### F I LE D

. U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T A pr i l12, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK

Honora ble J eromeFa

rris, United States Circuit Judg e for the Ninth Circuit, sitt ing by * designation. [ P U B L I S H ]

I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 04- 13176

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 03 -002 05 -C V -2-C A R -5 CHRI ST I L. M OO RE , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s J O A NN E B . BARNHA RT , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e M id d le D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( A p r i l12, 2005) B efo re B A R K E T T , H IL L an d F A R R IS , C i rcu i tJu d g es. * P E R C U R I A M: C hr i s t i L . M oor e appe a l s the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s or de ra f f i rm i ng theA v aru s de formity is de fine d a s a

bo winginw ard

of thekn e eand

le g . F .A . D avis , 1 Tarber’s Cyclopedic Me dical Dictionar y 2064 (18th Ed. 1997). 2 C om m i s s i one rof

S oc i a l S e c ur i ty ’ s ( “ C om m i s s i one r ” ) de ni a l of he rappl i c a t i on f

or D i sabi l i ty I nsurance Benefi t(“ D IB ”) and S up pl em ent al S ec uri ty I ncom e ( “ S S I” ) paym ent s bas ed on a det erm i nat i on thatshe r et ai ned suffi ci entre si du al funct i on al c apa c i ty t o pe r f

orm he rpa s tr e l e va ntw ork. S pe c i f i c a l l y , M oor e t a ke s i s s ue w i th: (i) th e A L J’s f

ailu re to cr ed ittestim o n y f ro m h ertrea ti n g p h ys ician s; (ii) th e A L J’s r e f e r e n c e to a n ab s e n c e o f

o b je c tiv e m e d ic a l e v id e n c e ; ( iii) th e A L J ’s u ltim a te de t e rm i na t i on tha ts he r e m a i ne d abl e t o pe r f orm the f ul l r a nge of

l i ghtw ork; a nd ( i v) the A L J ’ s f

a i l ur e t o c om pl y w i th r e gul a t i ons on the m e thodol ogy f or e v a lu a tin g m e n ta l im p a irm e n ts . W e f in d th e A L J ’s f

a ilu r e to p r o p e r lye v a lu a te M o o r e ’s p s y c h o lo g ic a l im p a irm e n ts r e q u ir e s r e m a n d . B AC KG R OU ND I n F e brua ry 1994, M oor e appl i e d f orD I B , c l a i m i ng di s abi l i ty f r om f i br om y a l gi a , s e pa r a t i on of the r i ghts houl de r , ava rus de f orm i ty of the kne e a nd l e g , a s thm a , de pr e s s i on, c e rvi c a l di s c di s e a s e , a nd he a da c he s . A f t e rhe a r i ngs 1 b e f o r e a n a d m in is tr a tiv e la w ju d g e ( “A L J ” ) , h e rD I B ap p lic a tio n w a s d e n ie d in A ug ust19 96 . T he di stri ctcourtaf fi rm ed, bu ton appeal before thi s c ou rtthe S oci al S e c u r ityA d m in is tr a tio n ( “S S A ” ) r e q u e s te d a“s e n te n c e f o u r ” r e m a n d p u r s u a n t toIn order to remand pursuant to the fourth sentence of § 405(g), the c ourt “must either 2 find that the dec ision is notsupported by substantial evidence , or that the Commissioner (or the ALJ ) incorrectly

applied the law

relevant to the disability

claim.” SeeJ ackson v. Chater, 99 F.3d 1086, 1091- 92 (11th Cir. 1996). 3 4 2 U .S .C . § 4 0 5 ( g ) to a llo w f u rth e rc o n s id e r a tio n o f

