A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, thi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tthe det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. T h is o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t is notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue c o n s is te n t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 2 .1 . T he H onor abl e J ohn L . K ane, Seni orD i s tr i ctJ udge, U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ct ** C our tforthe D i s tr i ctof C ol or ado, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Jan u ary4,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT L ONNI T A F L E E T WOOD,

P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. J O A NN E B. BA RN HA RT, C o m m iss io n e r o f

S o c ial S e c u rity A dm i ni s tr at i on,

D efe ndant - A ppel l ee. N o. 05- 6373 ( D . C . N o . C I V - 0 4 - 1 2 9 9 - M) (W .D . O k la .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e BR ORBY and EBEL , C i r cui tJ udges , and KANE , D i s tr i ctJ udge. **

Pl ai nt i ff Lonni t a G . Fl eetw ood appea l s the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s aff i r m ance of the defe ndantSoci al Secur i tyC om m i s s i oner ’ s deni al of di s abi l i tyand Suppl ement al Secur i tyI ncome ( SSI) benef i t s . She ar gues that( 1) the A dm i ni s tr at i ve Law J udgeR F C is “ th e m a x im u m d e g re e to w h ich th e in d iv id u a l re tain s th e c a p a c ity 1 fors us t ai ned per form ance of the phy s i cal - m ent al r equi r ement s of j obs . ” 2 0 C .F .R . p t. 4 0 4 , s u b p t. P , a p p . 2 , § 2 0 0 .0 0 (c ).

- 2- ( A L J ) fai l ed t o r ecogni ze a l l of herdi agnos ed i m pai r m ent s as s ever e; ( 2) the A L J ’ s r es i dual funct i onal capa ci ty ( R FC ) as s es s m entfai l ed t o i ncl ude al l of her 1 lim ita tio n s ; a n d (3 ) t h e A L J fa ile d to a n a lyze h e r c re d ib ility p ro p e rl y . W e co n clud e tha t th e A L J fa il ed to p rop erlyco n side r all o f M s. F leetw o o d ’s i m pai r m ent s and thatthe A L J ’ s R FC fi ndi ngs ar e notbas ed on s ubs t ant i al evi dence . A ccor di ngl y , w e r ever s e the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s aff i r m ance of the C o m m iss io n e r’s d e c isio n , an d w e re m a n d to th e d istric t co u rt w ith in stru c tio n s to r emand t o the C om m i s s i onert o conductfur therpr ocee di ngs addr es s i ng al l of M s . F le e tw o o d ’s im p a ir m e n ts a n d h e r R F C . BA CKGROUND M s . Fl eetw ood s oughtdi s abi l i tyand SSI benef i t s , al l egi ng di s abi l i tyas of D ecem ber 1, 20 00 , du e t o b ronchit i s, asthm a, pu l m on arydis ease, heartproblem s, an x iety , an d p an ic att ac k s. H er req u ests fo r disab il ityan d S S I be n efit s w ere deni ed i ni t i al l yand on r econs i der at i on. A ft erhol di ng an evi dent i aryhear i ng, the A L J d e n ie d b e n e fits a t s te p fiv e o f th e s e q u e n tia l- e v a lu a tio n p ro c e s s . See F ischer- R oss v. B arnh art , 431 F. 3d 729, 731 ( 10th C i r . 2005) ( des cr i bi ng fi ve step s). T h e A L J fo u n d that M s. F leetw o o d h as th e a b il ityto p erfo rm sed en tary w o rk. M o re sp ec ifi ca ll y , the A L J fo u n d that sh e c an w alk o r st an d fo r tw o h o u rs- 3-

