T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he * 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 cons i s t entw i th Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 ( eff. D ec. 1 , 2 0 0 6 ) an d 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 2 . 1 (eff. Jan . 1 , 2 0 0 7 ). 

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

### D e c e m b e r26,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT KAT HY A. P E CK , P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. N o. 05- 4090 J O A NN E B. BA RN HA RT, C o m m i s s i o n e ro f

S o c i a l S e c u r i ty, D efe ndant - A ppel l ee, ( D. C. No . 0 4 - CV - 2 3 1 - DAK) ( D . U t ah)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e B R I S C O E , H O L L O W A Y , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es. K athyPeck appe al s fr om t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s or deraff i r m i ng the C o m m iss io n e r o f

S o c ial S e c u rity ’s d e ter m in a tio n th a t sh e is n o t en tit led to d isa b ili tyin su ra n c e b e n e fits u n d e r T itl e II o f th e S o c ial S e c u rityA c t. Speci fi cal l y , Peck cont ends thatthe A L J err ed by : ( 1) fai l i ng t o eval uat e w hether s he metthe r equi r ement s form ent al r et ar dat i on underL i s t i ng 12. 05( C ) , even though the A L J m ade a l l the nec es s aryfi ndi ngs t o concl ude thats he mett heT he admi ni s tr at i ve l aw j udge’ s deci s i on cl as s i fi ed Peck’ s al l eged 1 i m pai r m ent s as m ul t i pl e s cl er os i s , br ai n l es i ons , fai l ed ce r vi cal fus i on, bone s p u rs , p a n ic a tta c k s , a n x ie ty at ta c k s , a n d m ig ra in e h e a d a c h e s . A p lt. A p p . a t 2 4 .

- 2- l i s t i ng; and ( 2) notpr ovi di ng s peci fi c, l egi t i m at e r eas ons forr ej ect i ng hertr eat i ng phy s i ci an’ s opi ni on conce r ni ng herphy s i cal l i m i t at i ons . W e exe r ci s e j ur i s di ct i on pu rs uan tt o 4 2 U . S . C . § 4 05 (g) and 28 U . S . C . § 1 29 1. W e affirm i n p art , rever se in p a rt , a n d re m a n d . I. A. O n M ar ch 14, 2002, Peck fi l ed an appl i cat i on fordi s abi l i tyi ns ur ance b e n e fits, cla im in g d isa b ili tya s o f M a rc h 3 , 2 0 0 1 , d u e to su sp e c ted m u lti p le scl erosi s, cervi cal dis c dis ease w i th ch roni c neck pain, anx i et yrel at ed d i sorder s, heart pr obl ems, and bor der l i ne i nt el l ectual funct i oni ng. T he appl i cat i on w as 1 deni ed both i ni t i al l yand upon r econs i der at i on. A tPeck’ s r eques t , an admi ni s tr at i ve l aw j udge ( “A L J ”) hel d a hea r i ng on J une 3, 2003, atw hi ch Peck a n d h e rn o n - a t t o r n e yr e p r e s e n t a t i v e wer e p r e s e n t . On J u l y2 3 , 2 0 0 3 , t h e ALJ r e n d e r e d a d e c i s i o n i n w h i c h h e d e t e r m i n e d t h a tP e c k w a s n o tu n d e ra “ d i s a b i l i t y” as d efined b ythe S o cial S ec u ri tyA ct. A p lt . A p p . at 24 . A fter the A L J’s unfavor abl e dec i s i on, Peck r eques t ed r evi ew byt he A ppeal s C ounci l . T he A ppeal s C ounci l deni ed Peck’ s r eques tforr evi ew on J anuary12, 2004, r ender i ng th e A L J’s d e c isio n th e fin a l d e c isio n o f th e C o m m iss io n e r o f S o c ial S e c u rity- 3-

