UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Marcus Everngam,

Claimant

v. Civil No. 08-cv-329-SM

Opinion No. 2009 DNH 050

Michael J. Astrue,

Commissioner, Social

Security Administration,

Respondent

O R D E R

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), claimant, Marcus Everngam,

moves to reverse the Commissioner’s decision denying his

application for Social Security disability insurance benefits

under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 423. The

Commissioner moves for an order affirming his decision. For the

reasons given below, the Commissioner’s motion is granted.

Standard of Review

The applicable standard of review in this case provides, in

pertinent part:

The [district] court shall have power to enter, upon

the pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment

affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the

Commissioner of Social Security, with or without

remanding the cause for a rehearing. The findings of

the Commissioner of Social Security as to any fact, if

supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive

. . .

Case 1:08-cv-00329-SM Document 11 Filed 04/06/09 Page 1 of 18
1 “It is the responsibility of the [Commissioner] to

determine issues of credibility and to draw inferences from the

record evidence. Indeed, the resolution of conflicts in the

2

42 U.S.C. § 405(g). However, the court “must uphold a denial of

social security disability benefits unless ‘the [Commissioner]

has committed a legal or factual error in evaluating a particular

claim.’” Manso-Pizarro v. Sec’y of HHS, 76 F.3d 15, 16 (1st Cir.

1996) (quoting Sullivan v. Hudson, 490 U.S. 877, 885 (1989)).

As for the statutory requirement that the Commissioner’s

findings of fact be supported by substantial evidence, “[t]he

substantial evidence test applies not only to findings of basic

evidentiary facts, but also to inferences and conclusions drawn

from such facts.” Alexandrou v. Sullivan, 764 F. Supp. 916, 917-

18 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) (citing Levine v. Gardner, 360 F.2d 727, 730

(2d Cir. 1966)). In turn, “[s]ubstantial evidence is ‘more than

[a] mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a

reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a

conclusion.’” Currier v. Sec’y of HEW, 612 F.2d 594, 597 (1st

Cir. 1980) (quoting Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401

(1971)). Finally, when determining whether a decision of the

Commissioner is supported by substantial evidence, the court must

“review[ ] the evidence in the record as a whole.” Irlanda Ortiz

v. Sec’y of HHS, 955 F.2d 765, 769 (1st Cir. 1991) (quoting

Rodriguez v. Sec’y of HHS, 647 F.2d 218, 222 (1st Cir. 1981)).1

Case 1:08-cv-00329-SM Document 11 Filed 04/06/09 Page 2 of 18
evidence is for the [Commissioner], not the courts.” Irlanda

Ortiz, 955 F.2d at 769 (citations omitted).

2 “Radiculopathy” is a “disease of the nerve roots.” 

DORLAND’S ILLUSTRATED MEDICAL DICTIONARY 1595 (31st ed. 2007).

3

Background

The parties have submitted a Joint Statement of Material

Facts (document no. 10). That statement is part of the court’s

record and will be summarized here, rather than repeated in full. 

The medical record in this case includes the following

relevant findings, impressions, and diagnoses, all made by

treating sources. A May 16, 2006, radiology report listed

findings of “[m]ild degenerative changes at L5-S1 facets” and

“[n]ormal sacrum and SI joints,” along with the following

impression: “Mild degenerative facet disease.” (Administrative

Transcript (hereinafter “Tr.”) at 217.) From late August through

early October, 2006, claimant received physical therapy for his

back condition. 

On November 22, 2006, Everngam’s claimed onset date, he

sought treatment for pain in his left calf. (Tr. at 227.) After

four days, the pain had not abated, and a follow-up visit

resulted in a clinical impression of lumbar radiculopathy.2 (Id.

at 243.) A radiology report dated November 27 found: “There

[are] some mild degenerative changes of the facet joint at L5-S1. 

Case 1:08-cv-00329-SM Document 11 Filed 04/06/09 Page 3 of 18
3 “Radiculitis” is an “inflamation of the root of a spinal

nerve.” DORLAND’S, supra note 2, at 1595.

4

The disk spaces are preserved. There have been no significant

changes.” (Id. at 248.) A November 30 MRI revealed the

following:

At L5-S1 there is a large left posterior paracentral

disk herniation with some extruded disk material seen

to the left of midline and posteriorly to the S1 level. 

There is some mass effect on the thecal sac anteriorly

and laterally on the left as well as apparent mass

effect upon the left S1 nerve root and likely S2 with

lateral recess compromise. There is some degenerative

change of the facet joints at L5-S1.

