remand is unnecessary where "the record does not contain substantial evidence to support a decision denying coverage under the correct legal standard and when reopening the record for more evidence would serve no purpose." Breeden v. Weinberger, 493 F.2d 1002, 1012 (4th Cir. 1974).

The court may remand a case to the Commissioner for a rehearing under sentence four or sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Sargent v. Sullivan, 941 F.2d 1207 (4th Cir. 1991) (unpublished table decision). To remand under sentence four, the reviewing court must find either that the Commissioner's decision is not supported by substantial evidence or that the Commissioner incorrectly applied the law relevant to the disability claim. See, e.g., Jackson v. Chater, 99 F.3d 1086, 1090-91 (11th Cir. 1996) (holding remand was appropriate where the ALJ failed to develop a full and fair record of the claimant's residual functional capacity); Brenem v. Harris, 621 F.2d 688, 690-91 (5th Cir. 1980) (holding remand was appropriate where record was insufficient to affirm but was also insufficient for court to find the claimant disabled). Where the court cannot discern the basis for the Commissioner's decision, a remand under sentence four is usually the proper course to allow the Commissioner to explain the basis for the decision or for additional investigation. See Radford v. Comm'r, 734 F.3d 288, 295 (4th Cir. 2013) (quoting Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729, 744 (1985); see also Smith v. Heckler, 782 F.2d 1176, 1181-82 (4th Cir. 1986) (remanding case where decision of ALJ contained "a gap in its reasoning" because ALJ did not say he was discounting testimony or why); Gordon v. Schweiker, 725 F.2d 231, 235 (4th Cir. 1984) (remanding case where neither the ALJ nor the Appeals Council indicated the weight given to relevant evidence). On remand under sentence four, the ALJ should review the case on a complete record, including any new material evidence. See Smith, 782 F.2d at 1182 ("The [Commissioner] and the claimant may produce further evidence on remand."). After a remand under sentence four, the court enters a final and immediately appealable judgment and then loses jurisdiction. Sargent, 941 F.2d 1207 (citing Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 102 (1991)).

In contrast, sentence six provides:

42 U.S.C. § 405(g). A reviewing court may remand a case to the Commissioner on the basis of new evidence only if four prerequisites are met: (1) the evidence is relevant to the determination of disability at the time the application was first filed; (2) the evidence is material to the extent that the Commissioner's decision might reasonably have been different had the new evidence been before him; (3) there is good cause for the claimant's failure to submit the evidence when the claim was before the Commissioner; and (4) the claimant made at least a general showing of the nature of the new evidence to the reviewing court. Borders v. Heckler, 777 F.2d 954, 955 (4th Cir. 1985) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Mitchell v. Schweiker, 699 F.2d 185, 188 (4th Cir. 1983); Sims v. Harris, 631 F.2d 26, 28 (4th Cir. 1980); King v. Califano, 599 F.2d 597, 599 (4th Cir. 1979)), superseded by amendment to statute, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), as recognized in Wilkins v. Sec'y, Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 925 F.2d 769, 774 (4th Cir. 1991).4 With remand under sentence six, the parties must return to the court after remand to file modified findings of fact. Melkonyan, 501 U.S. at 98. The reviewing court retains jurisdiction pending remand and does not enter a final judgment until after the completion of remand proceedings. See Allen v. Chater, 67 F.3d 293 (4th Cir. 1995) (unpublished table decision) (holding that an order remanding a claim for Social Security benefits pursuant to sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) is not a final order).

APPLICABLE LAW

The Act provides that disability benefits shall be available to those persons insured for benefits, who are not of retirement age, who properly apply, and who are under a disability. 42 U.S.C. § 423(a). "Disability" is defined as:

Id. § 423(d)(1)(A).