( “C om m i s s i oner ”) . I d. at14. O n M ar ch 8, 2005, the di s tr i ctcour ti s s ued an or der s um m ar i l yconcl udi ng t hatt he C om m i s s i oner ’ s deci s i on w as s uppor t ed by s ubs t ant i al evi dence and fr ee of l egal err or . I d. at7- 8. Peck fi l ed a t i m el yappea l o n A p ri l 2 5 , 2 0 0 5 . S e e F e d . R . A p p . P . 4 (a )( 1 )( B ). B. “The Secr et ary[of H eal th and H um an Servi ces ] has es t abl i s hed a f i ve- s t ep s equent i al eval uat i on pr oces s fordet erm i ni ng w hethera cl ai m anti s di s abl ed. ” W i l l i ams v. B ow en, 844 F. 2d 748, 750 ( 10th C i r . 1988) . “I f a de t erm i nat i on can be made atanyof the s t eps thata cl ai m anti s ori s notdi s abl ed, eval uat i on under a subseq uen tst ep is no tnecessary . ” Id. T ho se fi ve st eps are as fol l ow s: ( 1) A per s on w ho i s w or ki ng i s notdi s abl ed. ( 2) A per s on w ho does nothave a n i m pai r m en t o r c o m bi nat i on of im p airm en ts sev ere en o u g h to li m it th e a b il ityto d o b asic w o rk act i vi t i es i s notdi s abl ed. (3 ) A p e rso n w h o se im p a irm e n t m e e ts o r eq u a ls o n e o f th e im p a irm e n ts l i s t ed i n the r egul at i ons i s concl us i vel ypr es um ed t o be di s abl ed. ( 4) A per s on w ho i s abl e t o per form w or k s he has done i n the pas ti s not di s abl ed. (5 ) A p e rs on w ho se i m pairm ent pr ecl ud es perform ance o f pastw ork is di s abl ed unl es s t he [Com m i s s i oner ] demonstr at es thatthe p erson c an perform othe r w ork. F act ors t o b e con si dered are age, edu cat i on , past w o r k e x p e r i e n c e , a n d r e s i d u a l f u n c t i o n a l c a p a c i ty. R e y e s v . B o w e n , 8 4 5 F .2 d 2 4 2 , 2 4 3 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 8 8 ) ( c itin g 2 0 C .F .R . § 4 1 6 . 9 2 0 (a)-(f)) (ci tat ion s o m itted).- 4-

A ts t ep one, the A L J concl uded thatPeck had notengage d i n s ubs t ant i al g a in f u l ac tiv itysin c e h e r a lleg e d o n se t d a te o f d isa b ili ty , M a rc h 3 , 2 0 0 1 . A p lt. A pp. at31. A ts t ep tw o, the A L J concl uded thatPeck s uffe r ed fr om the fol l ow i ng sev ere im p airm en ts w h ich s ign ifi ca n tl yli m it ed h er a b il ityto p erfo rm b asic w o rk a c tiv iti e s: a n x ietyre late d d iso rd e rs a n d sta tu s p o st c e rv ica l f u sio n w ith c h ro n ic n e c k p a in . Id . at 2 5 -3 1 . T h e A L J d e ter m in e d th a t P e c k ’s a lleg e d m u lti p le s cl er os i s and hea r tpr obl ems coul d notbe cons i der ed s ever e i m pai r m ent s . I d. at 25. A ts t ep thr ee, the A L J concl uded thatPeck’ s s ever e i m pai r m ent s w er e not att ended w i th the s peci fi c cl i ni cal s i gns and di agnos t i c fi ndi ngs r equi r ed t o m eet orequal the r equi r ement s s etfor th i n the Li s t i ng of I m pai r m ent s . I d. A ts t ep fo u r , th e ALJ c o n c l u d e d th a t , b a s e d o n P e c k ’ s r e s i d u a l f u n c t i o n a l c a p a c i ty( RF C) t o p erform un ski l l ed, sedentaryw ork, P eck w as unab l e t o p erform her past r el evantw or k. I d. at32. Fi nal l y , ats t ep fi ve, the A L J concl uded thatotherj obs e x iste d in sig n ifica n t n u m b e rs th a t P e c k c o u ld p e rfo rm b a se d o n h e r m e d ica lly d eterm inab le i m p airm en ts, fu n cti o n al l im it ati o n s, ag e, ed u ca ti o n , an d w o rk exper i ence . I d. at31- 32. A s a r es ul t , the A L J concl uded thatPeck w as not

