Other district courts interpret Earley to mean a claimant is entitled to review absent the presumption that the prior RFC remains correct for the subsequent claim. See, e.g., Hogren v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 2:19-cv-854, 2020 WL 830401, at *4 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 20, 2020), report and recommendation adopted, 2020 WL 1140058 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 9, 2020) (“Thus, notwithstanding the new and additional evidence before her, ALJ Southern did not simply treat ALJ Flebbe's decision as a ‘legitimate, albeit not binding consideration' as Earley directs, but rather explicitly concluded that ALJ Flebbe's previous evaluation of Plaintiff's medical records was binding.”);
, then a remand is warranted. Norris J., 2022 WL 4686972, at *4 (quoting Hogren v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 2:19-CV-854, 2020 WL 830401, at *4 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 20, 2020),
Id. at *19-20. Similarly, in Hogren v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 2:19-CV-854, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28937, at *10 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 20, 2020), the court remanded the case because the ALJ “explicitly concluded” the prior decision was binding. Other courts have found that an ALJ gave a fresh look despite referencing Drummond deference.
Other district courts interpret Earley to mean a claimant is entitled to review absent the presumption that the prior RFC remains the correct RFC for the subsequent claim. See, e.g., Hogren v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 2:19-cv-854, 2020 WL 830401, at *4 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 20, 2020), report and recommendation adopted, 2020 WL 1140058 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 9, 2020) (“Thus, notwithstanding the new and additional evidence before her, ALJ Southern did not simply treat ALJ Flebbe's decision as a ‘legitimate, albeit not binding consideration' as Earley directs, but rather explicitly concluded that ALJ Flebbe's previous evaluation of Plaintiff's medical records was binding.”); Ferrell v. Berryhill
. 1:20-0016, 2021 WL 4143938, at *5 (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 16, 2021), report and recommendation adopted, 2021 WL 4133963 (M.D. Tenn. Sept. 10, 2021) (citing Hogren v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 2:19-CV-854, 2020 WL 830401, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 20, 2020), report and recommendation adopted, 2020 WL 1140058 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 9, 2020)).
. 1:20-0016, 2021 WL 4143938, at *5 (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 16, 2021), report and recommendation adopted, 2021 WL 4133963 (M.D. Tenn. Sept. 10, 2021) (citing Hogren v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 2:19-CV-854, 2020 WL 830401, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 20, 2020), report and recommendation adopted, 2020 WL 1140058 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 9, 2020)).
(Docket No. 21 at 12-13), yet the very case Plaintiff cites in support of this claim posits that a reviewing court should look beyond any superficial reference to Drummond to determine whether the subject claimant in fact received a fair administrative hearing in adherence to the Earley opinion. See Hogren v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 2:19-CV-854, 2020 WL 830401, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 20, 2020), report and recommendation adopted, No. 2:19-CV-854, 2020 WL 1140058 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 9, 2020) (“The Court must ask whether [the ALJ], despite purporting to follow Drummond, gave the evidence a fresh look as required by Earley ... If so, then the ALJ's decision satisfie[s] Earley; if not, then remand [i]s appropriate.”) (citing Johnson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 2:17-CV-13126, 2018 WL 6440897, at *15 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 22, 2018)) (internal quotations omitted). A more scrupulous reading of the administrative opinion demonstrates that the ALJ did not thoughtlessly endorse ALJ Holsclaw's findings, but instead concluded after a thorough review of the evidence in question that additional functional limitations were not warranted.
The Court notes that a vast majority of claims on this issue assert that the second ALJ "incorrectly believed [they were] bound by the previous findings of [the first] ALJ," rather than Plaintiff's argument that the second ALJ improperly failed to adopt a limitation imposed by the first ALJ from a disability decision which ultimately found that Plaintiff was not disabled. See Hogren v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 2:19-CV-854, 2020 WL 830401, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 20, 2020), report and recommendation adopted by, 2020 WL 1140058 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 9, 2020). 2. RFC Determination
In fact, district courts in this Circuit have recognized that "Earley establishes [that] ALJs must give a 'fresh look' at new applications covering new periods." Neal v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 18-10709, 2019 WL 2208555, at *10 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 31, 2019) (citing Earley, 893 F.3d at 931-932); see also Hogren v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 2:19-cv-854, 2020 WL 830401, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 20, 2020). A time period is one that was not previously considered if the dates covered by each application are not exactly the same.