I. The Five Step Evaluation

To facilitate uniform and efficient processing of disability claims, federal regulations have reduced the statutory definition of disability to a series of five sequential questions. See, e.g., Heckler v. Campbell, 461 U.S. 458, 461 n.2 (1983) (noting a "need for efficiency" in considering disability claims). The ALJ must consider whether (1) the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) the claimant has a severe impairment; (3) the impairment meets or equals an impairment included in the Administration's Official Listings of Impairments found at 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1; (4) the impairment prevents the claimant from performing past relevant work; and (5) the impairment prevents the claimant from having substantial gainful employment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. Through the fourth step, the burden of production and proof is on the claimant. Grant v. Schweiker, 699 F.2d 189, 191 (4th Cir. 1983). The claimant must prove disability on or before the last day of her insured status to receive disability benefits. Everett v. Sec'y of Health, Educ. & Welfare, 412 F.2d 842, 843 (4th Cir. 1969). If the inquiry reaches step five, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to produce evidence that other jobs exist in the national economy that the claimant can perform, considering the claimant's age, education, and work experience. Grant, 699 F.2d at 191. If at any step of the evaluation the ALJ can find an individual is disabled or not disabled, further inquiry is unnecessary. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a); Hall v. Harris, 658 F.2d 260, 264 (4th Cir. 1981).

A. Substantial Gainful Activity

"Substantial gainful activity" must be both substantial—involves doing significant physical or mental activities, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1572(a)—and gainful—done for pay or profit, whether or not a profit is realized, id. § 404.1572(b). If an individual has earnings from employment or self-employment above a specific level set out in the regulations, he is generally presumed to be able to engage in substantial gainful activity. Id. §§ 404.1574-.1575.

B. Severe Impairment

An impairment is "severe" if it significantly limits an individual's ability to perform basic work activities. See id. § 404.1521. When determining whether a claimant's physical and mental impairments are sufficiently severe, the ALJ must consider the combined effect of all of the claimant's impairments. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(B). The ALJ must evaluate a disability claimant as a whole person and not in the abstract, having several hypothetical and isolated illnesses. Walker v. Bowen, 889 F.2d 47, 49-50 (4th Cir. 1989) (stating that, when evaluating the effect of a number of impairments on a disability claimant, "the [Commissioner] must consider the combined effect of a claimant's impairments and not fragmentize them"). Accordingly, the ALJ must make specific and well-articulated findings as to the effect of a combination of impairments when determining whether an individual is disabled. Id. at 50 ("As a corollary to this rule, the ALJ must adequately explain his or her evaluation of the combined effects of the impairments."). If the ALJ finds a combination of impairments to be severe, "the combined impact of the impairments shall be considered throughout the disability determination process." 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(B).

C. Meets or Equals an Impairment Listed in the Listings of Impairments

If a claimant's impairment or combination of impairments meets or medically equals the criteria of a listing found at 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App.1 and meets the duration requirement found at 20 C.F.R. § 404.1509, the ALJ will find the claimant disabled without considering the claimant's age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d).

D. Past Relevant Work

The assessment of a claimant's ability to perform past relevant work "reflect[s] the statute's focus on the functional capacity retained by the claimant." Pass v. Chater, 65 F.3d 1200, 1204 (4th Cir. 1995). At this step of the evaluation, the ALJ compares the claimant's residual functional capacity5 with the physical and mental demands of the kind of work he has done in the past to determine whether the claimant has the residual functional capacity to do his past work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1560(b).

E. Other Work

As previously stated, once the ALJ finds that a claimant cannot return to her prior work, the burden of proof shifts to the Commissioner to establish that the claimant could perform other work that exists in the national economy. See Hunter v. Sullivan, 993 F.2d 31, 35 (4th Cir. 1992); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f)-(g). To meet this burden, the Commissioner may sometimes rely exclusively on the Medical-Vocational Guidelines (the "grids"). Exclusive reliance on the "grids" is appropriate where the claimant suffers primarily from an exertional impairment, without significant nonexertional factors.6 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 2, § 200.00(e); see also Gory v. Schweiker, 712 F.2d 929, 930-31 (4th Cir. 1983) (stating that exclusive reliance on the grids is appropriate in cases involving exertional limitations). When a claimant suffers from both exertional and nonexertional limitations, the grids may serve only as guidelines. Gory, 712 F.2d at 931. In such a case, the Commissioner must use a vocational expert to establish the claimant's ability to perform other work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1569a; see Walker, 889 F.2d at 49-50 ("Because we have found that the grids cannot be relied upon to show conclusively that claimant is not disabled, when the case is remanded it will be incumbent upon the [Commissioner] to prove by expert vocational testimony that despite the combination of exertional and nonexertional impairments, the claimant retains the ability to perform specific jobs which exist in the national economy."). The purpose of using a vocational expert is "to assist the ALJ in determining whether there is work available in the national economy which this particular claimant can perform." Walker, 889 F.2d at 50. For the vocational expert's testimony to be relevant, "it must be based upon a consideration of all other evidence in the record, . .. and it must be in response to proper hypothetical questions which fairly set out all of claimant's impairments." Id. (citations omitted).