o u t o f a n e ig h t-h o u r d a y ; ca n sit fo r six h o u rs o u t o f a n e ig h t-h o u r d a y ; sh o u ld a v o id e x tre m e h e a t an d c o ld , fu m e s, o d o rs, a n d d u st; a n d w o u ld h a v e a m o d e ra te l e v e l o f d i s c o mfo r ta n d s o me fa t i g u e a n d a n x i e tywhe n work i n g . Th e ALJ concl uded thatM s . Fl eetw ood coul d per form the s emi - s ki l l ed s edent aryj obs of a chec k cas hi erora ca fet er i a- l i ne ca s hi er . W hen the A ppeal s C ounci l deni ed M s . Fl eetw ood’ s r eques tforr evi ew , the A L J ’ s deci s i on beca m e the fi nal deci s i on o f th e C o m m is s io n e r. See D oya lv. B arnh art , 3 3 1 F .3 d 7 5 8 , 7 5 9 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). O n jud ici al rev iew , the d istri ct co u rtad o p ted th e m ag istrate jud g e’s re c o m m e n d a tio n a n d a ffir m e d th e d e n ia ls o f b e n e fits . M s . F le e tw o o d a p p e a ls . S TANDA RDS OF REVI EW L i ke the di s tr i ctcourt , w e r evi ew the A L J ’ s deci s i on onl yt o det erm i ne w hetherthe corr ectl egal s t andar ds w er e appl i ed and w hetherthe A L J ’ s fac tual fin d in g s w e re s u p p o rt e d b ys u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . Id. a t 7 6 0 . Subst ant i al evi dence i s s uch r el evantevi dence as a r eas onabl e mi nd m i ghtacc eptas adequa t e t o s uppor ta conc l us i on. W e cons i der w hetherthe A L J fol l ow ed the s peci fi c rul es of l aw thatm us tbe foll ow ed in w ei gh i ng part i culartypes of evidence in di sabi l i tycases, butw e w i l l notr ew ei gh the evi dence ors ubs t i tut e ourj udgm entfor th e C o m m is s io n e r’ s . Hackettv. B arnh art , 395 F. 3d 1168, 1172 ( 10th C i r . 2005) ( quot at i ons and ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . I n addi t i on, an A L J ’ s fai l ur e t o “pr ovi de thi s courtw i th a s uffi ci entbas i s t o det erm i ne thatappr opr i at e l egal pr i nci pl es have be en fol l ow ed- 4-

i s gr ounds forr ever s al . ” Jensen v. B arnh art , 4 3 6 F . 3 d 1 1 6 3 , 1 1 6 5 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ). I S S UE S ON AP P EA L 1 . S ev er e Im p a irm en ts M s . Fl eetw ood ar gues thatthe A L J fai l ed t o r ecogni ze thatheranxi etyand pani c att acks ar e s ever e i m pai r m ent s unders t ep tw o. A l s o, s he ar gues thatthe A L J fa iled to th o ro u g h lye x p lain w h yh e re f u se d to fin d th e se m e n tal im p a irm e n ts t o be s ever e, i nas m uch as he s t at ed onl ythats he di d nothave a s ever e ment al im p a ir m e n t a n d h a d n o t h a d p s y c h ia tr ic tr e a tm e n t. T he A L J ’ s fi ndi ngs conce rni ng the s ever i tyof M s . Fl eetw ood’ s m ent al i m pai r m ent s ar e i ncons i s t ent . I ni t i al l y , the A L J found thatthe fol l ow i ng i m pai r m ent s ar e s ever e: heartval ve r epl ace m ent , as thm a, br onchi t i s , anxi ety , and pani c att acks . A pl t . A pp. T ab 4 at18 ( “The m edi cal evi dence s how s thatthe cl ai m anthad hea r tval ve r epl ace m enti n A ugus t2002. She al s o has as thm a, b ro n c h iti s, a n d a n x ietya n d p a n ic a ttac k s. S u c h im p a irm e n ts c a u se v o c a tio n a lly r el evantl i m i t at i ons and ar e ther efor e cons i der ed ‘ s ever e’ w i thi n the meani ng of the r egul at i ons . ”) . L at er , how ever , the A L J s t at ed thatM s . Fl eetw ood’ s m ent al im p a ir m e n ts a re n o t s e v e re . Id. at 20 (“T h e c lai m an t do es n o t hav e a sev ere m e n tal im p a irm e n t an d h a s n o t h a d a n yp sy c h iatric tre a tm e n t.”). D u e so lelyto thi s i ncons i s t ency , w e coul d r emand t o the A L J forcl ar i fi cat i on conce rni ng w hi ch o f M s . Fl e e twoo d ’ s i mpa i r me n t s a r e s e v e r e . Ev e n i f we a s s u me th a tth e ALJ- 5-

