Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cv-01208/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cv-01208-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Thomas Wade Merritt, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner 

of Social Security, 

Defendant.

No. CV-13-01208-TUC-BPV

ORDER

Plaintiff, Thomas Wade Merritt, filed this action for review of the final decision of 

the Commissioner of Social Security pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c). Plaintiff 

presents one issue on appeal: whether the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) erred by 

failing to articulate consideration of whether Plaintiff’s condition meets or equals the 

listed criteria for an orthopedic impairment in 20 C.F.R. 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 

(“the Listings” or “Listing of Impairments”). (Doc. 19.) Before the court is an opening 

brief filed by Plaintiff (Doc. 19), the Commissioner’s opposition (Doc. 21), and 

Plaintiff’s brief in reply (Doc. 22). The United States Magistrate Judge presides over this 

case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (c) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 73, having received the written 

consent of both parties. (Doc. 14.) 

For the reasons discussed below, the Commissioner’s decision denying benefits is 

affirmed. 

Case 4:13-cv-01208-BPV Document 23 Filed 10/06/14 Page 1 of 8
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

I. Background 

Plaintiff filed an application for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) and 

Supplemental Security Income (SSI) on October 14, 2010, alleging disability as of June 

19, 2006, due to back injury, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, leg pains, lower back 

injury, and shooting pains in his legs. Transcript/Administrative Record (Tr.) 187-196, 

215. The application was denied initially and on reconsideration. Tr. 73-74, 89-90. 

Plaintiff appeared with counsel and testified before an ALJ at an administrative hearing. 

Tr. 45-72. On May 24, 2012 the ALJ issued a decision finding Plaintiff not disabled 

within the meaning of the Social Security Act. Tr. 20-40. 

A. The ALJ’s Findings and Conclusions 

 The ALJ found that Plaintiff last met the insured status requirements of the Social 

Security Act through December 31, 2011. Tr. 25, ¶ 1. The ALJ found that Plaintiff had 

not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the alleged onset date of June 17, 2006. 

Tr. 25 ¶ 2. The ALJ found that Plaintiff has the following severe impairments: low back 

pain secondary to degenerative disc disease with radiculopathy and adjustment disorder 

with depressed mood. Tr. 25, ¶ 3. The ALJ found that Plaintiff’s impairments did not 

meet or equal any of the impairments found in the Listings. Tr. 26, ¶ 4. The ALJ found 

that Plaintiff has the Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) to perform light work subject to 

limitations and is unable to perform any past relevant work, but that considering the 

Plaintiff’s age, education, work experience, and RFC, there are jobs that exist in 

significant numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff can perform and concluded that 

Plaintiff was not under a disability from June 19, 2006 through the date of the ALJ’s 

decision. Tr. 27, ¶5, Tr. 38-39, ¶¶ 6-11. 

This decision became the Commissioner’s final decision when the Appeals 

Council denied review. Tr. 1-3. Plaintiff then commenced this action for judicial review 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c). (Doc. 1.) 

Case 4:13-cv-01208-BPV Document 23 Filed 10/06/14 Page 2 of 8
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

II. Legal Standard 

 The Court has the “power to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, 

a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Commissioner of Social 

Security, with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The 

Commissioner’s decision to deny benefits “should be upheld unless it is based on legal 

error or is not supported by substantial evidence.” Ryan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 528 F.3d 

1194, 1198 (9th Cir. 2008). “ ‘Substantial evidence’ means more than a mere scintilla, but 

less than a preponderance; it is such relevant evidence as a reasonable person might 

accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1035 

(9th Cir. 2007) (citing Robbins v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 882 (9th Cir. 

2006)). In determining whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence, the 

Court “must consider the entire record as a whole and may not affirm simply by isolating 

a ‘specific quantum of supporting evidence.’” Id. (quoting Robbins, 466 F.3d at 882). The 

Court reviews only the reasons provided by the ALJ in the disability determination and 

may not affirm the ALJ on a ground upon which he did not rely. Garrison v. Colvin, 759 

F.3d 995, 1010 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Connett v. Barnhart, 340 F.3d 871, 874 (9th Cir. 