(Id. at 250.) Based on those findings, Everngam was assessed

with “[l]umbar radiculitis3 secondary to . . . L5-S1 herniated

nucleus pulposus.” (Id.) Those findings also led to the

following impression: “L5-S1: Large left posterior paracentral

disk herniation of intrusion type with some mass effect upon the

thecal sac and the left S1 and S2 nerve roots.” (Id. at 252.) A

December MRI scan revealed “a large soft tissue mass at L5-S1 on

the left displacing the thecal sac and nerve root consistent with

a disc herniation,” (id. at 390), which led to the following

impression: “Back pain and left S1 radiculopathy secondary to L5-

S1 HNP with some element of nerve root compromise,” (id.). 

From December, 2006, through January, 2007, Everngam

underwent a series of epidural steroid injections for his back

Case 1:08-cv-00329-SM Document 11 Filed 04/06/09 Page 4 of 18
5

condition. On April 4, 2007, Everngam received the following

medical assessment: “Discogenic low back pain. The symptoms of

radiculopathy appear to have resolved. Neurologic examination

reveals preserved neurologic function.” (Tr. at 392.) The most

recent treating-source medical note in the administrative record,

dated May 16, 2007, includes the following assessment:

“Resolution of lumbar radiculopathy with conservative measures. 

Neurological examination reveals preservation of nerve root

function.” (Id. at 394.) In the same note, under the heading

“Plan,” Dr. Palacio reported: “No further diagnostic or

therapeutic measures are recommended at this point. Mr. Everngam

has had a very satisfactory resolution of the radiculopathy

secondary to his herniated disk.” (Id.) Dr. Palacio concluded:

I explained to Mr. Everngam that, certainly, at some

point, he could have a recurrence of the disk

herniation with radicular symptoms. However, he is not

at risk for a permanent irreversible neurologic injury

and that any time he has a recurrence, appropriate

measures can be taken in a timely fashion, and

treatment need not necessarily require surgical

intervention. Overall, his long-term prognosis is

good. Followup will continue an a p.r.n. basis.

(Id. at 395.) In other words, in the opinion of a treating

physician, Everngam’s radiculitis/radiculopathy and his herniated

disk had both resolved by May 16, 2007, less than six months

after they had been diagnosed.

Case 1:08-cv-00329-SM Document 11 Filed 04/06/09 Page 5 of 18
6

During the course of his treatment, claimant underwent

straight-leg raising tests on the following dates, with the

following results: May 16, 2006, negative bilaterally (Tr. at

357); May 19, 2006, negative bilaterally (id. at 358); August 22,

2006, negative bilaterally (id. at 362); September 19, 2006,

negative bilaterally (id. at 363); November 27, 2006, right leg

negative, left leg positive for pain at forty-five degrees (id.

at 364); November 30, 2006, positive to forty degrees on the left

(id. at 250); December 26, 2006, positive at forty-five degrees

on the left (id. at 374); January 30, 2007, negative bilaterally

(id. at 383); February 22, 2007, positive on the left (id. at

390); March 28, 2007, negative bilaterally (id. at 371); April 4,

2007, positive on the left (id. at 392); May 16, 2007, negative

bilaterally (id. at 394).

Everngam filed an application for Social Security disability

insurance benefits on March 1, 2007, a little more than three

months after his claimed onset date of November 22, 2006. After

conducting a hearing on Everngam’s claim, the Administrative Law

Judge (“ALJ”) issued a decision which included the following

findings:

3. The claimant has the following severe impairment: 

low back pain with a herniated disc at L5-S1 (20 CFR

404.1520(c)).

. . . .

Case 1:08-cv-00329-SM Document 11 Filed 04/06/09 Page 6 of 18
7

4. The claimant does not have an impairment or

combination of impairments that meets or medically

equals one of the listed impairments in 20 CFR Part

404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (20 CFR 404.1520(d),

404.1525, 404.1526).

(Tr. at 9-12.) The ALJ explained the foregoing finding in the

following way:

Listing 1.04 establishes that a disorder of the spine

is disabling based upon the medical evidence alone

where, in relevant part, the condition results in

compromise of a nerve root with evidence of nerve root

compression characterized by neuro[ ]-anatomic

distribution of pain, limitation of motion of the

spine, motor loss (atrophy associated with muscle

weakness or muscle weakness) accompanied by sensory or

reflex loss and, if there is involvement of the lower

back, positive straight-leg raising test (sitting and

supine).