found thatheranxi etyand pani c att ack i m pai r m ent s ar e nots ever e, w hi ch i s w hat th e A L J u ltim a te ly im p lie s in h is s p e c ific n u m b e re d fin d in g s , i d. a t 2 4 , w e w o u ld s till r e m a n d to th e A L J fo r f u rt h e r p ro c e e d in g s a t s te p tw o . A ts t ep tw o, the cl ai m antm us tpr ove s he has a medi cal l ys ever e i m pai r m ent o r c o m b in a tio n o f

im p a irm e n ts th a t sig n ifica n tlylim its h e r a b ili tyto d o b a sic w o rk a c tiv itie s . 2 0 C .F .R . § § 4 0 4 .1 5 2 0 (c ), 4 0 4 .1 5 2 1 (a ), 4 1 6 .9 2 0 (c ), 4 1 6 .9 2 1 (a ). T h e s e v e ri ty d e te rm in a tio n is b a s e d s o le ly o n m e d ic a l fa c to rs . Wi l l i am s on v. B arnh art , 3 5 0 F .3 d 1 0 9 7 , 1 1 0 0 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ). A lth o u g h ste p tw o re q u ire s o n ly a “de m i ni m i s ” s how i ng of an i m pai r m ent , a “c l ai m antm us ts how m or e than the m er e pr es ence of a c ondi t i on orai l m ent . ” Hi nkl e v. Apf el , 132 F. 3d 1349, 1352 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). It is tru e th a t M s. F lee tw o o d h a s n o t se e n a sp e c ialist in th e m e n tal h e a lth pr ofes s i on, butw e have found no ca s e author i tyr equi r i ng hert o obt ai n m edi cal tr ea tm en t from su ch a sp ec ial istb efo re a n A L J ca n fin d that sh e h as a sev ere m ent al i m pai r m ent . T he medi cal evi dence , fr om hertr eat i ng phy s i ci an, D r . J ames M c G o u ra n , an d f

ro m th e c o n su lti n g d o c to r, D r. D a v id S e itsin g e r, re p e a ted ly refer s t o h er anxi et yand pan i c at t acks an d to her t aking m edicat i on s for these pr obl ems. T hi s evi dence i s i ncons i s t entw i th the A L J ’ s fi ndi ng that M s . Fl eetw ood has nothad any ps y chi atr i c tr eatm ent . I ndeed, the A L J not es that D r. M cG ou ran treat ed M s. F l eet w oo d fo r anxi et ydis order, am on g o ther things, fo r n e a rl ytw o y e a rs . A p lt. A p p . T a b 4 a t 2 0 .D y s pnea i s defi ned as “br eathl es s nes s ors hor tnes s of br eath; di ffi cul tor 1 la b o re d b re a th in g .” D o rl a n d ’s Il lu s tr a te d M e d . D ic tio n a ry 5 5 8 (2 9 th e d . 2 0 0 0 ).

- 6- Fur ther , w e conc l ude thatthe A L J fai l ed t o pr ovi de s uffi ci entanal y s i s and r eas oni ng t o s uppor thi s deci s i on thatM s . Fl eetw ood di d nothave a s ever e ment al i m pai r m ent . H i s concl us orys t at ementthats he does nothave a s ever e ment al im p a irm e n t an d th a t sh e h a s n o t o b tain e d p sy c h iatric tre a tm e n t fa ils to c o n fo rm to the T enth C i rcui trequi rem ent that the A L J provi de reasoning fo r hi s deci si on so th a t ju d ic ia l r e v ie w is b o th p o s s ib le a n d m e a n in g f u l. See Cl i