“ d is a b le d ” w ith in th e m e a n in g o f th e S o c ia l S e c u ri ty A c t. I d . a t 3 2 . II. A. “The st andar d of r evi ew i n a Soci al Secur i tyappea l i s w hetherthe C om m i s s i oner ’ s fi nal deci s i on i s s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence , and w hether- 5-

s he appl i ed the corr ectl egal s t andar ds . ” G r ogan v. B arnhart , 399 F. 3d 1257, 12 61 (10t h C i r. 20 05 ). “S ub st anti al evidence . . . i s such rel evan tevidence 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. ” I d. O ur r evi ew ent ai l s a thor ough exami nat i on of the r ecor d t o ens ur e thatthe s ubs t ant i al i tyt es thas been met , butw e may“‘ nei therr ew ei gh the evi dence nor su b stitu te o u r ju d g m e n t fo r th a t o f th e a g e n c y .’” I d . at 1 2 6 2 ; W h ite v . B a rn h a rt, 287 F. 3d 903, 905 ( 10th C i r . 2002) ( quot i ng C as i as v. Sec' yof H eal th & H um an S erv s. , 9 3 3 F . 2 d 7 9 9 , 8 0 0 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 )). B. O n appea l , Peck cont ends thatw e s houl d or deri m m edi at e paym entof benef i t s beca us e s he meet s the r equi r ement s form ent al r et ar dat i on underL i s t i ng 1 2 . 0 5 (C ). S p ec ifi ca ll y , P ec k arg u es th at, alth o u g h the A L J m ad e the n ec essa ry fi ndi ngs t o concl ude thats he metL i s t i ng 12. 05( C ) , the A L J fai l ed “t o m ake the obvi ous concl us i on” thats he metL i s t i ng 12. 05( C ) , orforthatm at t er , t o even

“ m e n tio n ” th e lis tin g in th e d e c is io n . A p lt. B r. a t 8 , 1 0 .

“ A t ste p th re e , the A L J d e ter m in e s w h e th e r th e c laim a n t’s im p a irm e n t is eq u ivalen t t o o n e o f a n u m b er o f li sted im p airm en ts th at th e [ C o m m issi o n er] acknow l edges as s o s ever e as t o pr ecl ude s ubs t ant i al gai nful act i vi ty . ” C l i ft on v. C hat er , 79 F. 3d 1007, 1009 ( 10th C i r . 1996) ( ci t at i on and i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . Peck has the “s t ep thr ee bur den t o pr es entevi dence es t abl i s hi ng- 6-

h e r im p a irm e n ts m e e t o r e q u a l li ste d im p a irm e n ts.” F isc h e r-R o ss v . B a rn h a rt, 43 1 F . 3d 72 9, 73 3 (10th C i r. 20 05 ). T o sat i sfythis bu rden, P eck m ustest abli sh thatheri m pai r m ent“meet [s ] al l of the s peci fi ed medi cal cr i t er i a. A n i m pai r m ent thatm ani fes t s onl ys om e . . . cr i t er i a, no m att erhow s ever el y , does notqual i fy . ” S u lliv a n v . Z e b le y , 4 9 3 U .S . 5 2 1 , 5 3 0 (1 9 9 0 ). T h e listin g fo r m e n tal re tar d a tio n , L istin g 1 2 .0 5 , p ro v id e s in re lev a n t p a rt: M ent al r et ar dat i on r efe r s t o s i gni fi cant l ys ubaver age ge ner al i n t e l l e ctual funct i oni ng w i th defi ci t s i n adapt i ve func t i oni ng i ni t i al l ym ani fes t ed dur i n g th e d e v e l o p me n t a l p e r i o d ; i . e . , th e e v i d e n c e d e mon s tr a t es or s uppor t s ons etof the i m pai r m entbefor e age 22. T he r eq ui r ed l evel of s ever i tyforthi s di s or deri s m etw hen the re q u ir e m e n ts in A , B , C , o r D a re s a tis fie d .

. . . C . A v ali d verbal , per form ance , orful l s cal e I Q of 60 thr ough 70 and a phy s i cal orotherm ent al i m pai r m enti m pos i ng an ad d it i onal and s ig n ific a n t w o rk -r e la te d lim ita tio n o f f u n c tio n [ .] 2 0 C .F .R ., P t. 40 4 , S u b p t. P , A p p . 1 , § 1 2 .0 5 (C ); se e B ro w n v . S e c ’yo f H e a lth a n d H u m a n S e rv s., 9 4 8 F .2 d 2 6 8 , 2 7 0 (6 th C ir. 1 9 9 1 ) (“ T h e S e c re tar y , in p ro m u lg a tin g L istin g 1 2 .0 5 (C ), ex p re ss lysin g led o u t in d iv id u a ls w ith M ild M e n tal R e tar d a tio n fo r sp e c ial tre a tm e n t in d e ter m in in g e n tit lem e n ts to d isa b ili ty b e n e fits .” ). W e have hel d, as have otherci r cui tcour t s , thata cl ai m ant ’ s bur den under L i s t i ng 12. 05( C ) i s t w ofol d: ( 1) “[a ] val i d verbal , per form ance , orful l s cal e I Q of 60 thr ough 70”; and ( 2) “a phy s i cal orotherm ent al i m pai r m enti m pos i ng- 7-