M o o r e ’s f

ib r o m y a lg ia . 2 M oo re subsequent l y f

i l ed her cl ai m for S S I pay m ent s i n A pri l 19 98 . A ft er a d d i t i o n a l h e a r i n g s a n d th e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f a d d i t i o n a l e v i d e n c e , th e ALJ re com m ended thatbo th cl ai m s be deni ed. T ho ug h the A L J a cc ept ed thatM oo re b o th h a d n o t e n g a g e d in s u b s ta n tia l g a in f u l a c tiv itya n d h a d im p a irm e n ts qu al i fy i ng as se vere , he det erm i ned thatM oo re ’ s di sabi l i t i es di d n otm ee tor equal a n y o f th o s e r e s u ltin g in ap r e s u m p tio n o f d is ab ility . S e e A p p e n d ix 1 , 2 0 C .F .R . § 4 0 4 ( 2 0 0 5 ) . Th e A LJ u l t i ma t e l y f o u n d th a tw h i l e M o o r e w a s r e s tr i c t e d f r o m s o me j obs , he ri m pa i rm e nt s di d notpr e c l ude pe r f orm a nc e of

a l l of he rpa s tr e l e va nt w ork, i nc l udi ng l i ghte xe rt i on pos i t i ons a s an of f i c e c l e rk, s a l e s c l e rk, f

ood prod uct i on w orker, or w ai tre ss . T hatdet erm i nat i on w as l ar gel y groun ded i n w hat th e A L J p e r c e iv e da s a n in c o n s is te n c y b e tw e e n M o o r e ’s a c c o u n ts o f h e rd a ily act i v i t i es an d h er cl ai m s o f w o rki m p ai rm en t . T h e A L J al so m ad e ad v erse cr edi bi l i ty det erm i nat i on s a s t o M oo re ’ s c l ai m thatshe has no tkeptup w i th h er pr e s c r i pt i on drug a nd tr e a tm e ntr e gi m e n due t o f i na nc i a l c ons tr a i nt s , i n l i ghtof M oo re ’ s abi l i ty t o p urchas e c i gare tt es , coca i ne, and m ar i j uana. T he A L J f

urther f o u n d M o o r e ’s c a s e w e a k e n e d b y h e rs m o k in g h ab it, w h e r e m e d ic a l p r o f e s s io n a ls4

h av e rep eat ed l y st at ed th ati tex acerb at ed h er asth m a an d resp i rat o ry p ro b l em s. A f t e rthe appe a l s c ounc i l de ni e d M oor e ’ s r e que s tf orr e vi e w , the C om m i ss i on eradop t ed the A L J’ s f i nd i ng s a s f

i nal . M oo re appeal ed t o the di stri ct c ourt , w hi c h i n turn a dopt e d the m a gi s tr a t e ’ s r e c om m e nda t i on t o a f f i rm the C o m m i ssi o n er’ s d eci si o n . M o o re t i m el y ap p eal s. ST AN DA RD OF RE VI EW I n S o c i a l S e c u r i ty ap p e a l s , we r e v i e w de nov o the l e ga l pr i nc i pl e s upon w hi c h the C om m i s s i one r ’ s de c i s i on i s ba s e d. C he s t e rv. B ow e n, 792 F . 2d 129, 131 ( 11th C i r . 1986) . H ow e ve r , w e r e vi e w the r e s ul t i ng de c i s i on onl y t o de t e rm i ne w h e th e rit is s u p p o rte d b y s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . C r a w f o r d v . C o m m ’ro f

S o c . S e c ., 363 F . 3d 1155, 1158- 59 ( 11th C i r . 2004) . S ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e i s l e s s tha n a p r e p o n d e r a n c e , b u t r a th e rs u c h r e le v a n t e v id e n c e a s ar e a s o n ab le p e r s o n w o u ld ac ce ptas adequat e t o sup po rta c on cl usi on . Id. T hi s l i m i t ed re vi ew prec l ud es de c i di ng the f

a c t s a ne w , m a ki ng c r e di bi l i ty de t e rm i na t i ons , orr e - w e i ghi ng the evi dence. B l oo dsw orth v . H ec kl er , 70 3 F . 2d 12 33 , 12 39 (11th C i r. 19 83 ). DI S C US S I ON A n i nd i vi du al cl ai m i ng S oci al S ec uri ty di sabi l i ty benef i t s m ustprov e that s h e i s d i s ab l e d . J o n e s v . A p f e l , 1 9 0 F. 3 d 1 2 2 4 , 1 2 2 8 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 1 9 9 9 ) . Fo rSSI cl ai m s, a c l ai m antbecom es el i gi bl e i n the fi rs tm on th w here she i s both d i sabl ed5

