The Court finds, however, that the ALJ failed to make the necessary connection between: (1) Dr. Grove's treatment notes stating that Claimant experienced some improvement after treatment procedures, did not use an assistive device to walk, and exhibited full or near full strength and sensation in his extremities, on the one hand; and (2) the ALJ's conclusion that Claimant was able to perform full-time light work consistent with the limitations in the RFC the ALJ identified, on the other hand. See Johnson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., No. CV-18-01230-PHX-DGC, 2019 WL 429887 at *4 (D. Ariz. Feb. 4, 2019) (holding that the ALJ had failed to '"set forth [his] own interpretations and explain why they, rather than the doctors', are correct.' Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1012" and citing Scott v. Astrue, 647 F.3d 734, 740 (7th Cir. 2011) ("the ALJ must build a 'logical bridge' between the evidence and her conclusion")).

Trinidad provides no reason he did not actively engage in physical therapy or home exercise or consider surgery if his shoulder impairment precluded all work. See Johnson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., No. CV-18-01230-PHX-DGC, 2019 WL 429887, at *7 (D. Ariz. Feb. 4, 2019) (holding that an ALJ "must consider 'any explanations that the individual may provide, or other information in the case record, that may explain' the claimant's failure to follow a treatment plan.") (quoting Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 638 (9th Cir. 2007)). Nor did Trinidad point to any record evidence that explained his failure to seek or pursue more aggressive treatment, which would have triggered the ALJ to consider and address the evidence.