In this case the claimant[’s] MRI testing did show disc

herniation, but in December 2006 Dr. Dirksmeier noted a

non-antalgic gait and no[ ] muscle spasm. Straight leg

testing in January 2007 was negative.

(Tr. at 10).

Discussion

Everngam argues that the ALJ’s decision should be reversed,

and the case remanded, because the ALJ incorrectly determined

that he did not have a listed impairment.

To be eligible for disability insurance benefits, a person

must: (1) be insured for such benefits; (2) not have reached

Case 1:08-cv-00329-SM Document 11 Filed 04/06/09 Page 7 of 18
8

retirement age; (3) have filed an application; and (4) be under a

disability. 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(a)(1)(A)-(D). The issue in this

case is whether Everngam was under a disability during the time

for which he sought benefits.

For the purpose of determining eligibility for disability

insurance benefits, 

[t]he term “disability” means . . . inability to engage

in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any

medically determinable physical or mental impairment

which can be expected to result in death or which has

lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous

period of not less than 12 months.

42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). The relevant Social Security

regulations further provide: “Unless your impairment is expected

to result in death, it must have lasted or must be expected to

last for a continuous period of at least 12 months. We call this

the duration requirement.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1509

In order to determine whether a claimant is disabled, the

Commissioner is required to employ a five-step process. See 20

U.S.C. §§ 404.1520.

The steps are: 1) if the [claimant] is engaged in

substantial gainful work activity, the application is

denied; 2) if the [claimant] does not have, or has not

had within the relevant time period, a severe

impairment or combination of impairments, the

application is denied; 3) if the impairment meets the

Case 1:08-cv-00329-SM Document 11 Filed 04/06/09 Page 8 of 18
9

conditions for one of the “listed” impairments in the

Social Security regulations, then the application is

granted; 4) if the [claimant’s] “residual functional

capacity” is such that he or she can still perform past

relevant work, then the application is denied; 5) if

the [claimant], given his or her residual functional

capacity, education, work experience, and age, is

unable to do any other work, the application is

granted.

Seavey v. Barnhart, 276 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2001) (citing 20

C.F.R. § 416.920, which outlines the same five-step process as

the one prescribed in 20 C.F.R. § 1520). 

Claimant bears the burden of proving that he is disabled. 

See Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146 (1987). He must do so by

a preponderance of the evidence. See Mandziej v. Chater, 944 F.

Supp. 121, 129 (D.N.H. 1996) (citing Paone v. Schweiker, 530 F.

Supp. 808, 810-11) (D. Mass. 1982)). 

Regarding step three – the point in the five-step evaluation

process where Everngam argues the ALJ erred – the regulations

provide: “If you have an impairment(s) that meets or equals one

of our listings in appendix 1 of this subpart and meets the

duration requirement, we will find that you are disabled.” 20

C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii) (emphasis added); see also Torres v.

Comm’r of SSA, 279 Fed. Appx. 149, 151 (3d Cir. 2008). In

addition, “[t]he applicant must satisfy all of the criteria in

the Listing in order to receive an award of disability insurance

Case 1:08-cv-00329-SM Document 11 Filed 04/06/09 Page 9 of 18
10

benefits . . . under step three.” Rice v. Barnhart, 384 F.3d

363, 369 (7th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted) (emphasis added);

Huntington v. Apfel, 101 F. Supp. 2d 384, 391 (D. Md. 2000)

(citing Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 531 (1990)) (“In order

to meet a Listing, every element of the listing must be

satisfied.”). Thus, to be disabled at step three, a claimant

must have suffered, or be expected to suffer, all the elements of

a listed impairment continuously for twelve months. 

In Huntington, the district court affirmed an ALJ’s stepthree determination of non-disability, based upon a record in

which the some of the required elements of the listed impairment

were sometimes present, but the elements were not simultaneously

present for the required continuous twelve-month span. 101 F.

Supp. 2d at 391. The court based its ruling on findings such as

these:

Although plaintiff did suffer muscle spasms [one

element of the listed impairment] in August, 1975 and

June 1991, nothing in the record suggests that the

spasms continued between 1975 and 1991 or were

frequent, ongoing and persistent, as required by

Listing 1.05C. Similarly, the medical records note

that motor loss was present only during May and June

1984 and again in December 1991 and January 1992 but

the records do not establish that the motor loss was

persistent, as required under the Listing.

As to muscle weakness [a second element of the

listed impairment], plaintiff cites to May and June

1984 and December 1991 and January 1992 reports to

support the presence of this symptom. The records

Case 1:08-cv-00329-SM Document 11 Filed 04/06/09 Page 10 of 18
11

reflect, however, that these occasional periods of

muscles weakness were initially reported after surgery,

but reports in June 1991, August 1991 and November

1992, reveal good strength and muscle development and

no clinical strength deficits.

