# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 5- 30 01

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Tim ot hy Brown

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

Caro lyn W . Col vi n, Act in g C om m is si on er o f So ci al Secu rit y

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __

App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t

fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s - J on es bo ro

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Marc h 1 7, 2 01 6

Fil ed : J un e 1 7, 2 01 6

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re WOL LMAN, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

W OLLMAN, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

Tim ot hy Br own ap pe al s th e de ni al o f h i s a pp li cat io n fo r di sa bi li ty i ns ur an ce

be ne fit s un de r Tit le II of th e So ci al Secu rit y Act. See 42 U.S.C. § 40 1 et se q. Bro wn

fil ed hi s ap pl ic at io n fo r be ne fit s in Decem be r 20 11

, al le gi ng di sa bi li ty be gi nn in g in

Nov em b e r 2 01 1 du e to se ve re he ari ng lo ss

, di ab et es

, di ab et ic ne ur op at hy, ch ro ni c

ob st ru ct iv e pu lm on a r y d i s e as e, de ge ne rat iv e di sc di se as e of th e lu m ba r sp in e, an dse ve re di arrh ea ca u s e d by m ed ic at io n si de effe ct s. Fo ll owi ng an Aug us t 20 13

he ari ng

, an ad m in is tra ti ve la w jud ge (ALJ) de ni ed Bro wn’s ap pl ic at io n, th e App eal s

Co un ci l de cl i n e d to rev ie w th e ALJ’s de ci si on

, an d th e di st ric t co ur t affi rm ed th e

de ni al of be ne fit s. On ap pe al

, Bro wn arg ue s th at th e ALJ fai le d to pr op erl y as se ss hi s

he ari ng lo ss . W e rev ers e an d re m an d.

At th e ad m in is tra ti ve he ari ng , B ro wn te st ifi ed th at he w as bo rn in 19 58 , wa s

fif ty-fiv e y ears ol d, ha d a hi gh -s ch oo l ed uc at io n, an d ha d pa st rel ev an t wor k as a sa le s

rep res en ta ti ve

. He st at ed th at he ha d t rie d th ree se ts of he ari ng ai ds ov er th e y ears

,

sp en di ng $4 ,50 0 on th e la st s e t

, b u t t ha t th e he ari ng ai ds ha d no t do ne “ on e bi t of

go od .” Bro wn in di cat ed th at he ha d lo st two job s as a res ul t of hi s he ari ng pr ob le m s.

He st at ed th at he ha d di ffi cu lt y he ari ng th e te le vi si on an d tri ed to read li ps ; th at he

ha d to si t “ rig ht cl os e” to h is wife to co nv ers e; an d t ha t wh en hi s wife sp ok e to hi m

fro m an ot he r ro om , “ [i]t’s li ke I do n’t ev en kn o w s h e s p o k e .” Bro wn te st ifi ed th at

he ta lk ed on th e te le ph on e in freq ue nt ly an d av oi de d cro wds be cau se he co ul d no t he ar

or un de rs ta nd co nv ers a t i o n s in th os e ci rcu m st an ces

. The tra ns cri pt of th e he ari ng

rev eal s t ha t, sho rtl y aft er the ALJ beg an hi s o pe ni ng rem ark s, Br own in di cat ed th at

he was ha vi ng di ffi cu lt y he ari ng an d req ue st ed th at he be al lo wed to si t ne arer to th e

ALJ. Bro wn te st ifi ed th at whe n he was si tt in g fart he r away, he “ co ul d he ar so m e ki nd

of vo ic e sp eak in g[ , b ]ut co ul dn ’t u nd ers ta nd no t o ne word [th e ALJ] s ai d.” Bro wn

te st ifi ed th at ev en aft er m ov in g to wit hi n se ve n feet of th e ALJ, he ha d to st rai n to

he ar th e ALJ’s qu es ti on s, as co nf irmed by th e el ev en or so oc cas io ns on whi ch Bro wn

ha d to as k th e ALJ to rep eat hi m se lf or cl ari fy a qu es ti on du rin g th e ro ug hl y on e-h ou r

he ari ng

.

