2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
5-29-2008 

# T or r es v . C omm S o c i al S ec ur it y P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 07-2204

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" T or r e s v . C omm S oc i al S e c ur it y " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1109. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1109H o n o ra b le A . W a llac e T a sh im a , S e n io r Ju d g e o f th e U n ited S tate s C o u rt o f A p p e a ls * f o r t h e N in th C ir c u it, s ittin g b y d e s ig n a tio n . NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL

UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_____________ N o. 07- 2204

_____________ ED W I N TO RR ES, A ppel l ant

v. CO M M I SS I ON ER O F S OC I AL SECU RI TY

A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D ist ri ct C o u rt for t he D i s t r i ct of N ew J er s ey ( D
. C
. C i vi l N o. 05- cv- 01371) D i s t r i ct J udge: H onor abl e J oel A
. Pi s ano
A r gued M ar ch 27, 2008 B efor e: M cK E E , R E N D E L L and TA SH I M A , C i r cui t J udges * ( Fi l ed : M ay29, 2008)

A br aham S. A l t er , E s q. ( A r gued) L angt on & A l t er 2096 St
. G eor ges A venue R ahw ay , N J 07065- 00002

A t t or ney f

or P l ai nt i f f

-Appel l ant K r i s t i na D
. C ohn, E s q. R i char d A
. H i l l , J r . , E s q ( A r gued) O ffi ce of U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney Soci al Secur i t y A dm i ni s t r at i on 26 Feder al Pl aza N ew Y or k, N Y 10278- 0000 A t t or neys f

or D ef endant

-Appel l ee

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT
T A S H IM A , C i r cui tJudge
. Pl a i nt i ff Edwi n Torr e s a ppe a l s fr om

an or de r of the Di s tr i c t

Court , a ffi rm i ng the d ecisio n o f

an A d m in istrativ e L aw Ju d g e (“A L J”) th at d en iedh is requ est f o r D isab ility Insurance Benefit s andSupp le m enta l Sec urity Incom e. To rr es contends that the ALJ’s de c i s i on wa s not

ba s e d on s ubs t ant i a l e vi de nc e . Spe c i fi c a l l y , Torr e s c ont e nds that the A L J’s d ecisio n o m ittedev id en ce, rej ectedT o rres’ sub j ectiv e co m

p lain ts o f p ain , f ailedto
com bine al l of T orre s’ m edic al im pair m ents , andca lc ulat ed To rr es ’ r es idual fun ct ional
c a pa c i ty wi thout e vi de nt i ary

ba s i s . The Di s tr i c t

Court c ons i de r e d Torr e s ’ a l l e gat i ons i n a l e ngthy opi ni on and c onc l ude d that s ubs t ant i a l e vi de nc e i n the r e c or d s upport e d the Comm i s s i one r ’ s de c i s i on that Torr e s wa s not

di s abl e d. We exer ci se plenar

y re view ov er

the Dis tr ic t Cou rt ’s order but revi ew the ALJ’s3

deci si on to “det er

m ine whether

it is supp orte d b y

substantia l e vidence. ” Newell v. Co mm ’r of So c. Sec. , 347 F. 3d 541, 545 ( 3d Ci r . 2003)
. Al though the ALJ ’ s opi ni on consider ed al l of the evidence, incl ud ing T orre s’ subj ec ti ve com plai nts of p ai n, and w as
w ell-reaso n ed , w e co n clu d e th at th e A L J f ailedp ro p erly

to co n sid er all o f

T o rres’
m edic al im

pair m ents in com

binati on . W e further c on cl ud e that the AL J overs tate d To rr es ’ dai ly

ac ti viti es and that his dete rm inat ion that Torre s had the c apac it y to perform li gh t work is not supp orte d b y substantia l e vidence. Th er efore, we vac at e the Distri ct Court ’ s Fe br

uary 23, 2006, or de r , and r e m and the m att e r t o the Di s tr i c t

Court t o, i n t urn,
rem an dth e m atter to th e C o mm issio n er f o r f u rth er p ro ceed in g s inacco rd an ce w ith th is opi ni on. O n A p ril 1 5 , 2 0 0 3 , T o rres f iledan ap p licatio n f

o r D isab ility

In su ran ce B en ef

its due t o di abe t e s , l e ft
- e y e bl i ndne s s , and ba c k pa i n, whi c h wa s de ni e d. On May 26, 2004, To rr es subm itte d a cl ai m

fo r Sup plem enta l Sec urity Incom e. Bo th cl ai m s wer e
c ons ol i dat e d i nt o ahe ar i ng i n fr ont of the ALJon Oc t obe r

