3    the same, or any, positions that the hypothetical person could perform.”);see also Brenda C. v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., No. SAG-18-3234, 2019 WL 4017024, at *2 (D. Md. Aug. 26, 2019) (“[G]iven the Fourth Circuit’s discussion of the phrases ‘production rate’ or ‘demand pace’ in Thomas, 916 F.3d at 312, this Court cannot adequately say whether the ALJ’s inclusion of the phrase ‘not at a production pace’ in Plaintiff’s RFC limitation was harmless.”); Geneva W. v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., No. SAG-18-1812, 2019 WL 3254533, at *3 (D. Md. July 19, 2019) (“[W]hile the VE’s testimony does not evince any confusion about the terms of the hypothetical, the Court has an independent duty to determine if the ALJ supported her findings with substantial evidence.”).   As Judge Boardman explained under similar circumstances inTaishika C. v. Saul, No.  DLB-19-1994, 2020 WL 2994487, at *4 (D. Md. June 4, 2020), the Court “cannot determine whether the ALJ’s findings were supported by substantial evidence without an explanation of the term[]” “production rate for pace of work.” The ALJ did not define the meaning of the term “production rate for pace of work,” and the term is “not common enough” for the Court to know what it means without elaboration.Thomas, 916 F.3d at 312. As such, the Court cannot decisively say that, had the ALJ defined or explained the term “production rate for pace of work,” the VE would have identified the same, or any, positions that the hypothetical person could perform. Geneva W., 2019 WL 3254533, at *3.   Remand is required so that the ALJ may provide an explanation that complies with Thomas.  Accordingly, both parties’ motions for summary judgment (ECF Nos. 17 & 20) are DENIED. Pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). the Commissioner’s judgment is REVERSED IN PARTdue to inadequate analysis. The case isREMANDEDfor further proceedings in accordance with this opinion. The Clerk is directed toCLOSEthis case.   Sincerely yours,      /s/          Timothy J. Sullivan United States Magistrate Judge         Case 1:20-cv-02116-TJS Document 22 Filed 10/20/21 Page 3 of 3