a d d iti o n a l an d sig n ifica n t w o rk -re late d lim itatio n o f f u n c tio n .” S e e , e.g ., H in k le v. A pfel , 132 F. 3d 1349, 1351 ( 10th C i r . 1997) ; B arr on v. Sul l i van, 924 F. 2d 227, 229 ( 11th C i r . ) , r eh’ g en banc deni ed, 933 F. 2d 1023 ( 11th C i r . 1991) ; Sel der s v. Su l l i v a n , 9 1 4 F. 2 d 6 1 4 , 6 1 9 ( 5 th Ci r . 1 9 9 0 ) . Pe c k c o rr e c t l ya r g u e s th a tth e ALJ m a d e th e n e c e s s a ry fin d in g s to m e e t th e s e tw o re q u ir e m e n ts . O n M ay24, 2002, D r . D avi d E r i cks en per form ed a c ons ul t i ve eva l uat i on on Peck, not i ng t hatPeck al l eged “ di s abi l i tydue t o anxi etyand cogni t i ve dy s funct i on. ” A pl t . A pp. at240- 44. I n par t i cul ar , D r . E r i cks en admi ni s t er ed the W echs l erA dul tI nt el l i gence Scal e- I I I ( W A I S- I I I ) . D r . E r i cks on r eport ed that , on the W A I S- I I I , Peck obt ai ned a ve rbal I Q s cor e of 71, a per form ance I Q of 74, and a ful l s cal e I Q s cor e of 70. I d. at242. T he appl i cabl e r egul at i ons di r ectour a tten tio n to th e lo w e st o f th e th re e sc o re s: “ In c a se s w h e re m o re th a n o n e IQ is cus t om ar i l yder i ved fr om the t es tadmi ni s t er ed, i . e. , w her e verbal , per form ance , a n d f u ll-sc a le I Q s a re p ro v id e d a s o n th e W A IS , the lo w e st o f th e se is u se d in c o nju n c tio n w ith 1 2 .0 5 .” 2 0 C .F .R . P t. 4 0 4 , S u b p t. P , A p p . 1 § 1 2 .0 0 (D )( 6 )( c ). T h e A L J ’s d e c is io n re c o g n iz e d P e c k ’s f u ll s c a le s c o re o f

7 0 u n d e r t h e W A IS -I II . A pl t . A pp. at29. T hus , Peck meet s the val i d I Q s cor e r equi r ementforL i s t i ng 1 2 .0 5 (C ). L i s t i ng 12. 05( C ) al s o r equi r es thatthe cl ai m anthave a phy s i cal orother m ent al i m pai r m enti m pos i ng addi t i onal and s i gni fi cantw or k- r el at ed l i m i t at i on of f u n c tio n . “[ A ] ‘s ig n ifica n t li m itatio n ’ o f f u n c tio n fo r p u rp o se s o f § 1 2 .0 5 (C )[ ] is- 8-

o n e th a t h a s m o re th a n a slig h t o r m in im a l effe c t o n th e c laim a n t’s a b ili tyto per form bas i c w or k. ” H i nkl e, 132 F. 3d at1352 ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . T he l i m i t at i on