12, 2004. The he ar i ng
re veal ed that

To rr es suff

er s from nu m er ou s m edic al im

pair m ents . Evidence s ho ws that To rr es has bee n a Ty

pe II no n-insuli n d ependent diabet ic si nce l at e 200 2 andwas d iag n o sedw ith H ep atitis C in late 2 0 0 3 . T o rres h as n o sig h t inh is lef t ey e, g lau co m a in hi s r i ght e y e , he a da c he s , “ di s c bul ge s ” i n hi s l owe r ba c k that c aus e ba c k pa i n, and chronic bronchiti s. Ad diti on al ly , Torre s has been diagno se d w it h an adj ustm ent dis order wi th m i xe d anxi e ty , a djus tm e nt di s or de r wi th de pr e s s e d m ood, bi pol ar di s or de r , and a4

pers on al it y disorder
. I n o r d e r t o b e e l i g i b l e f

o r D i s ab i l i ty

I n s u r an c e an dS up p l e me n t a l S e c u r i ty I n c o me be ne fi t s ac l a i m ant

m us t de m ons tr at e that

he i s “ di s abl e d” wi thi n the m e ani ng of the S o cial S ecu rity

A ct. 4 2 U .S .C . § 4 2 3 (d )(1 )(A ). T h e S o cial S ecu rity reg u latio n s set f

o rth a f iv e-step sequ en tial ev alu atio n to d eterm in e if an in d iv idu al is d isab led . 2 0 C .F .R . § 40 4.15 20 . I n the thir d ste p, the ALJ consider s the se veri ty of the c la im ant’ s i m pa i rm e nt ( s ) and c he c ks t o s e e i f the i m pa i rm e nt ( s ) m e e t s or

e qua l s one of the i m pa i rm e nt s l i s t e d i n Appe ndi x 1. 20 C. F. R. § 404. 1520( a ) ( 4) ( i i i )
. The ALJc an fi nd
m ed ical equ iv alen ce in th ree w ay s: (1 )(i) If yo uh av e an im

p airm en t th at is d escrib edin ap p en d ix 1 , b u t– ( A) You do not

e xhi bi t one or m or e of the fi ndi ngs s pe c i fi e d i n the part i c ul ar l i s t i ng, or (B) You exhibit a ll of

the finding s, bu t one or m ore of the find ings is no t a s s e ve r e a s s pe c i fi e d i n the part i c ul ar l i s t i ng, (ii) We f in dth at yo u r im

p airm en t is m ed ically

equ iv alen t to th at listin g if you have other finding s r el at ed to you r i m pair m ent that are at

le as t of equ al m edic al si gn ific ance to the r equire d cri te ri a. ( 2) I f youhave an i m

pa i rm e nt ( s ) that

i s no t de s c r i be d i n a

pp e nd i x 1 , we will com pare you r finding s with tho se fo r c lose ly anal og ou s l is te d i m pa i rm e nt s . I f the fi ndi ngs r e l at e d t o your i m pa i rm e nt ( s ) ar e at

l e a s t of equal m edic al si gn ific ance to those of a li st ed im pair m ent, we will findthat your i m pa i rm e nt ( s ) i s m e di c a l l y

e qui va l e nt

t o the ana l ogous l i s t i ng. (3 ) If yo uh av e a co m

b in atio n o f

im p airm en ts, n o o n e o f

w h ich m eets a l i s t i ng ( s e e § 404. 1525( c ) ( 3) ) , we wi l l c om par e your fi ndi ngs wi th thos e for c l os e l y ana l ogous l i s t e d i m

pa i rm e nt s . I f the fi ndi ngs r e l at e d t o your im pair m ents ar e at l ea st

of equal m edic al si gn ific ance to those of a li st ed im p airm en t, w e w ill f

in dth at yo u r co m

b in atio n o f

im p airm en ts is m ed ically equ iv alen t to th e listin g . 2 0 C .F .R . § 4 0 4 .1 5 2 6 (b ). If th e claim an t is su ccessf

u l ind em o n stratin g th at h is5

i m pa i rm e nt ( s ) m e e t s or

e qua l s one of the l i s t i ng i n Appe ndi x 1 and m e e t s the dur at i on requ irem en t (co n tin u o u s p erio do f 1 2 m o n th s), th en th e claim an t is f o u n dto b e d isab led
. 20 C.F.R. § 4 04 .152 0(a) (4)( ii i) . Altho ug h the cl ai m ant bears the burden o f p roving that hi s i m pa i rm e nt s e qua l or