f t on v. C hat er , 7 9 F .3 d 1 0 0 7 , 1 0 0 9 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). D u e to th e A L J’s in c o n sis ten t fin d in g s a n d h is fa ilu re to c o n d u c t an a ly sis w i th anys peci fi ci tyorcl ar i tyal l ow i ng form eani ngful r evi ew , w e r emand t o the di s tr i ctcourtw i th di r ect i ons t o r emand t o the A L J forfur therpr ocee di ngs a d d re s s in g M s . F le e tw o o d ’s s e v e re im p a ir m e n ts . 2 . RFC M s. F lee tw o o d a rg u e s th a t th e A L J’s R F C a ss e ss m e n t d id n o t ac c u ra tely r efl ectherl i m i t at i ons . She cont ends thatthe as s es s m entdi d noti ncl ude her conver s at i onal dy s pnea, dy s pnea w i th r ange of m ot i on t es t i ng, hers ever al 1 hos pi t al i zat i ons forchr oni c obs truct i ve pul m onarydi s eas e ( C O PD ) and as thm a, h e r b re a th in g im p a irm e n ts, o r h e r o b e sity . F u rth e r, sh e c o n ten d s th a t n o th in g in herm edi cal r ecor ds s ugges t s thats he ca n s t and fortw o hour s i n an ei ght - hour w ork dayor perform w ork ata sust ai ned l evel for ei gh tho urs a day , fi ve d ay s a- 7-

w eek. Fi nal l y , M s . Fl eetw ood s ubm i t s thatthe A L J di d notexpl ai n how the evi dence s uppor t ed the conc l us i on thats he coul d per form s edent aryj obs on a s us t ai ned bas i s i n an or di naryw or k s ett i ng. W e agr ee thatthe A L J ’ s anal y s i s of h e r R F C is d e f

ic ie n t. A n A L J m u s t m a k e s p e c ific R F C fin d in g s . See Wi nf r ey v . C hat er , 92 F. 3d 1017, 1023 ( 10th C i r . 1996) . T hos e fi ndi ngs m us tbe s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al e v id e n c e . See Haddock v . Apf el , 1 9 6 F .3 d 1 0 8 4 , 1 0 8 8 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). T he R FC as s es s m entm us ti ncl ude a na rr at i ve di s cus s i on des cr i bi ng how the evi dence s uppor t s eac h concl us i on, ci t i ng s peci fi c medi cal fac t s . . . and nonmedi cal evi dence . . . . I n as s es s i ng R FC , the adj udi cat orm us tdi s cus s the i ndi vi dual ’ s abi l i tyt o per form s us t ai ned w or k act i vi t i es i n an or di naryw or k s ett i ng on a r egul arand cont i nui ng bas i s . . . and des cr i be the maxi m um amount of ea ch w or k- r el at ed ac t i vi tythe i ndi vi dual can pe r form bas ed on the evidence av ai l able i n the case r ecord. T he adj ud i cat or m ustal so expl ai n how anym at er i al i ncons i s t enci es orambi gui t i es i n the e v id e n c e in th e c a s e re c o rd w e re c o n s id e re d a n d re s o lv e d . S o c . S e c . R . 9 6 -8 p , 1 9 9 6 W L 3 7 4 1 8 4 , a t * 7 . The A LJ fa i l e d t o fol l ow t he s e r e qu i r e ment s . I n r e a c hi ng hi s RFC c o n c l u s i o n s th a tM s . F l e e two o d c a n d o s e d e n t a rywo r k ; c a n wa l k o rs t a n d fo rtwo hour s outof an e i ght - hourw or kday ; can s i tfors i x hour s outof an e i ght - hour w o rk d a y ; sh o u ld a v o id e x tre m e h e a t an d c o ld , fu m e s, o d o rs, a n d d u st; a n d w o u ld have a m oder at e l evel of di s comfortand s om e fa t i gue and a nxi etyw hen doi ng se d e n tar yw o rk , the A L J s tate d th a t h e “ c o n sid e re d th e o p in io n s o f th e S tate agenc ym edi cal cons ul t antw ho eval uat ed [M s . Fl eetw ood’ s R FC ] atthe i ni t i alW e d o n o t assu m e tha t D r. M cG o u ran ’s fa il u re to d iscu ss M s. F leetw o o d ’s 2 abil i tyt o w ork i nd i cat es that s he is able t o w ork; rather, the co nclusi on w e m ust d ra w is th a t h e fo c u s e d s o le ly o n tr e a tin g h e r m e d ic a l p ro b le m s .