2003)). 

 The first two steps of the five-step test to determine if a claimant is disabled 

involve threshold determinations that the claimant is not presently working and has an 

impairment which is of the required duration and which significantly limits the claimant’s 

ability to work. See Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521 (1990); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 

404.1520(a), 416.920(a). In the third step of the five-step analysis, the ALJ must 

determine whether a claimant’s impairment meets or equals an impairment in the Listing 

of Impairments, found at 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpt. P, App. 1. See id. §§ 1520(a)(4), 

416.920(a)(4). A claimant with an impairment which (1) meets or equals an impairment 

listed in Appendix I and (2) meets the duration requirement is awarded benefits at step 

three without further inquiry. See id. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d). 

Case 4:13-cv-01208-BPV Document 23 Filed 10/06/14 Page 3 of 8
- 4 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 The Listings describe specific impairments of each of the major body systems 

which are considered “severe enough to prevent a person from doing any gainful activity, 

regardless of his or her age, education, or work experience” and designate “the objective 

medical and other findings needed to satisfy the criteria of that listing.” See id. §§ 

404.1525(a), (c)(3), 416.925(a), (c)(3). A mere diagnosis is insufficient to meet or equal a 

listed impairment; a claimant must establish that he or she “satisfies all of the criteria of 

that listing, including any relevant criteria in the introduction.” See id. §§ 404.1525(c)(3), 

(d), 416.925(c)(3), (d). 

 To equal a listed impairment, a claimant must establish symptoms, signs, and 

laboratory findings “at least equal in severity and duration” to the characteristics of a 

relevant listed impairment. See generally 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1526 (explaining medical 

equivalence); 416.926 (same). Medical equivalence can be found for a listed impairment, 

an unlisted impairment, or a combination of impairments. See id. §§ 404.1526(b), 

416.926(b). If, as in this case, a claimant has an impairment described in the Listings, but 

does not exhibit one or more of the findings specified in the particular listing, or exhibits 

all of the findings but one or more findings is not as severe as specified in the listing, a 

finding that the impairment is medically equivalent to the listing is appropriate when 

other findings related to the impairment are found that are at least of equal medical 

significance to the required criteria. Id. A generalized assertion of functional problems is 

not enough to establish disability at step three. Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1100 (9th

Cir. 1999) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1526.) 

III. Analysis: The ALJ Did Not Err in Determining that Plaintiff’s 

Impairment Does Not Equal a Listed Impairment 

 Plaintiff contends that the ALJ erred by failing to specifically articulate his 

consideration of whether Plaintiff’s condition was equivalent to the Listings, § 1.04(A), 

regarding spinal disorders. (Doc. 21 at 16-19.)1

 As Plaintiff correctly notes, the ALJ did 

 

1

 Plaintiff has withdrawn his argument articulated in his opening brief that his condition meets the criteria in the Listing of Impairments, acknowledging that the 

Case 4:13-cv-01208-BPV Document 23 Filed 10/06/14 Page 4 of 8
- 5 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

not articulate his step-three analysis, but simply concluded that no impairment or 

combination of impairments met or equaled a Listing. Tr. 26, ¶ 4. However, as discussed 

below, the ALJ adequately stated the foundations on which his ultimate factual 

conclusions were based, see Gonzalez v. Sullivan, 914 F.2c 1197, 1201 (9th Cir. 1990), 

and substantial evidence supported the conclusion that Plaintiff's impairments do not 

meet or equal the Listing of Impairments. Moreover, Plaintiff has the burden of proof at 

step three on whether his impairments met or equaled a listed impairment. Parra v. 

Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 746 (9th Cir. 2007). Nonetheless, Plaintiff failed to present any 

argument to the ALJ or Appeals Council that the evidence demonstrates the requisite 

severity and duration to establish disability under the Listings. Nor did he present any 

medical opinion evidence that stated that Listing 1.04 was met or equaled. 

 The ALJ is obligated to consider the relevant evidence to determine whether a 

claimant's impairment or impairments meet or equal one of the specified impairments set 

forth in the Listings. Lewis v. Apfel, 236 F.3d 503, 512 (9th Cir.2001); 20 C.F.R. § 

416.920(a)(4)(iii). Generally, a “boilerplate finding is insufficient to support a conclusion 

that a claimant's impairment does not [meet or equal a Listing].” Lewis, 236 F.3d at 512; 

see also, e.g., Marcia v. Sullivan, 900 F.2d 172, 176 (9th Cir. 1990) (noting that the ALJ's 

unexplained finding at step three was reversible error). The Ninth Circuit has recognized, 

however, that the ALJ need not recite the reasons for his or her step three determination 

under the heading “Findings,” so long as the evidence is discussed in the ALJ's decision. 

Lewis, 236 F.3d at 513. Moreover, a boilerplate finding may be appropriate where a 

claimant fails to set forth any evidence for the ALJ to conclude an impairment could meet 

or equal a Listing. See Gonzalez, 914 F.2d at 1201. 

 Although the ALJ did not make specific findings as to whether Plaintiff met or 

equaled Listing 1.04(A), The ALJ discussed, at length, the objective medical evidence 

supporting his findings that the Plaintiff did not meet or equal the criteria of any listed 

 Commissioner correctly noted in her responsive brief the absence of recorded findings of muscle weakness or reflex lost. (Doc. 22, p. 3-4, n. 3)(citing Doc. 23, p. 9.) 

Case 4:13-cv-01208-BPV Document 23 Filed 10/06/14 Page 5 of 8
- 6 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

impairment. See Tr. 28-35. Section 1.04(A) of the Listing requires a claimant to show 

disorders of the spine, such as herniated nucleus pulposus, spinal arachnoiditis, spinal 

stenosis, osteoarthritis, degenerative disc disease, facet arthritis, or vertebral fracture, 

resulting in compromise of a nerve root or the spinal cord with evidence of nerve root 

compression characterized by neuro-anatomic distribution of pain, limitation of motion of 

the spine, motor loss (atrophy with associated muscle weakness or muscle weakness) 

accompanied by sensory or reflex loss and, if there is involvement of the lower back, 

positive straight-leg raising test (sitting and supine). See 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 

1, § 1.04 (A) (2013). 

 The ALJ adequately explained his finding regarding Listing § 1.04(A) through 

observations in the opinion that although Plaintiff’s MRI showed some evidence of nerve 

root compression, he was also found to have full strength in all of his extremities with no 

signs of muscle atrophy or weakness and no evidence of reflex loss and limited evidence 

of sensory loss. See Tr. 29-32. These findings are relevant to the specific criteria 

established in the Listings, and supported by substantial evidence in the record. See Tr. 

263 (no motor or sensory deficit); 265-66 (normal bulk and tone, no visible signs of 

atrophy, full (5/5) strength, normal reflexes); 277 (no muscle atrophy); 283 (equal 

strength, intact and symmetrical reflexes); 285 (full (5/5) strength in all of his extremities, 

intact sensation and reflexes); 290 (full (5/5) strength, normal reflexes); 312 (full (5/5) 

strength, and intact sensation); 319 (normal sensation);335 (full (5/5) strength with 

normal overall tone and normal sensation); 386 (normal sensation)). 

