Mitchell v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. SAG-12-3332, 2013 WL 5182801, at *1 (D. Md. Sept. 12, 2013) (“An ALJ need not parrot a single medical opinion, or even assign ‘great weight' to any opinions, in determining an RFC.”); Thomas v. Colvin, No. 12-227-N, 2013 WL 1218920, at *8 (S.D. Ala. Mar. 25, 2013) (recognizing that RFC determination need not be supported by specific medical opinion); Town v. Astrue, No 3:12cv105, 2012 WL 6150836, at *4 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 10, 2012) (“The determination of an individual's RFC need not be based on a medical opinion because it is a determination reserved to the ALJ as fact-finder for the Commissioner.”).

cal opinion to determine a claimant's RFC. Felton-Miller, 459 F. App'x at 230-31; Hucks v. Colvin, No. 2:12-cv-76, 2013 WL 1810658, at *9 (N.D.W.Va. Apr. 3, 2013), report and recommendation adopted by 2013 WL 1810656 (N.D.W.Va. Apr. 29, 2013); see also Chapo v. Astrue, 682 F.3d 1285, 1288 (10th Cir. 2012) ("[T]here is no requirement in the regulations for a direct correspondence between an RFC finding and a specific medical opinion on the functional capacity in question."); Sullivan v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 2:13-cv-1460-KJN, 2014 WL 6685075, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2014) ("It is the ALJ's responsibility to formulate an RFC that is based on the record as a whole, and thus the RFC need not exactly match the opinion or findings of any particular medical source."); Mitchell v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. SAG-12-3332, 2013 WL 5182801, at *1 (D. Md. Sept. 12, 2013) ("An ALJ need not parrot a single medical opinion, or even assign 'great weight' to any opinions, in determining an RFC."); Thomas v. Colvin, No. 12-227-N, 2013 WL 1218920, at *8 (S.D. Ala. Mar. 25, 2013) (recognizing that RFC determination need not be supported by specific medical opinion); Town v. Astrue, No 3:12cv105, 2012 WL 6150836, at *4 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 10, 2012) ("The determination of an individual's RFC need not be based on a medical opinion because it is a determination reserved to the ALJ as fact-finder for the Commissioner."). Rather, an ALJ must consider all relevant evidence in the record, including the opinions of medical sources, and arrive at a determination of a claimant's RFC that is supported by substantial evidence.

ert medical opinion as to a claimant's RFC. Felton-Miller, 459 F. App'x at 230-31; Hucks v. Colvin, No. 2:12-cv-76, 2013 WL 1810658, at *9 (N.D.W.Va. Apr. 3, 2013), report and recommendation adopted by 2013 WL 1810656 (N.D.W.Va. Apr. 29, 2013); see also Chapo v. Astrue, 682 F.3d 1285, 1288 (10th Cir. 2012) ("[T]here is no requirement in the regulations for a direct correspondence between an RFC finding and a specific medical opinion on the functional capacity in question."); Sullivan v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 2:13-cv-1460-KJN, 2014 WL 6685075, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2014) ("It is the ALJ's responsibility to formulate an RFC that is based on the record as a whole, and thus the RFC need not exactly match the opinion or findings of any particular medical source."); Mitchell v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. SAG-12-3332, 2013 WL 5182801, at *1 (D. Md. Sept. 12, 2013) ("An ALJ need not parrot a single medical opinion, or even assign 'great weight' to any opinions, in determining an RFC."); Thomas v. Colvin, No. 12-227-N, 2013 WL 1218920, at *8 (S.D. Ala. Mar. 25, 2013) (recognizing that RFC determination need not be supported by specific medical opinion); Town v. Astrue, No 3:12cv105, 2012 WL 6150836, at *4 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 10, 2012) ("The determination of an individual's RFC need not be based on a medical opinion because it is a determination reserved to the ALJ as fact-finder for the Commissioner."). Instead, an ALJ must consider all relevant evidence in the record, including the opinions of medical sources, and arrive at a determination of a claimant's RFC that is supported by substantial evidence.

pert medical opinion as to a claimant's RFC. Felton-Miller, 459 F. App'x at 230-31; Hucks v. Colvin, No. 2:12-cv-76, 2013 WL 1810658, at *9 (N.D.W.Va. Apr. 3, 2013), report and recommendation adopted by 2013 WL 1810656 (N.D.W.Va. Apr. 29, 2013); see also Chapo v. Astrue, 682 F.3d 1285, 1288 (10th Cir. 2012) ("[T]here is no requirement in the regulations for a direct correspondence between an RFC finding and a specific medical opinion on the functional capacity in question."); Sullivan v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 2:13-cv-1460-KJN, 2014 WL 6685075, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2014) ("It is the ALJ's responsibility to formulate an RFC that is based on the record as a whole, and thus the RFC need not exactly match the opinion or findings of any particular medical source."); Mitchell v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. SAG-12-3332, 2013 WL 5182801, at *1 (D. Md. Sept. 12, 2013) ("An ALJ need not parrot a single medical opinion, or even assign 'great weight' to any opinions, in determining an RFC."); Thomas v. Colvin, No. 12-227-N, 2013 WL 1218920, at *8 (S.D. Ala. Mar. 25, 2013) (recognizing that RFC determination need not be supported by specific medical opinion); Town v. Astrue, No 3:12cv105, 2012 WL 6150836, at *4 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 10, 2012) ("The determination of an individual's RFC need not be based on a medical opinion because it is a determination reserved to the ALJ as fact-finder for the Commissioner."). Instead, an ALJ must consider all relevant evidence in the record, including the opinions of medical sources, and arrive at a determination of a claimant's RFC that is supported by substantial evidence.

an. 31, 1990) ("[T]he corresponding definition of 'substantially justified' used in the EAJA means 'to be justified in substance or in the main . . . the action must be justified to a degree that could satisfy a reasonable person, and must have a reasonable basis in both law and fact.' Clearly, definitions of the terms 'substantial evidence' and 'substantially justified' are analogous; a reasonable mind must conclude that when the [Commissioner]'s position was not based upon substantial evidence, it cannot be found substantially justified.") (quoting Pierce, 487 U.S. at 565); Scott v. Barnhart, No. 99 C 4651, 2003 WL 1524624, at *5 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 21, 2003) ("When a court finds [] a lack of connection between the evidence in the record and an ALJ's conclusion, it is appropriate to find the Commissioner's position not substantially justified.") (citations omitted). Although the plaintiff presented multiple grounds for why the Commissioner's decision to deny benefits was in error, see Thomas v. Colvin, Civil Action No. 12-227-N, 2013 WL 1218920, at *3 (S.D. Ala. Mar. 25, 2013), the Court remanded this matter to the Commissioner on "one aspect" of the plaintiff's challenge "that the ALJ erred in various ways in evaluating [her] impairments[,]" id. at *9. As to this aspect, the Court concluded, in sum, "the ALJ's credibility determination concerning drowsiness as a side effect of plaintiff's medication [was] not supported by substantial evidence.