- 8- a n d re c o n sid e ra tio n lev e ls o f th e a d m in istra tiv e re v iew p ro c e ss a n d g e n e ra lly agr ee[ d] w i th the det erm i nat i ons m ade bythe St at e age ncy . ” A pl t . A pp. T ab 4 at 2 1 . Th o s e a g e n c yd e t e r mi n a t i o n s p r i ma r i l yc o n s i s t e d o f c h e c k - th e - b o x fo r ms w ith littl e o r n o e x p la n a tio n fo r t h e c o n c lu s io n s re a c h e d . T hes e che ck- the- box eval uat i on form s , “s t andi ng al one, unacc om pani ed by thor ough w r i t t en r eport s orper s uas i ve t es t i m ony , ar e nots ubs t ant i al evi dence . ” Fr ey v . B ow en , 8 1 6 F .2 d 5 0 8 , 5 1 5 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 8 7 ); s ee als o Soc. Sec. R . 96- 6p, 1996 W L 374180, at*2 ( perm i t t i ng A L J t o r el yon opi ni ons of m edi cal co n su lt an ts i f o p inion s are su p p o rt ed b yev iden ce in ca se re co rd). T h e re co rd s how s onl ya tw o- t o- thr ee- m onth w or k r es tr i ct i on i m pos ed on M s . Fl eetw ood i m m edi at el yaft erherm i tr al val ve r epl ace m ents ur gery . B utno otherm edi cal evi dence i n the r ecor d s peci fi cal l yaddr es s es herabi l i tyt o w or k. D r . M cG our on d id n o t a d d re s s h e r R F C o r h e r a b ility to w o rk in a n yo f h is tr e a tm e n t n o te s . T hos e not es ar e ther efor e i ns uffi ci entt o dr aw r el i abl e conc l us i ons abouther a b ili ty to w o rk . D r. S e itsin g e r, th e c o n su lti n g d o c to r, w h o a c tu a llyp h y sic a lly 2 e x a mi n e d h e r , d i d n o tfo r m s p e c i fi c c o n c l u s i o n s r e g a r d i n g h e ra b i l i tyt o wo r k . He s t at ed onl ythats he had c onver s at i onal dy s pnea a nd dy s pnea w i th r ange of m ot i on t es t i ng, both r el at ed t o herobes i ty . A l s o, he not ed thats he coul d w al k w i thout- 9-

a s s is tiv e d e v ic e s fo r s h o rt d is ta n c e s a n d c o u ld m a n ip u la te fin e a n d g ro s s o bje c ts . H e di d nots t at e w hateffectherpani c att acks oranxi ety , both of w hi ch he a ss e ss e d , w o u ld h a v e o n h e r a b ili tyto w o rk . N o r d id h e in d ica te h e r a b ili tyto s t and ors i tdur i ng an ei ght - hourw or kdayorw hateffectheras s es s ed s hor tnes s of b re a th w ith a h is to ry o f b ro n c h itis a n d C O P D w o u ld h a v e o n h e r a b ility to w o rk . T o the ext entther e i s veryl i t t l e medi cal evi dence di r ect l yaddr es s i ng M s . Fl eetw ood’ s R FC , the A L J m ade uns uppor t ed fi ndi ngs conce rni ng her f u n c tio n a l ab ili ties . W ith o u t ev id e n c e to su p p o rt h is fin d in g s, th e A L J w a s n o t in a p o s itio n to m a k e a n R F C d e te rm in a tio n . T he A L J ’ s i nabi l i tyt o m ake pr operR FC “fi ndi ngs m ayhave s prung fr om hi s fai l ur e t o devel op a s uffi ci entr ecor d on w hi ch thos e fi ndi ngs coul d be bas ed. ” Wa sh in g to n v . Sh a la la , 37 F . 3d 14 37 , 14 42 (10t h C i r. 19 94 ). T he A L J m ust “make everyr eas onabl e effor tt o ens ur e thatthe fi l e cont ai ns s uffi ci entevi dence t o as s es s R FC . ” Soc. Sec. R . 96- 8p, 1996 W L 374184, at*5. B eca us e the d isab il ityh ea ri n g is no n ad v ersa ri al, an A L J is ob li g ated to d ev elop the re co rd e v e n w h e re , a s h e re , th e c la im a n t is re p re s e n te d b yc o u n s e l. Thomps on v. Sul l i van , 9 8 7 F .2 d 1 4 8 2 , 1 4 9 2 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 3 ); accord Haw ki ns v. C hat er , 1 1 3 F . 3 d 1 1 6 2 , 1 1 6 4 , 1 1 6 8 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). E v en tho u g h M s. F leetw o o d ’s couns el di d notr eques tanyaddi t i onal r ecor d devel opm ent , the nee d foraddi t i onal e v id e n c e is s o c lea rlye sta b lish e d in th is re c o rd th a t th e A L J w a s o b lig e d to o b tain- 10-

