Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01467/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01467-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:402 Social Security Benefits

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CYNTHIA LEANOS,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:18-CV-01467-JDP

ORDER ON SOCIAL SECURITY APPEAL

Claimant Cynthia Leanos seeks judicial review of a denial by the Social Security 

Administration (“SSA”) of her application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental 

security income.

1

 ECF No. 12. She alleges that: (1) the SSA Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) 

erred in his initial, threshold assessment of the severity of claimant’s carpal tunnel syndrome; 

(2) the SSA erred by failing to weigh a medical opinion submitted to the Appeals Council 

(“AC”); and (3) the ALJ erred by failing to consider properly the opinion of a consultative 

physician, Dr. Cohn. We heard argument from the parties on October 10, 2019. Having 

reviewed the record, administrative transcript, briefs of the parties, and applicable law, and 

having considered arguments raised at the hearing, we will remand this matter for further 

consideration by the ALJ.

Claimant argues that the ALJ erred in setting aside her carpal tunnel syndrome at what is 

 

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 

Circuit. 

Case 1:18-cv-01467-JDP Document 19 Filed 03/16/20 Page 1 of 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

2

known as “Step 2” of the five-step disability-determining process—a threshold step at which the 

ALJ determines whether an impairment is “severe.” Step 2 “is a de minimis screening device 

[used] to dispose of groundless claims.” Webb v. Barnhart, 433 F.3d 683, 687 (9th Cir. 2005)

(internal quotation omitted). “An impairment or combination of impairments may be found “not 

severe only if the evidence establishes a slight abnormality that has no more than a minimal effect 

on an individual’s ability to work.” Id. at 686. This is a low threshold. 

The ALJ recognized that claimant had been diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome. AR 

103. However, the ALJ found that claimant’s carpal tunnel syndrome was not severe because 

claimant did not have a supporting electromyogram/nerve conduction and had not been diagnosed 

for more than twelve months. Id. The ALJ’s determination that claimant’s carpal tunnel 

syndrome was not severe was legally erroneous. Claimant was diagnosed and prescribed 

treatment based upon other medically acceptable clinical diagnostic techniques. See 20 C.F.R. § 

404.1502; AR 507, 514, 524. Further, the claimant’s diagnosis need not be more than a year old

if it was a condition that can be expected to last a year. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1509. The ALJ did not 

discuss whether claimant’s impairment could be expected to last and evaluated the durational 

requirement using an incorrect date for diagnosis. See AR 103. Claimant’s carpal tunnel 

syndrome should have passed the low threshold at Step 2.

Even so, SSA argues that the ALJ’s error, if any, is harmless. When an ALJ finds at least 

one severe impairment and proceeds with the evaluation, there is no reversible error for a failure 

to find additional severe impairments at step two. See Lewis v. Astrue, 498 F.3d 909, 911 (9th 

Cir. 2007). In Lewis, the ALJ did not count claimant’s bursitis as a severe impairment at step two 

but considered the limitations imposed by bursitis at step four. Id. The court found this analysis 

to be sufficient under the substantial evidence standard and stated that if there were any error, that 

error would be harmless. Id. In our case, however, the ALJ did not consider claimant’s carpal 

tunnel syndrome when evaluating claimant’s residual functional capacity. See AR 105-108. 

Thus, the ALJ’s subsequent analysis did not render his error harmless. 

We need not reach the other issues raised by claimant. For the reasons stated in this 

opinion, we remand this case for further consideration by SSA. The clerk of court is directed 

Case 1:18-cv-01467-JDP Document 19 Filed 03/16/20 Page 2 of 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

3

(1) to enter judgment in favor of claimant Cynthia Leanos and against defendant Commissioner 

of Social Security, and (2) to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 14, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

No. 204.

Case 1:18-cv-01467-JDP Document 19 Filed 03/16/20 Page 3 of 3