and h as an S S I app l i ca t i on on fi l e. 20 C . F . R . § 4 16 . 20 2-03 (200 5). F or D IB c l a i m s , ac l a i m a nti s e l i gi bl e f orbe ne f i t s w he r e s he de m ons tr a t e s di s abi l i ty on or b e f o r e th e la s t d a te f

o rw h ic h s h e w e r e in s u r e d . 4 2 U .S .C . § 4 2 3 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( 2 0 0 5 ) . B ec ause M oo re ’ s l as ti nsured dat e w as D ec em ber 31, 19 97 , her D IB appeal re qu i re s ashow i ng of di sabi l i ty on o r bef ore thatdat e. C on vers el y, as M oo re appl i e d f orS S I pa y m e nt s i n A pr i l 15, 1998, he rS S I appe a l r e qui r e s as how i ng of di s abi l i ty be tw e e n tha tda t e a nd the da t e of the A L J ’ s de c i s i on, on F e brua ry 23, 2 0 0 1 . T h e so ci al secu ri ty reg u l at i o n s est ab l i sh a fi v e-st ep ev al u at i o n p ro cess, w hi c h i s us e d t o de t e rm i ne di s abi l i ty f orboth S S I a nd D I B c l a i m s . M c D a ni e l v. B ow e n, 800 F . 2d 1026, 1030- 31 ( 11th C i r . 1986) ; 20 C . F . R . § 416. 912 ( 2005) (f i ve-s t ep det erm i nat i on for S S I) ; 20 C . F . R . § 4 04 . 15 20 (200 5) (f i ve-s t ep de t e rm i na t i on f

orD I B ) . T he s e r e gul a t i ons pl a c e ave ry he a vy bur de n on the cl ai m antt o d em on stra t e both a qu al i fy i ng di sabi l i ty and an i nabi l i ty t o p er form p a s t r e le v a n t w o rk . S p e n c e rv . H e c k le r , 7 6 5 F .2 d 1 0 9 0 , 1 0 9 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 5 ) . M o o r e ’s ap p e a l f

o c u s e s o n s te p f

o u rin th e e v a lu a tio n p r o c e s s : h e rc ap a c ityto pe r f orm he rpa s tr e l e va ntw ork. F i rs t , M oo re cont ends thatthe A L J e rr ed i n fai l i ng t o p roperl y c on si der her sy m p to m s o f p ain an d fib ro m ya lg ia. S p ec ifically, M o o re co n ten d s th at th e A L J’sUnpublished dec isions of this court are not bindingprec edent. See11th Cir. R. 36-2. 3 However, Moorespecific ally relies on our

unpublished decision in Stewart, a nd we address it for this reason. 6 d e c is io n im p r o p e r lyf

o c u s e d o n th e ab s e n c e o f o b je c tiv e f in d in g s to c o rr o b o r a te he rc l a i m s of

i m pa i rm e nt , a nd c onf

l i c t s w i th ourunpubl i s he d de c i s i on i n S t e w a rtv. A pfel , N o. 99 -613 2, 20 00 U . S . A pp . L E X IS 33 21 4 (11 th C i r. D ec . 20 , 20 00 ). In 3 S t ew art , w e r evi ew ed m edi ca l re se ar ch on fi brom ya l gi a, w hi ch oft en l ac ks m edi ca l or l aborat ory s i gn s, and i s gener al l y di agno se d m ost l y on a i nd i vi du al ’ s des cr i bed s y m pt om s . B e c aus e the i m pa i rm e nt ’ s ha l l m a rk i s thus al a c k of obj e c t i ve ev id en ce , w e r ev er se d an A L J’s d eter m in atio n th at a f ib ro m ya lg ia claim an t’ s t e s t i m ony w a s i nc r e di bl e ba s e d on the l a c k of obj e c t i ve e vi de nc e doc um e nt i ng the im p a irm e n t. I d . a t * 9 , n .4 . W h i l e i n th i s case th e A L J d i d n o t e th atM o o re’ s tre at i ngsources d o c u m e n te d a“la c ko f