As rel ev an t he re, th e m ed ic al ev id en ce in c l u d e d t he res ul ts of a co ns ul ta ti ve

au di om et ric te st co nd uc te d on Ja nu ary 20

, 20 12

, whi ch rev e a l e d t ha t Bro wn ha d

“ se ve re, sl op i n g t o p ro fo un d se ns or in eu ral he ari ng lo ss ” in bo th ears an d “ Sp eech

Rec ep ti on Thre sh ol d (SRT) sco res

. . . at 95 dB HL” fo r bo th ears . The au di ol og is t

who ad m in is te red th e te st in di cat ed in he r rep or t th at “ rel ia bi li ty fo r th is au di og ram

-2

-was co ns id ered to be qu es ti on ab le ,” bu t sh e pr ov id ed no fu rth er de ta il s. Thre e da y s 1

la te r, Bro wn un de rwen t a co ns ul ta ti ve ph y si cal ex am in at io n by Su dh ir Kum ar, M.D.,

who di ag no se d Bro wn wit h bi la te ral he ari ng lo ss an d no te d th at it was “ di ffi cu lt ” fo r

Bro wn to he ar no rm al co nv ers at io n, th at Bro wn’s ab il it y to he ar was “ po or ,” an d th at

Bro wn’s au di to ry lo ss was fif ty pe rcen t in each ear. On Feb ru ary 10

, 20 12

, Jo hn Ji u,

M.D., co nd uc te d a co ns ul ta ti ve ot ol aryngo lo gi cal ex am in at io n, du rin g whi ch he al so

rev ie wed th e res ul ts of th e Ja nu ary 20 au di om et ric te st res ul ts

. Dr. Ji u’s ex am in at io n

no te s in di cat ed th at Bro wn’s co m m un ic at iv e ab il it y was “ he ari ng im pa ire d” an d th at

Bro wn su ffer ed fro m “ de crea se d he ari ng bi la te ral .” Afte r rev ie win g th e Ja nu ary 20

hear ing te st, D r. Jiu co nf

ir m ed tha t Br ow

n’ s “ HEARING LOSS/S ENSORINEURAL”

was “ un ch an ge d.” A st at e ag en cy do ct or rev ie wed th is m ed ic al ev id en ce an d st at ed 2

th at th e “ au di og ram fro m 1/ 20 /1 2 sh owe d th e cl ai m an t m eet s [li st in g] l ev el b u t t he

res ul ts were qu es t i o n a b l e.” On Apr il 5, 20 12

, Bro wn un de rwen t an ad di ti on al

co ns ul ta ti ve ex am in at io n by Mar k Cl em on s, M.D., whi ch in cl ud ed an au di og ram te st

th at rev eal ed “ se ve re se ns or in eu ral he ari ng lo ss in bo th ears wit h po or di sc riminat io n

at 46 % [in th e rig ht ear] an d 52 %” in th e le ft ear. Dr. Cl em on s co m pl et ed a fo rm to

reco rd th e res ul ts of t he tes t. The for m in cl ud ed a se ct io n fo r th e te st ad m in is tra to r

to rat e th e rel ia bi li ty of th e te st co nd it io ns

, of feri ng th ree op ti on s: “ GOOD,” “ FAIR,”

or “ POOR.” Dr. Cl em on s ci rcl ed th e sp a c e be twee n “ FAIR” an d “ POOR,” bu t he

pr ov id ed no fur th er ex pl an at io n.

Em pl oyin g th e fiv e-s te p pr oc es s se t fo rth in 20 C.F.R. § 40 4.1 52 0( a), th e ALJ

fo un d th at Bro wn ha d no t be en ga in fu ll y em pl oyed si nc e th e al le ge d di sa bi li ty on se t

In on e of se ve ral m is st a t e men ts of th e ev id en ce in th e de ni al or de r, th e ALJ 1

id en ti fie d Dav id Lewis

, M.D., as th e in di vi du al who pe rfo rm ed th is he ari ng te st an d

pr ep ared th e res ul ti ng rep or t wh en , in fact , i t was Mi st y N. Jo hn so n, M .S., CCC-A,

who ha d d on e so

.