II. Developing the Record

The ALJ has a duty to fully and fairly develop the record. See Cook v. Heckler, 783 F.2d 1168, 1173 (4th Cir. 1986). The ALJ is required to inquire fully into each relevant issue. Snyder, 307 F.2d at 520. The performance of this duty is particularly important when a claimant appears without counsel. Marsh v. Harris, 632 F.2d 296, 299 (4th Cir. 1980). In such circumstances, "the ALJ should scrupulously and conscientiously probe into, inquire of, and explore for all the relevant facts, . . . being especially diligent in ensuring that favorable as well as unfavorable facts and circumstances are elicited." Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted).

III. Treating Physicians

If a treating physician's opinion on the nature and severity of a claimant's impairments is "well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence" in the record, the ALJ must give it controlling weight. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see Mastro v. Apfel, 270 F.3d 171, 178 (4th Cir. 2001). The ALJ may discount a treating physician's opinion if it is unsupported or inconsistent with other evidence, i.e., when the treating physician's opinion does not warrant controlling weight, Craig, 76 F.3d at 590, but the ALJ must nevertheless assign a weight to the medical opinion based on the 1) length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; 2) nature and extent of the treatment relationship; 3) supportability of the opinion; 4) consistency of the opinion with the record a whole; 5) specialization of the physician; and 6) other factors which tend to support or contradict the opinion, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Similarly, where a treating physician has merely made conclusory statements, the ALJ may afford the opinion such weight as is supported by clinical or laboratory findings and other consistent evidence of a claimant's impairments. See Craig, 76 F.3d at 590 (holding there was sufficient evidence for the ALJ to reject the treating physician's conclusory opinion where the record contained contradictory evidence).

In any instance, a treating physician's opinion is generally entitled to more weight than a consulting physician's opinion. See Mitchell v. Schweiker, 699 F.2d 185, 187 (4th Cir. 1983) (stating that treating physician's opinion must be accorded great weight because "it reflects an expert judgment based on a continuing observation of the patient's condition for a prolonged period of time"); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). An ALJ determination coming down on the side of a non-examining, non-treating physician's opinion can stand only if the medical testimony of examining and treating physicians goes both ways. Smith v. Schweiker, 795 F.2d 343, 346 (4th Cir. 1986). Further, the ALJ is required to review all of the medical findings and other evidence that support a medical source's statement that a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). However, the ALJ is responsible for making the ultimate determination about whether a claimant meets the statutory definition of disability. Id.

IV. Medical Tests and Examinations

The ALJ is required to order additional medical tests and exams only when a claimant's medical sources do not give sufficient medical evidence about an impairment to determine whether the claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1517; see also Conley v. Bowen, 781 F.2d 143, 146 (8th Cir. 1986). The regulations are clear: a consultative examination is not required when there is sufficient medical evidence to make a determination on a claimant's disability. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1517. Under the regulations, however, the ALJ may determine that a consultative examination or other medical tests are necessary. Id.