m o re e v id e n c e re g a rd in g h e r f u n c tio n a l lim ita tio n s . See Haw ki ns , 113 F. 3d at 1 1 6 7 -6 8 . W h e n e v id e n c e f

ro m th e c laim a n t’s tre a tin g d o c to r(s ) is in a d e q u a te to det erm i ne i f the cl ai m anti s di s abl ed, the C om m i s s i onerm us tcont actthe tr eat i ng d o c to r( s ) t o d e te rm in e if a d d itio n a l n e e d e d in fo rm a tio n is a v a ila b le . See 20 C . F. R . § 404. 1512( e) ( 1) ( “W e w i l l s eek a ddi t i onal evi dence orcl ar i fi cat i on from y ou r m edical source w hen the repo rtfrom y ou r m edical source con t ai ns a confl i ctorambi gui tythatm us tbe r es ol ved[ or ] the r eportdoes notcont ai n al l the n e c e ss a ryin fo rm a tio n [ .]”) ; i d. § 4 1 6 .9 1 2 (e )(1 ) (s a m e ); s ee als o Whi t e v. B arnh art , 2 8 7 F .3 d 9 0 3 , 9 0 5 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 2 ) (re c o g n izin g A L J’s o b lig a tio n to c o n tac t trea tin g p h y sic ian w h e n e v e r in fo rm a tio n re c e iv e d f ro m p h y sic ian is i nadequa t e) . I f r econt act i ng the tr eat i ng doct or ( s ) s t i l l does notpr ovi de su b stan ti al ev iden ce u p o n w h ich to b ase an R F C fin d ing , the A L J m ayo rde r a c o n s u lta tiv e e x a m in a tio n . See 2 0 C . F . R . § § 4 0 4 . 1 5 1 2 (f), 4 0 4 . 1 5 1 9 a, 41 6 . 9 1 2 (f), 4 1 6 .9 1 9 a . B eca us e the A L J ’ s R FC as s es s m enti n thi s cas e i s notbas ed on s ubs t ant i al evi dence , w e mustr ever s e the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s aff i r m ance on thi s i s s ue and r emand t o thatcourtw i th di r ect i ons t o r emand t o the C om m i s s i onerforfur ther admi ni s tr at i ve pr ocee di ngs . O n r emand, the A L J m aycons i derobt ai ni ng an evaluat i on of M s. F l eet w oo d’s functi on al l i m i t at i on s fr om her treat i ng do ct or( s)- 11-

and/ ora det ai l ed eva l uat i on fr om a cons ul t i ng doct or , w ho per s onal l yexami nes h e r. Fur therm or e, the A L J ’ s R FC as s es s m entw as concl us oryand uns uppor t ed w ith rea so n ing . T h ere is ab u n d an t evid en ce in the rec o rd o f F leetw o o d ’s br eathi ng i m pai r m ent s and herr epea t ed hos pi t al i zat i ons . A s s he poi nt s out , the A L J fai l ed t o di s cus s w hateffectr epea t ed hos pi t al i zat i ons w oul d have on he r a b ility to m a in ta in e m p lo ym e n t. C f . R occo v . Heckl er , 826 F. 2d 1348, 1350- 51 ( 3d C i r . 1987) ( r ecogni zi ng thatr epea t ed hos pi t al i zat i ons w oul d hi nder p e rfo rm a n c e o f