The ALJ al so in co rrec tl y st at ed th at Dr. Lewis pe rfo rm ed au di om et ric te st in g 2

of Bro wn on Feb ru ary 10

, 20 12

, whe n, in fact

, Dr. Ji u m erel y rev ie wed th e res ul ts of

th e h eari ng tes t co nd uc te d o n J an ua ry 20 , 20 12

.

-3

-da te ; th at Bro wn’s hear in g lo ss

, di ab et es , and ast hm a were s ev ere i m pa irments ; b ut

th at th ere was “ no ev id en ce” to sh ow th at Bro wn ha d an im pa irment or co m

bi na ti on

of im pa irments t h a t met o r m ed ic al ly eq ua le d th e se ve rit y of on e of th e li st ed

i mp a i r m en ts

. The ALJ th en de te rm in ed th at Bro wn ha d th e res id ua l fu nc ti on a l

cap aci ty (RFC ) to p e r f

o r m m ed iu m wor k wit h so m e ex ert io na l an d no ne xe rti on al

li m it at io ns

, in cl ud in g on ly “ fac e

- to -fac e

. . . ve rb al co m m un ic at io n.” The ALJ

co nc lu de d th at no ne of th e li m it a t i o n s in Bro wn’s RFC pr ecl ud ed hi m fro m

pe rfo rm in g hi s pa st rel ev an t wor k as a sa le s pe rs on or sa le s rep res en ta t i v e

. I n t he

alter na ti ve

, “ co ns id eri ng [Bro wn’s] ag e, ed uc at io n, wor k ex pe rie nc e, an d [R FC ]

, ” the

ALJ rel ie d on a vo cat io na l ex pe rt’s te st im on y to co nc lu de th at Bro wn co ul d pe rfo rm

ot he r av ai la bl e wor k as a co ok s he lp er, ret ai l ba gg er, gr oc ery-sto re cl erk

, or cas hi er.

The ALJ th us co nc lu de d t ha t Br own was n ot di sa bl ed

.

The App eal s Cou nc il ’s de ni al of Bro wn’s requ es t for revi ew m ad e th e ALJ’s

de ci si on th e fi na l d eci si on of t he Co m m is si on er. See Lott v. Co lv in , 77 2 F .3d 54 6,

54 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ). W e rev ie w th e ALJ’s de ni al of di sa bi li ty in su ran ce be ne fit s de

no vo to en su re th at th ere was no le ga l erro r an d th at th e fin di ng s of fact are su pp or te d

by su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce on th e reco rd as a who le

. See Halv ers on v. Ast ru e, 60 0 F.3 d

92 2, 92 9 (8 th C i r

. 2 0 1 0 )

. Su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce is le ss th an a pr ep on de ran ce, bu t

en ou gh th at a reas on ab le m in d wo ul d fi nd it ad eq ua te to su pp or t a c on cl us io n. Se e

id

. W e m us t co ns id er th e reco rd as a who le

, in cl ud in g ev id en ce th at de tra ct s fro m th e

ALJ’s d e c i s i o n, as well as ev id en ce th at su pp or ts it

. See Bo et tc he r v. Ast ru e, 65 2

F.3 d 86 0, 86 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ). “[T ]h e A LJ be ars a res po ns ib il it y to de ve lo p th e

reco rd fai rly an d fu ll y

, in de pe nd en t of th e cl ai m an t’s bu rd en to pr es s hi s cas e.”

Sn ead v. Ba rn ha rt, 3 60 F.3d 83 4, 83 8 (8t h Cir. 20 04 ); s ee al so Sco tt ex r el

. Sco tt v.