V. Pain

Congress has determined that a claimant will not be considered disabled unless he furnishes medical and other evidence (e.g., medical signs and laboratory findings) showing the existence of a medical impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or symptoms alleged. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(5)(A). Social Security Ruling ("SSR") 16-3p provides, "[i]n considering the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of an individual's symptoms, we examine the entire case record, including the objective medical evidence; an individual's statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms; statements and other information provided by medical sources and other persons; and any other relevant evidence in the individual's case record." Social Security Ruling 16-3p Titles II and XVI: Evaluation of Symptoms In Disability Claims, 82 Fed. Reg. 49,462, 49,464 (Oct. 25, 2017); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1)-(c)(2) (outlining evaluation of pain).

In evaluating claims of disabling pain, the ALJ must proceed in a two-part analysis. Morgan v. Barnhart, 142 F. App'x 716, 723 (4th Cir. 2005) (unpublished opinion); see also SSR 16-3p, 82 Fed. Reg. at 49,463. First, "the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has produced medical evidence of a `medically determinable impairment which could reasonably be expected to produce" the alleged symptoms. Id. (quoting Craig, 76 F.3d at 594); see SSR 16-3p, 82 Fed. Reg. at 49,463. Second, the ALJ must evaluate "the intensity and persistence of an individual's symptoms such as pain and determine the extent to which an individual's symptoms limit his or her ability to perform work-related activities . . . or to function independently." SSR 16-3p, 82 Fed. Reg. at 49,464; see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1528 (noting that the ALJ must consider all of a claimant's statements about his symptoms, including pain, and determine the extent to which the symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence).

APPLICATION AND ANALYSIS

The ALJ's Consideration of Plaintiff's Moderate Difficulties

In Mascio v. Colvin, the Fourth Circuit found that "the ability to perform simple tasks differs from the ability to stay on task" and that "only the latter limitation would account for a claimant's limitation in concentration, persistence, or pace." 780 F.3d 632, 638 (4th Cir. 2015).7 The Mascio Court found it reversible error that the ALJ did not explain her consideration of Plaintiff's limitations in concentration in the RFC or present the limitation to the VE in a hypothetical, opining that

Mascio, 780 F.3d at 638 (internal citation omitted). Following Mascio, several cases in this district and in other districts within the Fourth Circuit have found a limitation to simple, unskilled work is insufficient to address moderate limitations in concentration, persistence, and pace absent further explanation. See, e.g., Herren v. Colvin, No. 1:15-cv-00002-MOC, 2015 WL 5725903, at *6 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 30, 2015) (finding a hypothetical containing a restriction to "simple, routine, repetitive tasks" failed to address the claimant's ability to stay on task); Desilets v. Colvin, No. 2:14-cv-1693-RBH, 2015 WL 5691514, at *4-5 (D.S.C. Sept. 28, 2015) (finding a limitation in the RFC to "simple, repetitive tasks that are low stress and require no major decision-making or changes in the work setting in crediting some of her complaints of increased mental symptoms with stress" did not "sufficiently address the claimant's limitations in concentration, persistence, or pace as they relate to the RFC"); Jones v. Colvin, No. 4:14-cv-200-RN, 2015 WL 4773542, at *6 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 13, 2015) ("[T]he hypothetical question to the VE contemplated an individual `limited to simple, routine, repetitive tasks; should work in a low production occupation, one which would require no complex decision making, constant change or dealing with crisis situations.' The majority of courts in North Carolina, including this court, have held that such restrictions do not adequately address a claimant's moderate limitations in concentration, persistence and pace."); Bailey v. Colvin, No. 5:14-cv-248-DCN, 2015 WL 2449044, at *13 (D.S.C. May 21, 2015) (finding a limitation in the RFC to "only simple, routine, repetitive tasks; he must work in a static work environment (which I define as an environment with few work place changes)" did not account for the claimant's "limitations in concentration, persistence, or pace as to his ability to stay on task") (emphasis in original); Scruggs v. Colvin, No. 3:14-cv-00466-MOC, 2015 WL 2250890, at *5 (W.D.N.C. May 13, 2015) (finding that an ability to perform simple, routine, repetitive tasks in a nonproduction environment, without more, does not account for claimant's moderate difficulties in concentration, persistence, and pace); but see Falls v. Colvin, 8:14-cv-00195-RBH, 2015 WL 5797751, at *7 (D.S.C. Sept. 29, 2015) (finding remand was not required because the ALJ adequately addressed claimant's ability to stay on task by including the limitation "she could concentrate, persist, and work at pace to do simple, routine, repetitive tasks at one and two step instructions for extended periods, say two hour periods in an eight hour day").