m e e t thos e l i s t e d i n Appe ndi x 1, i f ac l a i m ant ’ s i m pa i rm e nt doe s not m at c h one l i s t e d i n Appe ndi x 1, the ALJi s r e qui r e d t o pe r form ac om par i s on b etw een th e claim an t’s im p airm en t(s) an dth o se listedin A p p en d ix 1 . 2 0 C .F .R . § 404. 1526( b)
. Thi s c ourt

ha s s t at e d that

i t i s the ALJ ’ s “ r e s pons i bi l i ty . . . t o i de nt i fy

the
r e l e vant l i s t e d i m pa i rm e nt ( s ) ” and “ ‘ de ve l op the ar gum e nt s both for and a ga i ns t

gr ant i ng benefits .’ ” Bu rnet t v . Com m’r of Soc. Sec
. , 220 F. 3d 112, 120 n. 2 ( 3d Ci r . 2000) ( quot i ng Sims v. Ap

fe l , 530 U. S. 103, 111 ( 2000) )
. He r e , the ALJfa i l e d at s t e p thr e e by fail ing to con si der Torres ’ i m pair m ents in com

binati on wh en dete rm ining m edic al equivale nce. W hi l e the ALJe xpl a i ne d why Torr e s ’ i m

pa i rm e nt s do not

m e e t Appe ndi x 1 listin g s in divid

u a lly , he fa i l e d t o c onduc t apr ope r 20 C. F. R. § 404. 1526( b) ana l y s i s . The ALJ ’ s e nt i r e c om

bi nat i on ana l y s i s c ons i s t e d of one c ur s ory par a gr a ph: Re gar di ng s t e ps two andthr e e , the e vi de nc e e s t abl i s he s the e xi s t e nc e of a “ s e ve r e ” i m

pa i rm e nt i nvol vi ng l e ft
- e y e bl i ndne s s , di abe t e s , he pat i t i s C and c i rrhos i s , de ge ne r at i ve di s c di s e a s e of the l um bar s pi ne , br onc hi t i s , and depres si on , but do es no t dis cl ose any m edic al find ings wh ic h m ee t or e qu al i n s e ve r i ty

the c l i ni c a l c r i t e r i aof any i m pa i rm e nt l i s t e d i n Appe ndi x 1, Subpart P t o Re gul at i ons No. 4. The ana l y s i s i s c onc l us ory and i na de quat e . The ALJfa i l e d t o c om bi ne Torr e s ’ m any
m ed ical im

p airm en ts an dco m

p are th em to an alo g o u s A p p en d ix 1 listin g s.6

T h is co u rt requ ires th e A L J to set f o rth th e reaso n s f

o r h is d ecisio n s. B u rn ett , 220 F. 3d at 119 ( c i t i ng Co tter v. H

a rris, 64 2 F .2d 7 00 , 704 -705 (3d C ir . 198 1)). Mo re ov er , c onc l us ory

s t at e m e nt s , l i ke the one i n thi s c a s e , have be e n found t o be “ be yond
m eaning fu l jud ic ia l r evie w.” Id

. (s tati ng that an AL J’ s “ conclusory” one-s ente nce s te p thre e analy si s was “beyon d m eaning fu l jud ic ia l r evie w”). Th er e i s no w ay

to re view the ALJ’s deci si on in this ca se beca use no rea sons were given f or his c on cl usion that Torre s’ im pair m ents in com

binati on did n ot m ee t or e qu al an A p p en d ix 1 listin g . O n rem an d , th e A L J sh all f u lly d ev elo p th e reco rdan dex p lain h is f in d in g s at step th ree, in clu d in g an an aly sis o f w h eth er an dw h y

T o rres’ d iab etes, Hepati ti s C, bac k p roblem s, headaches , c hron ic bron chit is , l eft- eye bli nd ness , gla ucom a, depres si on , anx ie ty , bipolar disorder , andpers on al it

y disorder in com binati on , are or ar e
no t e qu ival ent i n sever it

y to on e of the li st ed im

pair m en t s. T he A L J should al so reconsi der t he p reci se ext ent of T orr es’ dail y act i vit i es. W e w i l l t her efor e vac at e t he or der of t he D i s t r i ct C our t and r emand t o t he D i s t r i ct C our t t o, i n t ur n, r emand t he mat t er t o t he C om m i s s i oner for fur t her pr ocee di ngs
cons i s t ent w i t h t hi s opi ni on.