(SS) Leanos v. Commissioner of Social Security ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 CYNTHIA LEANOS, Case No. 1:18-CV-01467-JDP 9 Plaintiff, ORDER ON SOCIAL SECURITY APPEAL 10 v. 11 12 C SEO CM UM RI IS TS YI ,O NER OF SOCIAL 13 Defendant. 14 15 Claimant Cynthia Leanos seeks judicial review of a denial by the Social Security 16 Administration (“SSA”) of her application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental 17 security income.1 ECF No. 12. She alleges that: (1) the SSA Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) 18 erred in his initial, threshold assessment of the severity of claimant’s carpal tunnel syndrome; 19 (2) the SSA erred by failing to weigh a medical opinion submitted to the Appeals Council 20 (“AC”); and (3) the ALJ erred by failing to consider properly the opinion of a consultative 21 physician, Dr. Cohn. We heard argument from the parties on October 10, 2019. Having 22 reviewed the record, administrative transcript, briefs of the parties, and applicable law, and 23 having considered arguments raised at the hearing, we will remand this matter for further 24 consideration by the ALJ. 25 Claimant argues that the ALJ erred in setting aside her carpal tunnel syndrome at what is 26 27 1 The parties have consented to entry of final judgment by a U.S. Magistrate Judge under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), with any appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth 28 Circuit. 1 known as “Step 2” of the five-step disability-determining process—a threshold step at which the 2 ALJ determines whether an impairment is “severe.” Step 2 “is a de minimis screening device 3 [used] to dispose of groundless claims.” Webb v. Barnhart, 433 F.3d 683, 687 (9th Cir. 2005) 4 (internal quotation omitted). “An impairment or combination of impairments may be found “not 5 severe only if the evidence establishes a slight abnormality that has no more than a minimal effect 6 on an individual’s ability to work.” Id. at 686. This is a low threshold. 7 The ALJ recognized that claimant had been diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome. AR 8 103. However, the ALJ found that claimant’s carpal tunnel syndrome was not severe because 9 claimant did not have a supporting electromyogram/nerve conduction and had not been diagnosed 10 for more than twelve months. Id. The ALJ’s determination that claimant’s carpal tunnel 11 syndrome was not severe was legally erroneous. Claimant was diagnosed and prescribed 12 treatment based upon other medically acceptable clinical diagnostic techniques. See 20 C.F.R. § 13 404.1502; AR 507, 514, 524. Further, the claimant’s diagnosis need not be more than a year old 14 if it was a condition that can be expected to last a year. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1509. The ALJ did not 15 discuss whether claimant’s impairment could be expected to last and evaluated the durational 16 requirement using an incorrect date for diagnosis. See AR 103. Claimant’s carpal tunnel 17 syndrome should have passed the low threshold at Step 2. 18 Even so, SSA argues that the ALJ’s error, if any, is harmless. When an ALJ finds at least 19 one severe impairment and proceeds with the evaluation, there is no reversible error for a failure 20 to find additional severe impairments at step two. See Lewis v. Astrue, 498 F.3d 909, 911 (9th 21 Cir. 2007). In Lewis, the ALJ did not count claimant’s bursitis as a severe impairment at step two 22 but considered the limitations imposed by bursitis at step four. Id. The court found this analysis 23 to be sufficient under the substantial evidence standard and stated that if there were any error, that 24 error would be harmless. Id. In our case, however, the ALJ did not consider claimant’s carpal 25 tunnel syndrome when evaluating claimant’s residual functional capacity. See AR 105-108. 26 Thus, the ALJ’s subsequent analysis did not render his error harmless. 27 We need not reach the other issues raised by claimant. For the reasons stated in this 28 opinion, we remand this case for further consideration by SSA. The clerk of court is directed 1 | () to enter judgment in favor of claimant Cynthia Leanos and against defendant Commissioner 2 | of Social Security, and (2) to close this case. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. ° Dated: _ March 14, 2020 CN ppssenn RSE 6 UNI STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 | No. 204. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28