Here, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff had moderate difficulties in concentration, persistence, or pace. [R. 14.] However, the ALJ failed to explain how a limitation to ?only simple, routine, repetitive tasks and simple work-related decisions" for periods of two hours, addresses Plaintiff's moderate difficulties in concentration, persistence, and pace. As the Fourth Circuit in Mascio made clear, remand is warranted when an ALJ ?g[ives] no explanation" for why the ?moderate limitation in concentration, persistence, or pace at step three does not translate to a limitation in [the claimant's RFC]." 780 F.3d at 638.

In a first hypothetical to the VE, the ALJ presented a hypothetical person limited to light work with the following additional limitations:

[R. 58.] Additionally, the ALJ limited this hypothetical person to simple, routine and repetitive tasks, and simple work-related decisions with the ability to: maintain concentration, persistence and pace for periods of two hours, perform activities within a schedule, maintain regular attendance, and complete a normal workday and workweek, except occasionally be absent approximately one day per month; no more than occasional interactions with the general public, and no more than occasional changes in a routine work setting. [R. 58.] Based on this hypothetical, the VE determined that light, unskilled work would be available. [R. 59.] In a second hypothetical, the ALJ limited Plaintiff to sedentary work with the following limitations:

[R. 59-60.] The VE testified that there are sedentary, unskilled jobs that would allow for these limitations. [R. 60.] In a third hypothetical, the ALJ added that the individual would be off task 20% of a work day in addition to normal breaks. [R. 61.] The addition of this limitation precluded work. [Id.] In a fourth hypothetical, the ALJ added that the hypothetical person would miss work two days per month on a recurring basis. [R. 61-62.] The VE testified that missing two days per month would be excessive in terms of normal allowable absenteeism and would not be consistent with gainful employment. [R. 62.]

Upon consideration of the ALJ's decision in light of the evidence of record, the Court notes that the ALJ's failure to include in the RFC Plaintiff's moderate limitations in concentration, persistence, and pace dictates a finding that the RFC is not supported by substantial evidence, particularly in light of the Plaintiff's testimony that he has bad days a little more than half of the month where he leaves his spinal cord stimulator on almost all day to relieve pain [R. 54-55], and the VE's testimony that work would be precluded if the hypothetical individual missed two days of work per month or would be off task for more than 20% of the workday.8 The ALJ failed to address how many days per week Plaintiff might miss work or how much of the day he may be off task. Where an ALJ does not offer an explanation, the district court should not attempt to supply one. See Radford v. Colvin, 734 F.3d 288, 296 (4th Cir. 2013). This legal principle is certainly applicable in cases, such as this one, that fit the circumstances faced by the Fourth Circuit in Mascio, which held that "remand is in order" precisely "because the ALJ . . . gave no explanation." 780 F.3d at 638. Accordingly, the Court cannot find the ALJ's RFC determination is supported by substantial evidence.

Remaining Allegations of Error

Because the Court finds the ALJ's failure to properly explain his consideration of Plaintiff's moderate limitations in concentration, persistence, or pace in formulating the RFC and posing questions to the VE is a sufficient basis to remand this matter for further consideration, the Court declines to address Plaintiff's remaining allegations of error. See Hancock v. Barnhart, 206 F.Supp.2d 757, 763 n.3 (W.D. Va. 2002) (on remand, the ALJ's prior decision has no preclusive effect, as it is vacated and the new hearing is conducted de novo). On remand the ALJ should consider Plaintiff's remaining allegations of error.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Wherefore, based upon the foregoing, the Court recommends that the Commissioner's decision be REVERSED pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and the case be REMANDED to the Commissioner for further administrative action consistent with this Report and Recommendation.

Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation

The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. "[I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must `only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.'" Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note).

Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:

Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).