c o rr o b o r a tiv e o b

je c tiv e f in d in g s o f

im p a irm e n t,” th is abs e nc e of

l abor a t ory e vi de nc e w a s notthe ba s i s f orthe A L J ’ s ow n ne ga t i ve c r e di bi l i ty de t e rm i na t i on. U nl i ke the s i tua t i on i n S t e w a rt , w he r e the l a c k of obj e c t i ve f

i ndi ngs f orm e d the ba s i s f

orthe a dve r s e c r e di bi l i ty de t e rm i na t i on, the A L J h ere reli ed o n th e i n co n si st en ci es b etw een M o o re’ s d escri p t i o n s o f h er d i v erse dai l y a ct i vi t i es and h ercl ai m s of i nfi rm i ty. M ore s peci fi ca l l y, the A L J quest i on ed M oor e ’ s c ont e nt i ons tha ts he c oul d notm a i nt a i n c ons c i ous ne s s orpe r f orm l i ghtWhil e Mooreargues in passingthat the ALJ ’s dec sion runs afoul of this Circuit’s 4 pre c e dent re quiringe xplic it a rticulatio n o f t

here a so nsjus tif

yinga de c isi on to discre dit

a claimant’s subjective pain testimony (e.g ., Cannon v. Bow en, 858 F .2d 1541, 1545 (11th Cir. 1988)), the ALJ ’s finding s and rationale satisfy this standard. 7 w ork, i n l i gh tof her abi l i ty t o d ri ve, prov i de chi l dcar e, bathe and care for her se l f, e x e r c is e , a n d p e r f

o rm h o u s e w o rk . W e r e c o g n iz e th a t c r e d ib ilityd e te rm in a tio n s a r e th e p r o v in c e o f th e A L J . W i l s on v. H e c kl e r , 734 F . 2d 513, 517 ( 11th C i r . 1984) . A s the A L Jpr ovi de d a de t a i l e d f

a c tua l ba s i s f

orhi s c r e di bi l i ty de t e rm i na t i on , w hi c h di d notturn on the 4 la c ko f o b je c tiv e e v id e n c e d o c u m e n tin g f ib r o m y a lg ia , S te w a rt is u n a v a ilin g to M oo re . Indeed, the A L J e ven ci t ed t o o ur deci si on i n S t ew art , m aki ng cl ear that M oo re ’ s l ac k o f c orrobo ra t i ve m edi ca l evi dence “ di d n otes t abl i sh the cl ai m anthas no i m pa i rm e ntf

r om f i br om y a l gi a . ” R . 1182. S e c ond, M oor e s ugge s t s tha tthe A L Ji m pr ope r l y di s c r e di t e d the t e s t i m ony of her tre at i ng chi ropract or. M oo re ci t es t o d ec i si on s of thi s c ou rtre qu i ri ng that the A L J c l earl y art i cul at e the re as on s f or gi vi ng l es s w ei gh tt o the t es t i m on y of a tr e a tin g p h y s ic ia n . M a c G r e g o rv . B o w e n , 7 8 6 F .2 d 1 0 5 0 , 1 0 5 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 6 ) . W h ile atr e a tin g p h y s ic ia n ’s te s tim o n y c a n b e p a rtic u la r lyv a lu ab le in f ib r o m y a lg ia c a s e s , w he r e obj e c t i ve e vi de nc e i s of t e n abs e nt , s e e S t e w a rt , 2000 U . S . A pp. L E X I S 33214 a t*9, the A L Jhe r e a de qua t e l y a rt i c ul a t e d s pe c i f i c j us t i f i c a t i on f or d is c o u n tin g D r . P a r d o ’s o p in io n . D r . P a r d o tr e a te d M o o r e f o rap p r o x im a te lys ix8

m on ths before op i ni ng , i n F ebruary19 97 , thatM oo re w as un abl e t o w ork i nde f i ni t e l y . T he A L Jf