s e d e n ta ry jo b a s s u m in g c la im a n t c o u ld c o p e w ith e m p lo ym e n t) . N ordi d the A L J cons i derotherevi dence i n the r ecor d i ndi cat i ng thats he frequen t l ycal l ed in si ck w hen she w as w orki ng and w as l ai d o ff from her m ost re c e n t jo b b e c a u s e o f

h e r a b s e n c e s . See A pl t . A pp. T ab. 4 at79. A l though the A L J not ed w hen s ett i ng for th the medi cal evi dence that , i n J anuary2002, F le e tw o o d n e e d e d a lb u te ro l tr e a tm e n ts e v e ry fo u r t o s ix h o u rs , i d. a t1 9 , th e ALJ di d notas s es s w hetherthos e tr eatm ent s w oul d i m pactherabi l i tyt o w or k or w h e th e r s h e c o n tin u e s to re q u ir e a lb u te ro l tr e a tm e n ts w ith th is f re q u e n c y . A d d iti o n a lly , the A L J fa iled to d isc u ss w h a t effe c t h e r o b e sity , in c o m b in a tio n w ith h e r o th e r im p a irm e n ts, p rim a rilyh e r b re a th in g p ro b lem s, w o u ld h a v e o n h e r a b ility to w o rk . See S alazar v. B arnh art , 468 F. 3d 615, 621, 622 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( fai l ur e t o cons i deral l i m pai r m ent s , s i ngl yand i n combi nat i on w i th o th e ri m p a i r m e n t s , i s r e v e r s i b l e e rr o r ) ; S o c . S e c . R . 0 2 - 0 1 p , 2 0 0 0 WL- 12-

6 2 8 0 4 9 , at * 1 , * 5 -* 6 , * 7 (sta tin g th a t o b e sityis m e d ica llyd e ter m in a b le i m pai r m entthatA L J m us tcons i deri n eval uat i ng di s abi l i ty ; thatcombi ned effec t o f o b e sityw ith o th e r im p a irm e n ts c a n b e g re a ter th a n e ffe c ts o f e a c h sin g le i m pai r m entcons i der ed i ndi vi dual l y ; and thatobes i tym us tbe cons i der ed w hen as s es s i ng R FC ) . O n r emand, the A L J m us tcons i deral l of the ava i l abl e medi cal evi dence and as s es s w i th a thor ough and r eas oned ana l y s i s the effec tof al l of M s . F le e tw o o d ’s im p a ir m e n ts o n h e r R F C . 3 . C re d ibil it y M s. F lee tw o o d a rg u e s th a t th e A L J e rre d in a n a ly z in g h e r c re d ib ili ty b e c a u s e th e A L J fa ile d to p ro v id e s p e c ific re a s o n s fo r fin d in g h e r n o t c re d ib le . B eca us e w e r emand forfur therpr ocee di ngs t o as s es s the s ever i tyof her im p a irm e n ts a n d h e r R F C , w e n e e d n o t d e c id e w h e th e r th e A L J’s c re d ib ili ty anal y s i s i s fl aw ed. I ns t ead, w e conc l ude thatthe A L J s houl d r e- eval uat e her c re d ib ility a f

te r f u lly c o n s id e ri n g h e r i m p a ir m e n ts a n d w h e n e v a lu a tin g h e r R F C .

CO NC L US I ON T h e ju d g m e n t o f

th e d istric t co u rt is R E V E R S E D , an d th e c a se is R E M A N D E D w i th di r ect i ons t o r emand t o the C om m i s s i onerforfur ther p ro c e e d in g s . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt J ohn L . K ane D i s tr i ctJ udge