“‘ need notbe di s abl i ng i n and of i t s el f’ ” bec aus e thi s w oul d r enderthe re q u ire m e n t m e a n in g les s. Id . at 1 3 5 2 -5 3 . In H in k le, w e h e ld th a t th is r equi r ement“s houl d ‘ cl os el ypar al l el ’ the s t ep tw o s t andar d, ” i . e. , “w hetherthe c laim a n t h a s a n ‘im p a irm e n t o r c o m b in a tio n o f im p a irm e n ts w h ich sig n ifica n tly l i m i t s [her ] . . . abi l i tyt o do bas i c w or k act i vi t i es . ’ ” I d. ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . B ut w e al s o not ed that“a c l ai m ant ’ s i nabi l i tyt o per form h[er ] pas tr el evantw or k [at s t ep four ] w oul d m eet ” thi s s t andar d. I d. at1353 n. 4. T h e A L J c o n c lu d e d a t ste p tw o th a t P e c k su ffe re d f ro m se v e re im p a irm e n ts w hi ch combi ned t o s i gni fi cant l yl i m i therabi l i tyt o per form bas i c w or k r el at ed funct i ons . A pl t . A pp. at31. T he A L J det erm i ned thatPeck had the fol l ow i ng se v e re im p a irm e n ts: a n x ietyre late d d iso rd e rs a n d sta tu s p o st c e rv ica l f u sio n w ith chr oni c nec k pai n. I d. at25. A ddi t i onal l y , the A L J concl uded ats t ep fourthat P e c k w a s lim ited to se d e n tar y , u n sk ill e d w o rk , an d , as a re su lt, sh e w a s u n a b le to per form herpas tr el evantw or k. I d. at30, 32. B as ed on the A L J ’ s fi ndi ngs , Peck m e e ts th e a d d itio n a l s ig n ific a n t im p a ir m e n t r e q u ir e m e n t u n d e r L is tin g 1 2 .0 5 (C ). E ven though t he evi dence s uppor t s Peck’ s ar gum entthats he meet s or equal s one of the i m pai r m ent s l i s t ed i n the r egul at i ons – L i s t i ng 12. 05( C ) – the A L J d id n o t d isc u ss th is listin g o r h is re a so n s fo r rejec tin g its a p p lica b ili tyto Peck, bey ond hi s s t at ementt hat“[t ] he exhi bi t s and t es t i m onydo notes t abl i s h t hatT he onl ys peci fi c l i s t i ngs t hatt he A L J cons i der ed w er e Li s t i ngs 1. 04, 2 1 2 .0 2 , 1 2 .0 4 , a n d 1 2 .0 6 , b u t n o t 1 2 .0 5 (C ). A p lt. A p p . a t 2 5 -2 6 .

- 9- a li sti n g is m et o r eq u aled in this ca se.” Id. at 31 -32 . T h is sort of “b are 2 concl us i on i s bey ond m eani ngful j udi ci al r evi ew , ” bec aus e “[ i ] n the abs ence of A L J fi nd i ng s suppo rt ed b yspeci fi c w ei gh i ng of the evidence, w e cann ot as sess w hetherr el evantevi dence adequa t el ys uppor t s t he A L J ' s concl us i on that appel l ant ' s i m pai r m ent s di d notm eetorequal anyL i s t ed I m pai r m ent , and w hether he appl i ed the corr ectl egal s t andar ds t o arr i ve att hatconcl us i on. ” C l i ft on, 79 F . 3 d at 10 0 9 . T o d eterm ine w h ethe r sub stan ti al ev iden ce su p p o rt s the A L J’s d e c i s i o n , “ i n a d d i t i o n t o d i s c u s s i n g t h e e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t i n g h i s d e c i s i o n , t h e ALJ al s o m us tdi s cus s the uncontr overt ed evi dence he choos es nott o r el yupon, as w e ll a s s ig n ific a n tly p ro b a tiv e e v id e n c e h e reje c ts .” Id . a t 1 0 1 0 . T he r ecor d her e i s devoi d of anydi s cus s i on as t o w hyt he A L J cons i der ed th e e v id e n c e o f

P e c k ’s I Q a n d a d d iti o n a l sig n ifica n t im p a irm e n t in su fficie n t to sati sfyL ist ing 1 2 . 0 5 (C ). W ith o u t m o re, w e c an n o t r ev iew the b asis o f th e A L J’s d e c is io n o r d e te rm in e w h e th e r s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e s u p p o rt s it. Itis po ssible tha t th e A L J’s erro r resu lt ed fro m P ec k ’s rep rese n tat ive’s a p p a re n t co n c e ss io n th a t L istin g 1 2 .0 5 (C ) d id n o t ap p lyto h e r c a se : A nd one otheri s s ue that m ay o r m aynotbe r el at ed t o demy el i nat i ng [s i c] pr oces s . I n t he ps y chol ogi cal eval uat i on . . . t hatw as per form ed byD r . D avi d E r i cks on, t her e w as s om e i nt er es t i ng r es ul t s . . . . She had a ful l - s cal e I Q s cor e of 7 0 . V erb al IQ of 71. Per form ance I Q of 74. S o a g a in , i

f th e r e we r e o th e r c o r r e la t i n g i n f o r mat i o n , th e n I woul d be- 10-

argui ng l is t i ng 1 2 . 0 5 i n t er m s of that70–the dec r eas ed f unct i on, the i nt el l ectualdi