Ast ru e, 5 2 9 F .3d 81 8, 82 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (n ot in g th at ALJ’s ob li ga ti on to de ve lo p

th e reco rd in cl ud es du ty to or de r ad di ti on al te st in g if ex is ti ng te st res ul ts are in va li d) ;

St or m o v. Barn ha rt, 37 7 F.3 d 80 1, 80 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ) (n ot in g ALJ’s du ty to se ek

cl ari fy in g st at em en ts fro m a tre at in g ph y si ci an whe n “ a cru ci al is su e is

un de ve lo pe d” ); Nab er v. Sh al al a, 22 F.3 d 18 6, 18 9 (8 th Ci r. 19 94 ) (n ot in g th at ALJ

-4

-ha s a du ty t o ob ta in ad di ti on al m ed ic al ev id en ce if ex is ti ng ev id en ce i s i ns uf fic ie nt

to de te rm in e whe th er a cl ai m an t is di sa bl ed

, bu t th at su ch ev id en ce is no t req ui red if

th e rec or d o th erwi se pro vi de s a s uf fic ie nt ba si s fo r th e d eci si on ).

Bro wn arg ue s th at su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce on th e reco r d as a who le do es no t

su pp or t th e ALJ’s as se ss m en t of hi s he ari ng lo ss be cau se th e ALJ fai le d to co ns id er

whe th er Bro wn m et th e req ui rem en ts un de r Lis ti ng 2.1 0 an d fai le d to ad dr es s o r

reco nc il e Bro wn’s in co ns is te nt he ari ng -te st res ul ts

. W e ag ree. “ [T]he li st in gs were

de si gn ed to op erat e as a pr es um pt io n of di sa bi li ty th at m ak e s f u r t h e r in qu iry

un ne ces sa ry .” Lot t, 77 2 F.3 d at 54 9 (q uo ti ng Su ll iv an v. Zeb le y

, 49 3 U.S. 52 1, 53 2

(1 99 0) ). Thu s, if th e ALJ de te rm in es at st ep t h r e e of th e se qu en ti al an al y si s th at a

cl ai m an t ha s a li st ed im

pa irment, t he cl ai m an t “ m us t be he ld di sa bl ed , a nd th e cas e

is ov er.” J on es v. Ba rn ha rt, 3 35 F.3d 69 7, 6 99 (8t h C ir. 2 00 3)

.

The ap pl ic ab le li st in g in th is cas e is Lis ti ng 2.1 0, “ Heari ng lo ss no t tre at ed wit h

co ch le ar im

pl an ta ti on ,” whi ch pr ov id es in rel ev an t pa r t t h a t a cl ai m an t ha s an

i mp a i rm en t se ve re en ou gh to pr ecl ud e ga in fu l act iv it y if he ha s “ [a]n av erag e a i r

co nd uc ti on he ari ng th res ho ld of 90 de ci be ls or gr eat er in th e be tt er ear an d an av erag e

bo ne co nd uc ti on he ari ng th res ho ld of 60 de ci be ls or g r e a t e r i n th e be tt er ear,” or if

he ha s “ [a] wor d reco gn it io n sc or e of 40 pe rcen t or le ss in th e be tt er ear.” 20 C.F.R.

Pt

. 40 4, Su bp t. P, App

. 1, § 2.1 0

. I n d et erm in in g whe th er Bro wn’s se ve re he ari ng

im p a i r men t m et or m ed ic al ly eq ua le d a li st ed im pa irment, ho wev er, th e ALJ no te d

th at it ha d co ns id ered Lis ti ng 2.0 8, an earl ie r pr ov is io n ti tl ed “ Heari ng Im pa irments ,”

th at was rem ov ed f

r o m t h e Lis ti ng s effe ct iv e Aug us t 2, 20 10

, an d rep la ced wit h

Lis ti ng 2.1 0. See Rev is ed Med ic al Cri te ria fo r Eva lu a t i n g H e ari ng Los s, 75 Fed

.