ound thi s opi ni on de f

i c i e ntbe c aus e i tf

a i l e d t o a c c ountf

or M o o re ’s d iv er se d aily ac ti v it ies, o r to g iv e a n y s p ec ific as se ss m en t o f M o o re ’s funct i on al capaci ty or e xp l anat i on of ho w i tbo re on D r. P ar do ’ s c on cl usi on that M oor e c oul d notw ork. I n a ddi t i on, the A L Jdi s c ount e d D r . P a r do’ s opi ni on be c aus e the opi ni on w a s pr e pa r e d on as hortf orm us e d t o s upportM oor e ’ s f ood st am p el i gi bi l i ty. W here ou r l i m i t ed re vi ew prec l ud es re -w ei gh i ng the evi dence a n e w, M i l e s v . Ch a t e r , 8 4 F. 3 d 1 3 9 7 , 1 4 0 0 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 1 9 9 6 ) , a n d a s th e ALJ a rt i c ul a t e d s pe c i f

i c r e a s ons f

orf a i l i ng t o gi ve D r . P a r do’ s opi ni on c ontr ol l i ng w ei gh t , w e f

i nd no re vers i bl e e rr or. T hi rd, M oo re urges e rr or i n the A L J’ s ul t i m at e det erm i nat i on thather resi d u al fu n ct i o n al cap aci ty (“ R F C ”) en ab l ed h er t o p erfo rm so m e o f h er p ast w ork. O n thi s poi nt , the A L Jr e l i e d on m e di c a l t e s t i m ony tha tM oor e ’ s va rus o rth o p e d ic p r o b le m o n ly“m o d e r a te lyr e s tr ic te d ” h e rg a it, d id n o t r e s tr ic t lig h t d u ty em pl oym ent , and cou l d b e tre at ed w i th h i gh -t op shoes and ov er -the-c ou nt er m ed icatio n s. R . 1 1 8 5 . T h e A L J d re w o n sim il arm ed ical testim o n y th at M o o re ’s p s y c h ia tr ic a n d d e p r e s s iv e im p a irm e n ts r e s u lte d in m o d e r a te d e f ic ie n c ie s in concentra t i on and att ent i on , bu tdi d n otaf fe ctM oo re ’ s m ob i l i ty or r equi reOn this point, the ALJreje cted a state ag ency ’s deter

mination that Moore’s af

fective 5 disorder w as “non- severe”, f inding instead that it impos ed non-minimal restrictions on her capacity . R. 1186. 9 ho spi t al i za t i on . R . 11 84 -85. L i kew i se , M oo re ’ s vert ebrogeni c di sorder s r es ul t ed 5 i n no m a j orf unc t i ona l l os s . R . 1183. T he A L Jf urthe rnot e d tha tthr oughoutthe t i m e per i od un der c on si dera t i on , M oo re ’ s c on di t i on re m ai ned rel at i vel y s t abl e, w i th aga i n i n w e i ght , no di m i nut i on i n m us c l e s tr e ngth, af ul l r ange of

m ot i on, a nd no rm al m uscl e t on e. R . 11 83 , 11 85 . W hi l e the A L J’ s R F C deci si on consi dere d M oor e ’ s s ubj e c t i ve pa i n, i tnot e d tha tM oor e ’ s m e di c a l hi s t ory c ont a i ne d not a t i ons of e m be l l i s he d a nd m a gni f i e d pa i n be ha vi or s , a s w e l l a s drug- s e e ki ng m a ni pul a t i ve t e nde nc i e s . R . 1183, 1185. T he A L J ’ s R F C de t e rm i na t i on a l s o dr e w on f i ndi ngs of a n i nc ons i s t e nc y be tw e e n M oor e ’ s ow n t e s t i m ony a s t o he rda i l y a c t i vi t i e s a nd h e rc la im s o f

im p a irm e n t. B as ed on the foregoi ng , w e f i nd thatthe A L J’ s det erm i nat i on thatM oo re re t ai ned suffi ci entR F C t o p er form som e of herpastre l evantw ork w as supp ort ed by subst ant i al evi dence. S ee M art i n v . S ul l i van, 89 4 F . 2d 15 20 , 15 29 (11th C i r. 19 90 ) ( “ [e ] ven i f the evi dence prepond er at es agai nstthe S ec re t ary’ s f ac tual fi nd i ng s, w e m ustaf

fi rm i f the deci si on re ac hed i s s up po rt ed by subst ant i al e vi de nc e ” ) ; c f

