Arsenault v. Astrue
Filing
17
Senior Judge Edward F. Harrington: ORDER entered. Motions terminated: 12 MOTION for Order Reversing Decision of Commissioner filed by Joseph Arsenault, 15 MOTION for Order Affirming Decision of Commissioner filed by Michael J. Astrue.(Folan, Karen)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
***************************
Joseph Arsenault,
Plaintiff
CIVIL ACTION NO.:
10-11100-EFH
v.
Michael J. Astrue,
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
***************************
ORDER
April 3, 2013
HARRINGTON, S.D.J.
This is an action brought pursuant to section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g), to review a final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
denying Plaintiff’s claim for a period of disability and Disability Insurance Benefits under Title II
of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 401 et seq.
Under the Social Security Act, a claimant may be considered disabled only if he or she is
unable “to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable
physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can
be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months . . . .” 42 U.S.C. §
423(d)(1)(A). Judicial review in Social Security disability cases is limited to determining whether
the findings of the Commissioner in his final decision are supported by substantial evidence and
whether he applied the correct legal standards in rendering his decision. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g);
Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401(1971); Manso-Pizarro v. Sec’y of Health & Human
Servs., 76 F.3d 15, 16 (1st Cir. 1996). The Commissioner’s findings are conclusive if supported
by substantial evidence. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Nguyen v. Chater, 172 F.3d 31, 35 (1st Cir.
1999).
The Social Security regulations set forth a five-step sequential evaluation process for
evaluating a disability claim. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. At step one, the Commissioner
determines whether the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520
(a)(4)(i). At step two, the Commissioner determines whether the claimant has a severe medically
determinable impairment(s). 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (a)(4)(ii). At step three, the Commissioner
determines whether the claimant’s impairment(s) meets or equals a listed impairment set forth in
the Commissioner’s Listing of Impairments, 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. 20
C.F.R. § 404.1520 (a)(4)(iii). At step four, the Commissioner determines whether the claimant
retains the residual functional capacity to perform his or her past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. §
404.1520 (a)(4)(iv). Finally, at step five, the Commissioner determines whether the claimant can
perform other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy considering his
residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v).
In his decision, the Administrative Law Judge denied Plaintiff’s application. The ALJ
found that Plaintiff had severe impairments of residual pain in the left knee, status post three
surgical interventions, and left ankle pain attributed to Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy; mild
positive findings for low back pain; obstructive respiratory disorder; and a depressive reaction to
medical and relationship problems, with a history of drug and or alcohol abuse. However, the
2
ALJ found at step three that these impairments, either alone or in combination, did not meet or
medically equal an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1.
The Plaintiff contends that the ALJ erred at step three by failing to evaluate whether or
not his impairments met or medically equaled Listing 1.02 (Major dysfunction of the joint). The
ALJ’s decision addressed only mental impairments under Listing 12.00 but did not address the
relevant physical impairments under 1.02 (major dysfunction of the joint), other than a section
header stating that Plaintiff did not have any listed impairment. The ALJ’s failure to specifically
address Listing 1.02 was remandable error. An Administrative Law Judge must include a
discussion of “findings and conclusions, and the reasons or basis therefor, on all the material
issues of fact, law, or discretion presented on the record.” 5 U.S.C. § 557(c)(3)(A). As the Sixth
Circuit articulated in a factually similar decision, “the ALJ needed to actually evaluate the
evidence, compare it to Section 1.00 of the Listing, and give an explained conclusion, in order to
facilitate meaningful judicial review. Without it, it is impossible to say that the ALJ's decision at
Step Three was supported by substantial evidence.” Reynolds v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 424
Fed.Appx. 411, 416 (6th Cir. 2011). For that reason, the Court vacates and remands the case for
a discussion of the evidence and an explanation of the reasoning with respect to Listing 1.02
under step three.
The case is REVERSED and REMANDED to the ALJ for further preceding consistent
with this opinion.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Edward F. Harrington
3
EDWARD F. HARRINGTON
United States Senior District Judge
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?