Reg

. 30 ,69 3 (J un e 2, 20 10 ) (fi na l ru le s)

, 73 Fed

. Reg

. 47 ,10 3, 47 ,10 6 (Au g. 13

, 20 08 )

(p ro po se d ru le s) (p ro po si ng ne w Lis ti ng 2.1 0 th at wou ld ap pl y to in di vi du al s wit ho ut

co ch le ar im

pl an ts an d “ rem ov e th e req ui rem en t fo r te st in g wit h he ari ng ai ds ”). The

ALJ di d no t m e n t i o n Li st in g 2.1 0, m uc h le ss m ak e a de te rm in at io n on th e reco rd

whe th er t he res ul ts of B ro wn’s h eari ng tes ts m et th e cri te ria for Lis ti ng 2.1 0.

-5

-T he A L J’ s fa ilu re to iden ti fy an d an al y ze th e ap pr op ria te li st in g, al th ou gh error,

m ay no t by it se lf req ui re rev ers al so lo ng as th e reco rd ot he rwis e su pp or ts th e ALJ’s

ov eral l co nc lu si on

. See Sco tt

, 52 9 F

. 3 d a t 8 2 2

. Th i s is no t su ch a cas e. Here, th e

reco rd as a who le do es no t su pp or t th e ALJ’s de c i s i o n b e c au se

, am on g ot he r

sh or tc om in gs

, th e de ci si on di d no t ad eq ua te ly acco un t fo r th e in co ns is te nc ie s in th e

m ed ic al ev id en ce. See, e.g

., id

. at 82 3 (n ot in g th at

, whe n ALJ fai ls to su pp or t a

fin di ng th at th e cl ai m an t di d no t m eet or eq ua l a li st in g an d whe n th e reco rd co nt ai ns

in co ns is te nc ie s on th e is su e, “ we are un ab l e to de te rm in e whe th er su bs ta nt ia l

ev id en ce s up po rts th e ALJ’s fi nd in g th at [th e cl ai m an t’s] im pa irments di d n ot m eet

or m ed ic al ly eq ua l [th e] li st in g” ). Bro wn’s Ja nu ary 20 12 he a r i n g t e s t refl ect ed a

sc or e of 95 de ci be ls in bo th ears —a sc or e th at ap pe ars to m eet th e req ui rem en ts of

Lis ti ng 2.1 0— al th ou gh th e rel ia bi li ty of th at te st was la be le d “ qu es ti o na bl e.”

Bro wn’s Apr il 20 12 he ari ng te st

, on th e ot he r ha nd

, refl ect ed “ po or di sc riminat io n at

46 % an d 52 %”—a sc or e th at do es no t ap pe ar to m eet th e req ui rem en ts of Lis ti ng

2.1 0. As wit h th e fir st he ari ng te st , h owe ve r, t h e r e l ia bi li ty o f Bro wn’s Apr il 20 12

he ari ng tes t was on ly fair t o p oo r.

In hi s di sc us si on of th e he ari ng -te st res ul ts

, th e ALJ erro ne ou sl y st at ed th at Dr.

Lewis co nd uc te d au di om et ric te st in g of Bro wn in Feb ru ary 20 12 an d, co m po un di ng

th e erro r, as si gn ed “ si gn ifi can t weig ht to th e op in io n of Dr. Lewis ” be cau se i t was

ba se d on a th or ou gh ev al ua ti on of Bro wn an d was co ns is te nt wit h th e ot he r m ed ic al

ev id en ce. No au di om et ric te st in g was do ne in Feb ru ary 20 12

. As se t fo rth ab ov e, in

Feb ru ary 20 12

, Dr. Ji u— no t Dr. Lewis —re vi ewed th e res ul ts fro m th e Ja nu ary 20 12

he ari ng t e st an d de cl ared th os e res ul ts

, whi ch ap pe ared to m eet Lis ti ng 2.1 0,

un ch an ge d. The ALJ al so as si gn ed “ si gn ifi can t weig ht ” to th e Apr il 20 12 te st

co nd uc te d by Dr. Cl em on s an d th e op in io n of St ep he n W ha le y

, M.D., a “ st at e ag en cy

no n- ex am in in g ex pe rt,” who se rep or t ci te d on ly th e res ul ts fro m t h e Apr il 20 12

he ari ng tes t an d d id no t d is cu ss th e Ja nu ary 20 12 he ari ng tes t.

