Torres v. Comm Social Security

Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
5-29-2008
Torres v. Comm Social Security
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 07-2204
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"Torres v. Comm Social Security" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 1109.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/1109
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 07-2204
_____________
EDWIN TORRES,
Appellant
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civil No. 05-cv-01371)
District Judge: Honorable Joel A. Pisano
Argued March 27, 2008
Before: McKEE, RENDELL and TASHIMA * , Circuit Judges
(Filed : May 29, 2008)
Abraham S. Alter, Esq. (Argued)
Langton & Alter
2096 St. Georges Avenue
Rahway, NJ 07065-0000
*
Honorable A. Wallace Tashima, Senior Judge of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.
Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellant
Kristina D. Cohn, Esq.
Richard A. Hill, Jr., Esq (Argued)
Office of United States Attorney
Social Security Administration
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278-0000
Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee
OPINION OF THE COURT
TASHIMA, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiff Edwin Torres appeals from an order of the District Court, affirming the
decision of an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) that denied his request for Disability
Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income. Torres contends that the ALJ’s
decision was not based on substantial evidence. Specifically, Torres contends that the
ALJ’s decision omitted evidence, rejected Torres’ subjective complaints of pain, failed to
combine all of Torres’ medical impairments, and calculated Torres’ residual functional
capacity without evidentiary basis. The District Court considered Torres’ allegations in a
lengthy opinion and concluded that substantial evidence in the record supported the
Commissioner’s decision that Torres was not disabled.
We exercise plenary review over the District Court’s order but review the ALJ’s
2
decision to “determine whether it is supported by substantial evidence.” Newell v.
Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 347 F.3d 541, 545 (3d Cir. 2003). Although the ALJ’s opinion
considered all of the evidence, including Torres’ subjective complaints of pain, and was
well-reasoned, we conclude that the ALJ failed properly to consider all of Torres’
medical impairments in combination. We further conclude that the ALJ overstated
Torres’ daily activities and that his determination that Torres had the capacity to perform
light work is not supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, we vacate the District
Court’s February 23, 2006, order, and remand the matter to the District Court to, in turn,
remand the matter to the Commissioner for further proceedings in accordance with this
opinion.
On April 15, 2003, Torres filed an application for Disability Insurance Benefits
due to diabetes, left-eye blindness, and back pain, which was denied. On May 26, 2004,
Torres submitted a claim for Supplemental Security Income. Both claims were
consolidated into a hearing in front of the ALJ on October 12, 2004. The hearing
revealed that Torres suffers from numerous medical impairments. Evidence shows that
Torres has been a Type II non-insulin dependent diabetic since late 2002 and was
diagnosed with Hepatitis C in late 2003. Torres has no sight in his left eye, glaucoma in
his right eye, headaches, “disc bulges” in his lower back that cause back pain, and
chronic bronchitis. Additionally, Torres has been diagnosed with an adjustment disorder
with mixed anxiety, adjustment disorder with depressed mood, bipolar disorder, and a
3
personality disorder.
In order to be eligible for Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income
benefits a claimant must demonstrate that he is “disabled” within the meaning of the
Social Security Act. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). The Social Security regulations set forth
a five-step sequential evaluation to determine if an individual is disabled. 20 C.F.R. §
404.1520. In the third step, the ALJ considers the severity of the claimant’s
impairment(s) and checks to see if the impairment(s) meets or equals one of the
impairments listed in Appendix 1. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). The ALJ can find
medical equivalence in three ways:
(1)(i) If you have an impairment that is described in appendix 1, but–
(A) You do not exhibit one or more of the findings specified in the
particular listing, or
(B) You exhibit all of the findings, but one or more of the findings is not as
severe as specified in the particular listing,
(ii) We find that your impairment is medically equivalent to that listing if
you have other findings related to your impairment that are at least of equal
medical significance to the required criteria.
(2) If you have an impairment(s) that is not described in appendix 1, we
will compare your findings with those for closely analogous listed
impairments. If the findings related to your impairment(s) are at least of
equal medical significance to those of a listed impairment, we will find that
your impairment(s) is medically equivalent to the analogous listing.
(3) If you have a combination of impairments, no one of which meets a
listing (see § 404.1525(c)(3)), we will compare your findings with those for
closely analogous listed impairments. If the findings related to your
impairments are at least of equal medical significance to those of a listed
impairment, we will find that your combination of impairments is medically
equivalent to the listing.
20 C.F.R. § 404.1526(b). If the claimant is successful in demonstrating that his
4
impairment(s) meets or equals one of the listing in Appendix 1 and meets the duration
requirement (continuous period of 12 months), then the claimant is found to be disabled.
20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). Although the claimant bears the burden of proving that
his impairments equal or meet those listed in Appendix 1, if a claimant’s impairment
does not match one listed in Appendix 1, the ALJ is required to perform a comparison
between the claimant’s impairment(s) and those listed in Appendix 1. 20 C.F.R. §
404.1526(b). This court has stated that it is the ALJ’s “responsibility . . . to identify the
relevant listed impairment(s)” and “‘develop the arguments both for and against granting
benefits.’” Burnett v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 220 F.3d 112, 120 n.2 (3d Cir. 2000)
(quoting Sims v. Apfel, 530 U.S. 103, 111 (2000)). Here, the ALJ failed at step three by
failing to consider Torres’ impairments in combination when determining medical
equivalence.
While the ALJ explained why Torres’ impairments do not meet Appendix 1
listings individually, he failed to conduct a proper 20 C.F.R. § 404.1526(b) analysis. The
ALJ’s entire combination analysis consisted of one cursory paragraph:
Regarding steps two and three, the evidence establishes the existence of a
“severe” impairment involving left-eye blindness, diabetes, hepatitis C and
cirrhosis, degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine, bronchitis, and
depression, but does not disclose any medical findings which meet or equal
in severity the clinical criteria of any impairment listed in Appendix 1,
Subpart P to Regulations No. 4.
The analysis is conclusory and inadequate. The ALJ failed to combine Torres’ many
medical impairments and compare them to analogous Appendix 1 listings.
5
This court requires the ALJ to set forth the reasons for his decisions. Burnett, 220
F.3d at 119 (citing Cotter v. Harris, 642 F.2d 700, 704-705 (3d Cir. 1981)). Moreover,
conclusory statements, like the one in this case, have been found to be “beyond
meaningful judicial review.” Id. (stating that an ALJ’s “conclusory” one-sentence step
three analysis was “beyond meaningful judicial review”).
There is no way to review the ALJ’s decision in this case because no reasons were
given for his conclusion that Torres’ impairments in combination did not meet or equal an
Appendix 1 listing. On remand, the ALJ shall fully develop the record and explain his
findings at step three, including an analysis of whether and why Torres’ diabetes,
Hepatitis C, back problems, headaches, chronic bronchitis, left-eye blindness, glaucoma,
depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, and personality disorder in combination, are or are
not equivalent in severity to one of the listed impairments. The ALJ should also
reconsider the precise extent of Torres’ daily activities.
We will therefore vacate the order of the District Court and remand to the District
Court to, in turn, remand the matter to the Commissioner for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.
6