Similarly, plaintiff’s claim of sensory loss [a

third element of the listed impairment] is unsupported

by the record. The only information (other than

isolated references in 1975 and 1984) relating to

sensory loss is an October 31, 1991 progress report

indicating diminished sensation in the “medial one and

one-half fingers of his right hand.” Within a few

days, on November 4, 1991, this numbness had completely

resolved.)

Id. at 391-92 (citations to the record omitted).

Everngam argues that the ALJ erred, at step three, by

determining that he did not have the listed impairment “disorders

of the spine,” as described in 20 C.F.R. § 404, Subpart P,

Appendix 1, § 1.04A. More specifically, he argues that the ALJ’s

step-three determination was erroneous because the ALJ failed to

consider, and thus rejected, most of the opinions of his treating

physicians, and failed to give clear and convincing reasons for

rejecting those opinions. Among other things, he cites the ALJ’s

failure to refer to various relevant diagnoses, and the fact that

the ALJ mentioned one straight-leg raising test with a negative

result, i.e., a result that favored a finding of non-disability,

but did not mention several other leg-raising tests with positive

results.

Case 1:08-cv-00329-SM Document 11 Filed 04/06/09 Page 11 of 18
12

The Commissioner counters that the ALJ’s determination was

supported by substantial evidence. He further contends that

claimant does not identify any medical opinion the ALJ failed to

consider that contradicts the ALJ’s finding, and that there is no

evidence in the record that would support a determination that

claimant suffered a listing-level impairment that lasted or was

expected to last for a continuous period of at least twelve

months, as required by 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). The

Commissioner’s arguments are persuasive.

At step three, “if the impairment meets the conditions for

one of the ‘listed’ impairments in the Social Security

regulations, then the application is granted.” Seavey, 276 F.3d

at 5 (citation omitted). The relevant regulations define the

listed impairment Everngam claims as follows:

1.04 Disorders of the spine (e.g., herniated

nucleus pulposus, spinal arachnoiditis, spinal

stenosis, osteoarthritis, degenerative disc disease,

facet arthritis, vertebral fracture), resulting in

compromise of a nerve root (including the cauda equina)

or the spinal cord. With:

A. Evidence of nerve root compression

characterized by neuro-anatomic distribution of pain,

limitation of motion of the spine, motor loss (atrophy

with associated muscle weakness or muscle weakness)

accompanied by sensory or reflex loss and, if there is

involvement of the lower back, positive straight-leg

raising test (sitting and supine).

Case 1:08-cv-00329-SM Document 11 Filed 04/06/09 Page 12 of 18
13

20 C.F.R. § 404, Subpt. P, App. 1. And, as noted above, for an

impairment to meet a listing, it must have lasted or be expected

to last for a continuous period of at least twelve months. See

20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii); Huntington, 101 F. Supp. 2d at

391-92. 

Regarding the weight that should be given to the opinions of

treating sources, the pertinent regulations provide:

Generally, we give more weight to opinions from [the

claimant’s] treating sources, since these sources are

likely to be the medical professionals most able to

provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [the

claimant’s] medical impairment(s) . . . When we do not

give the treating source’s opinion controlling weight,

we apply the factors listed [in this section] in

determining the weight to give the opinion. We will

always give good reasons in our notice of determination

or decision for the weight we give [the claimant’s]

treating source’s opinion.

20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). In addition, the ALJ has an

obligation to resolve inconsistencies in the evidence. See 20

C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (“If any of the evidence in your case

record, including any medical opinion(s), is inconsistent with

other evidence or is internally inconsistent, we will weigh all

of the evidence and see whether we can decide whether you are

disabled based on the evidence we have.”).

Case 1:08-cv-00329-SM Document 11 Filed 04/06/09 Page 13 of 18
14

This case is very different from most of those in which a

claimant invokes the rules for evaluating treating-source

opinions; claimant does not argue that the ALJ erred by relying

upon the opinion of a non-treating or non-examining medical

source over the opinion of a treating source. Rather, he appears

to fault the ALJ for relying upon treating-source medical

evidence that undermined a determination of disability, while

turning a blind eye to other treating-source evidence that

supported such a determination, and he calls the existence of

both positive and negative leg-raising test results an

inconsistency in the record that required resolution by the ALJ. 