-6

-The ALJ di d no t m en ti on

, m uc h le ss res ol ve

, th e se em in gl y in co ns is te nt res ul ts

ob ta in ed fro m Bro wn’s two hear in g tes ts

. Nor di d th e ALJ adeq ua te ly ex pl ai n why

he ap pa ren tl y el ect ed to pl ace gr eat er weig ht on th e r e s ul ts fro m th e Apr il 20 12

he ari ng te st rat he r th an th e res ul ts fro m th e Feb ru ary 20 12 he ari ng te st

. Neit he r te st

was de em ed to be al to ge th er rel ia bl e—t he Apr il 20 12 te st was de em ed of fai r to po or

rel ia bi li ty, an d th e Feb ru ary 20 12 te st was de em ed of qu es ti on ab le rel ia bi li ty. In li gh t

of th es e in co ns is te nt an d, se em in gl y eq u a l l y un rel ia bl e te st res ul ts on a “ cru ci al

is su e,” St or m o, 37 7 F.3 d at 80 6, as well as th e ALJ’s fai lu re to accu ra t e l y d e s c r ib e

th e m ed ic al ev id en ce in th e reco rd an d hi s fai lu re to id en ti fy or an al y ze th e rel ev an t

Lis ti ng , we are un ab le to de te rm in e whe th er sub st an ti al ev id en ce o n t he reco rd as a

who le su pp or ts th e ALJ’s fin di ng th at Bro wn di d no t m eet or m ed ic al ly eq ua l a li st ed

im pa irment, se e Sco tt

, 52 9 F.3 d at 82 2 (co nc lu di ng th at “ rem an d is ap pr op ria te whe re

th e ALJ’s fact ua l fin di ng s, co ns id ered in li gh t of t h e r e c o r d as a who le

, are

in su f f i ci en t to pe rm it th is Co ur t to co nc lu de th at su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce su pp or ts th e

Co m m is si on er’s de ci si on ”). Acco rd in gl y

, we rev er se an d re m an d to the di st ric t co ur t 3

wit h in st ru ct io ns to ret ur n th e cas e t o th e Co m m is si on er fo r fu rth er pr oc eed in gs

co ns is te nt wit h th is op in io n, whi ch m ay well req ui re a reev al ua ti on of Bro wn’s RFC,

de pe nd in g u po n t he sev eri ty of hi s h eari ng lo ss

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

W e ha ve no te d th at “ it m ay be rev ers ib le erro r f o r an ALJ no t to or de r a 3

co ns ul ta ti ve ex am in at io n whe n, wit ho ut su c h an ex am in at io n he can no t m ak e an

in fo rm ed ch oi ce.” Lot t v. Co lv in

, 77 2 F.3 d 54 6, 54 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (q uo ti ng Co nl ey

v. Bo wen

, 78 1 F. 2 d 1 4 3

, 14 6 (8 th Ci r. 19 86 ) (p er cu ria m )). On rem an d, th e ALJ

s ho ul d co ns id er whe th er an ad di ti on al co ns ul ta ti ve he ari ng te st is ne ces sa ry to

de te rm in e if Bro wn’s se ve re he ari ng im pa irment m eet s Lis ti ng 2.1 0. W e no te th at in

res po ns e to go ve rn m en t co un se l’s rh et or ic al qu es ti on

, “ How m an y te st s do we ha ve

to or de r? ” Bro wn’s co un se l res po nd ed on reb ut ta l, “ Unt il y ou ge t on e th at is rel ia bl e.”

-7

-