. , G r a ha m v. A pf

e l , 129 F . 3d 1420, 1422 ( 11th C i r . 1997) ( a f f i rm i ng A L J det erm i nat i on thatcl ai m ant ’ s c l ai m s of w ork i m pai rm entcoul d n otbe square dTo a larg e extent, Moore questions the ALJ ’s RFC deter mination based solely

on the 6 fact that she hasvarus leginstability and shoulder separation. However , the mereexis tenceof these impairments doe s not reveal the extent to which they limither a

bility to work or undermine the ALJ ’s deter

mination in that reg ard. SeeMcCruter v. B owen, 791 F .2d 1544, 1547 (11th Cir. 1986) (“ ‘severity ’ of a

medically

ascertained disability

must be measure d in terms of its effe ct upon ability

to work”) . 10 w i th he rabi l i ty t o c a r e f orhe r s e l f

a nd m a na ge da i l y a c t i vi t i e s of c hi l dc a r e a nd h o u s e w o rk ) . T o th e e x te n t th a t M o o r e p o in ts to o th e re v id e n c e w h ic h w o u ld unde rm i ne the A L J ’ s R F C de t e rm i na t i on , he rc ont e nt i ons m i s i nt e rpr e tthe 6 na rr ow l y c i r c um s c r i be d na tur e of ourappe l l a t e r e vi e w , w hi c h pr e c l ude s us f r om

“ r e - w e i gh[ i ng] the e vi de nc e ors ubs t i tut [ i ng] ourj udgm e ntf ortha t[ of

the C o m m is s io n e r ] . . . e v e n if th e e v id e n c e p r e p o n d e r a te s a g a in s t” th e d e c is io n . B lo o d s w o rth , 7 0 3 F .2 d a t 1 2 3 9 . F u rth e rm o r e , w e n o te th a t r a th e rth a n p o in tin g to m edi ca l evi dence thatconfl i ct s w i th the A L J’ s R F C det erm i nat i on , M oo re ar gu es i n feren t i al l y th atb ased o n th ei r ev al u at i o n s, M o o re’ s p h ysi ci an s w o u ld m o s t like ly di s a gr e e w i th the A L J ’ s f i ndi ngs . B e c aus e M oor e be a r s the bur de n of de m ons tr a t i ng tha ts he i s unabl e t o pe r f orm he rpa s tr e l e va ntw ork, s e e J one s , 190 F .3 d a t 1 2 2 8 , th is s o rt o f e x tr ap o la tio n a n d c o n

je c tu r e r e m a in s in s u f

f ic ie n t to di sturb the A L J’ s R F C det erm i nat i on , w here i ti s s up po rt ed by subst ant i al e v id e n c e . F ourth a nd f

i na l l y , M oor e a r gue s tha tthe A L Je rr e d i n hi s c ons i de r a t i on of h e rm e n ta l im p a irm e n ts . S p e c if ic a lly , M o o r e p o in ts to th e A L J ’s f a ilu r e to11

c om pl e t e aP s y c hi a tr i c R e vi e w T e c hni que F orm ( “ P R T F ” ) orc om pl y w i th the m od e of anal ys i s the form and i t s a cc om panyi ng re gu l at i on s di ct at e. A gency r e gul a t i ons r e qui r e the A L Jt o us e the “ s pe c i a l t e c hni que ” di c a t e d by the P R T F f or e va l ua t i ng m e nt a l i m pa i rm e nt s . 20 C . F . R . § 404. 1520a - ( a ) . T hi s t e c hni que re qu i re s s epar at e e val uat i on s on a four-poi ntsc al e of how the cl ai m ant ’ s m ent al i m pai rm enti m pact s f