 Plaintiff failed to present any supporting evidence of medical equivalence at his 

hearing and his representative correspondence to the Appeals Council is vague and 

conclusory as to medical equivalence. See Tr. 45-72, 253-58. Though in his 

representative correspondence to the Appeals Council Plaintiff referred to several 

objective medical findings in the record, (see Tr, pp. 11-13), Plaintiff did not explain how 

these objective findings equal the severity of the listed impairment. For these reasons, the 

ALJ's finding that Plaintiff has no medically equivalent impairment was not in error. See

Case 4:13-cv-01208-BPV Document 23 Filed 10/06/14 Page 6 of 8
- 7 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 683 (9th Cir.2005) (“An ALJ is not required to discuss 

the combined effects of a claimant's impairments or compare them to any listing in an 

equivalency determination unless the claimant presents evidence in an effort to establish 

equivalence.”) (citation omitted); Lewis, 236 F.3d at 514 (affirming where the ALJ did 

not discuss the claimant’s impairments or compare them to any listing, but where the 

claimant offered “no theory, plausible or otherwise” and “pointed to no evidence” 

supporting a finding that he met or equaled a listed impairment). 

 Plaintiff now argues that the objective findings related to the impairment are of at 

least equal medical significance, asserting specifically for the first time in his reply brief 

that the evidence of muscle spasms, radiculopathy, limited spinal range of motion, and 

positive straight-leg raising tests meets the equivalency requirement. (See Doc. 22, p. 2.) 

“Equivalence is determined on the basis of a comparison between the ‘symptoms, signs 

and laboratory findings’ about the claimant’s impairment as evidenced by the medical 

records ‘with the medical criteria shown with the listed impairment.’” Marcia, 900 F.2d 

at 176 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1526). Plaintiff, however, makes no attempt to compare 

Plaintiff’s symptoms, signs and laboratory findings with the medical criteria shown with 

the listed impairment, or to offer any theory as to how Plaintiff’s condition equals a listed 

impairment, and therefore does not sufficiently raise the argument that the findings are 

equal in severity to Listing 1.04(A). 

 While Plaintiff asserts that paraspinal muscle spasms may “be more excruciating 

than the primary condition” allegations of pain cannot substitute for a missing or 

deficient sign or laboratory finding to raise the severity of an impairment to that of a 

listed impairment. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(d)(3); 416.929(d)(3). The evidence of 

radiculopathy, positive straight-leg testing, and decreased range of motion, merely 

restates the required 1.04(A) listing criteria of limitation of motion of the spine, neuroanatomic distribution of pain and positive straight-leg testing (sitting and supine), which 

Plaintiff arguably may meet, but does not establish that the impairment equals the full 

severity of the listing which requires, beyond these criteria, the more severe and involved 

Case 4:13-cv-01208-BPV Document 23 Filed 10/06/14 Page 7 of 8
- 8 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

findings of motor loss accompanied by sensory or reflex loss. See the Listings, § 1.04(A). 

Plaintiff must present medical findings “equal in severity to all the criteria for the most 

similar listed impairment.” Zebley, 493 U.S. at 521 (1990) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 

416.926(a))(emphasis in original).2

 The Court finds that while some of the objective 

findings meet the some of the criteria for Listing § 1.04(A), the listing is not met, and the 

objective findings designated by Plaintiff are not of equal medical significance to the 

required criteria. Thus, the ALJ adequately addressed Listing 1.04(A) and did not commit 

legal error. 

 Accordingly, 

 IT IS ORDERED: 

1. The Commissioner’s decision denying benefits is AFFIRMED. 

2. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly. 

Dated this 3rd day of October, 2014. 

 

2

 The Court rejects Plaintiff’s assertion that the Commissioner’s reliance on Zebley is misplaced because the Zebley court was quoting a former version of the regulation as the Ninth Circuit has since affirmed that “the regulations substance has not been altered in a manner that casts doubt on Zebley’s continuing validity in this context.” See Kennedy v. Colvin, 738 F.3d 1172, 1176 n.4 (9th Cir. 2013)(requiring claimants to equal each criterion of the Listing rather than relying on overall functional impact). 

Case 4:13-cv-01208-BPV Document 23 Filed 10/06/14 Page 8 of 8