The court will assume, for the sake of argument, that

claimant is correct in asserting that the ALJ considered only the

medical evidence referenced in his decision. Still, the record

as a whole, including the evidence claimant criticizes the ALJ

for ignoring, does not contain the quantum of evidence necessary

to support a determination that claimant suffered from a listed

impairment. Claimant was diagnosed with degenerative facet

disease in May, 2006, and in November of that same year, he was

diagnosed with lumbar radiculitis secondary to a herniated disk. 

But the mere diagnosis of a recognized disorder of the spine is

not enough. To be a listed impairment, the disorder of the spine

Everngam claims must “result[ ] in the compromise of a nerve

Case 1:08-cv-00329-SM Document 11 Filed 04/06/09 Page 14 of 18
4 This is because Everngam claims a disorder of the lower

back.

15

root,” 20 C.F.R. § 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, 1.04A, must be

accompanied by “positive straight-leg raising test,”4 id., and

all the elements of the impairment must have lasted, or be

expected to last, for at least twelve months, see 42 U.S.C. §

423(d)(1)(A); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1509 & 404.1520(a)(4)(iii). 

Of the spinal disorders with which claimant was diagnosed,

two of them – radiculitis and a herniated disk – resolved within

six months of diagnosis. Thus, neither condition is sufficient

support a determination of disability. That leaves degenerative

facet disease. The court will assume that facet disease

qualifies as a disorder of the spine for purposes of the

listings, and will further assume that use of the term

“degenerative” to describe claimant’s facet disease constitutes a

medical opinion that his facet disease will last for more than

twelve months. Even when the record is considered in light of

those favorable assumptions, however, it cannot support a

determination of disability.

Neither claimant’s nerve-root compromise nor his positive

straight-leg raising tests – essential elements of the listed

disorder – meet the requisite twelve-month duration requirement. 

Case 1:08-cv-00329-SM Document 11 Filed 04/06/09 Page 15 of 18
16

The earliest evidence of nerve-root compromise in this case is

the November 26, 2006, clinical impression of lumbar

radiculopathy. But, in early April, 2007, Dr. Palacio, a

treating physician, characterized claimant’s radiculopathy as

“resolved,” and he reiterated that opinion about six weeks later,

and also observed a “preservation of nerve root function.” At

most, the record supports a determination that claimant had one

or more compromised or compressed spinal nerve roots from late

November, 2006, through early April, 2007, which, obviously,

falls short of satisfying the duration requirement. 

The results of Everngam’s straight-leg raising test are

similarly unavailing to his claim. Claimant criticizes the ALJ

for mentioning the negative straight-leg raising test from

January, 2007, without mentioning other leg-raising tests with

positive results. Notwithstanding claimant’s apparent contention

to the contrary, his positive straight-leg raising tests on some

dates are not inconsistent with his negative one(s) on other

dates. Rather, those tests are, collectively, evidence of a

medical condition that was symptomatic on some occasions but not

others. Thus, the ALJ was under no obligation to say why he

mentioned the results of one leg-raising test but not the results

of others. Moreover, even if claimant’s January leg-raising test

had been positive, claimant had leg-raising tests that were

Case 1:08-cv-00329-SM Document 11 Filed 04/06/09 Page 16 of 18
17

negative bilaterally in March and May, 2006, less than twelve

months after his first positive test on November 27, 2006, which,

again, falls short of satisfying the duration requirement. 

In sum, the medical record does not document any continuous

twelve-month period during which claimant suffered from: (1)

degenerative facet disease, radiculitis, or a herniated disc and

(2) nerve-root compromise with (3) positive straight-leg raising

test. Because a claimant must satisfy all the elements of a

listed impairment, see Rice, 384 F.3d at 369; Huntington, 101 F.

Supp. 2d at 391, for a full twelve months, see 20 C.F.R. §

404.1520(a)(4)(iii), the ALJ’s determination that claimant did

not suffer from a listed impairment is supported by substantial

evidence, and must be affirmed.

Conclusion

For the reasons given, claimant’s motion to reverse and/or

remand (document no. 8) is denied, and the Commissioner’s motion

for an order affirming the ALJ’s decision (document no. 9) is

granted. The clerk of the court shall enter judgment in

accordance with this order and close the case.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

April 6, 2009

Case 1:08-cv-00329-SM Document 11 Filed 04/06/09 Page 17 of 18
18

cc: Christopher G. Roundy, Esq.

Vicki S. Roundy, Esq.

Gretchen L. Witt, Esq.

Case 1:08-cv-00329-SM Document 11 Filed 04/06/09 Page 18 of 18