ou r f un ct i on al ar ea s: “ ac t i vi t i es of dai l y l i vi ng ; soci al funct i on i ng ; concentra t i on , pers i st ence , or pace; and epi sodes of dec om pensat i on . ” 20 C . F . R . § 404. 1520a - ( c ) ( 3- 4) . T he A L Ji s r e qui r e d t o i nc orpor a t e the r e s ul t s of th is te c h n iq u e in to th e f in d in g s a n d c o n c lu s io n s . 2 0 C .F .R . § 4 0 4 .1 5 2 0 a - ( e ) ( 2 ) . O n ap p e a l, th e C o m m is s io n e rc o n c e d e s ( a s s h e m u s t) th a t th e A L Je rr e d in notc om pl e t i ng the P R T F orc om pl y i ng w i th i t s m ode of a na l y s i s . T he C om m i s s i one ra r gue s , how e ve r , tha tr e m a nd i s unne c e s s a ry a s i tw oul d r e qui r e no mo r e th a n th e ALJ ’ s r o t e c o mp l e t i o n o f th e PR TF . W e c a n n o ta g r e e . Th e ALJ fa il ed to ev en an alyz e o r d o cu m en t M o o re co n d it io n in tw o o f th e P R T F ’s f u n c tio n a l a r e a s : s o c ia l f u n c tio n in g a n d p r io re p is o d e s o f d e c o m p e n s a tio n . B e c aus e the A L J ’ s de c i s i on l a c ks c ons i de r a t i on of the s e f a c t or s a nd the i ri m pa c ton hi s ul t i m a t e c onc l us i on a s t o M oor e ’ s R F C , w e c a nnote ve n e va l ua t e the C o m m is s io n e r ’s c o n te n tio n th a t th e A L J ’s e rr o rw a s h a rm le s s . F urthe rm or e , the f

a c ttha tthe A L Jc om pl i e d w i th the P R T F m e thod a nd12

r e gul a t i ons w he n he f

i r s te va l ua t e d M oor e ’ s c l a i m i n 1996, pr i ort o r e m a nd, i s not suff i ci entt o excuse hi s f

ai l ure t o d o so h er e. P art i cul ar l y w here M oo re has pres ent ed no n-fr i vo l ou s e vi dence s ug gest i ng thather m ent alcond i t i on has d e te r io r a te d s in c e th e v a c a te d 1 9 9 6 d e c is io n , th e A L J ’s p r io re v a lu a tio n is i ns uf f i c i e ntt o de ny M oor e a nothe re va l ua t i on of he rm e nt a l i m pa i rm e nt s ’ e f f e c ton h e rR F C th r o u g h th e d a te o f th e A L J ’s 2 0 0 1 d e c is io n . W e thu s j oi n o ur si st erci rc ui t s i n h ol di ng thatw here a c l ai m anthas pr e s e nt e d ac ol or abl e c l a i m of m e nt a l i m pa i rm e nt , the s oc i a l s e c ur i ty r e gul a t i ons r e q u ir e th e A L Jto c o m p le te aP R T F a n d ap p e n d it to th e d e c is io n , o rin c o rp o r a te i t s m od e of anal ys i s i nt o h i s f i nd i ng s and concl usi on s. F ai l ure t o d o so requi re s re m and. S ee G ut i erre z v. A pfel , 19 9 F . 3d 10 48 , 10 51 (9th C i r. 20 00 ) ( S chroeder, C . J. ) ( w here cl ai m antpres ent s c ol orabl e c l ai m of m ent al i m pai rm ent , A L J’ s f ai l ure t o c om pl y w i th P R T F r e gul a t i ons r e qui r e s r e m a nd) ; S t a m baugh v. S ul l i va n, 929 F . 2d 29 2, 29 6 (7th C i r. 19 91 ) ( A L J’ s f ai l ure t o eval uat e c l ai m ant ’ s a l l eged m ent al di s or de rort o doc um e ntthe pr oc e dur e on aP R T F r e qui r e d r e ve r s a l ) ; H i l l v. S ul l i va n, 924 F . 2d 972, 975 ( 10th C i r . 1991) ( s a m e ) ; M ont gom e rty v. S ha l a l a , 30 F .3 d 9 8 , 1 0 0 ( 8 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ) ( r e v e r s in g a n d r e m a n d in g b e c au s e A L Jp u rp o rte d to e v a lu a te m e n ta l d is o r d e r , b u t f a ile d to d o s o a c c o r d in g to P R T F a n d its re gu l at i on s) .13

T h e ju d g m e n t o f

th e d is tr ic t c o u rt is r e v e r s e d a n d th e c a s e is r e m a n d e d w ith i nstruct i on s t o rem and the m att ert o the A L J f or an eval uat i on of M oo re ’ s m ent al i m p ai rm en t s th atco m p l i es w i th th e ap p l i cab l e reg u l at i o n s. R EVER SED A N D R EM A N D ED .