f f i cul t i es . B utf

r om herow n r epor t, eve n though s he dr opped outof

s chooli n the t en th gr ade, s he w as doi ng okay i n s chool up to th a t p o in t. A n din ter m s o f– it ’s r e a lly a rg u in gth a t th e re ’s m ild m e n ta l retarda t i on , there isn’tnecessari l y dir ectevi den ce t o suppo rt thatdi agnos is . How eve r, thatdecr eas ed IQ , is ce rtainl y an ongoi ng p r o b le m . T hatr eportfr om D r . E r i cks on als o out l i nes the di ffi cul t i es that s h e has be en havi ng w i th m emory . H e ment i ons t hr oughoutthe r eportthats h e g ave good e ffort . T hats he kepton try i ng even w hen p a r t s o f th e t e s t i n g s e e me d s o me wh a to v e rw he l mi n g , b u tth e p r o b l e ms w er e qui t e evi dent i n hi s s um m ary . H e goes thr ough and ment i ons that r es ul t s s ugges t ed i nt el l ectual funct i oni ng atthe l evel of the bott om four per centof the popul at i o n . So i tw as s om ew hatbet t erm emoryand learn ing w i thi n the r ange of the bot t om 20 per cent . M ent i ons thatthe abi l i ty t o under s t and, r emem ber , and s us t ai n conce ntr at i on w as m o d e ra te ly im p a ir e d . A p lt . A p p . at 37 8 -79 (em p h asis ad d ed ). A s an init ial m att er, th e re p rese n tat ive’s s t at ementi s nota cl ear - cutconce s s i on. T he r epr es ent at i ve’ s s t at ementcomes cl os e t o admi t t i ng t hatPeck’ s i m pai r m ent s do nots at i s fyL i s t i ng 12. 05( C ) , but d o e s n o t a c tu a lly g o th a t fa r. E ven i f the r epr es ent at i ve’ s comm enti s r eas onabl yr ead a s a conc es s i on, the Soci al Secur i tyA cts t i l l r equi r es thatthe A L J s t at e the fa ctual bas i s for c o n c lu d in g th a t a s e e m in g lyre lev a n t li stin g d o e s n o t ap p ly : A ny su ch dec i s i on bythe C om m i s s i onerof Soci al Secur i tyw hi ch inv o lves a d eterm ination o f d isab il ityan d w h ich is in w h o le or in p art u n fa v o ra b le to su c h in d iv id u a l sh a ll co n ta in a sta tem e n t o f th e c a se , in unders tandabl e language, s et t i ng f or th a dis cus s i on of

the ev i dence , and s tat i ng the C om m is sion er's det er m i nat i on and the r eas on orr eas ons upon w hi ch i tis bas ed . See 42 U . S. C . § 405( b) ( 1) ( emphase s added) . I n thi s cas e, the A L J m ade no fi ndi ngs s peci fi cal l yconce r ni ng L i s t i ng 12. 05( C ) . A s a cons equenc e, w e ar e l eft- 11-

to s p e c u la te w h yth e A L J c o n c lu d e d th a t L is tin g 1 2 .0 5 (C ) d id n o t a p p ly, i.e w hetherthe A L J r el i ed on the r epr es ent at i ve’ s appar entconce s s i on or in d e p e n d e n tlyc o n c lu d e d th a t th e e v id e n c e d id n o t w a rra n t a fin d in g o f d isa b ili ty ats t ep thr ee. A s t hi s cas e i s pr es ent l ypr es ent ed, w e ca nnotdet erm i ne w hether the A L J ’ s “fa ctual fi ndi ngs ar e s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . ” C l i ft on, 79 F. 3d at1009. In r espon se, t he C om m i ssi on er as ks t hat w e no trem and the case, becau se ther e w as no evi dence t hatPeck metthe caps ul e def i ni t i on of m ent al r et ar dat i on fou nd i n the ope ning paragraph of § 12 . 05 , w hich r equ i res that the clai m ant m ust have s uffe r ed “de fi ci t s i n adapt i ve func t i oni ng i ni t i al l ym ani fes t ed dur i ng the devel opm ent al per i od; i . e. , t he evi dence demonstr at es ors uppor t s ons etof the im p airm en t befo re a g e 2 2 . ” T h e re g u lat ion s ex p lai n that the in tr o d u ctory par agr aph t o L i s t i ng 12. 05 ( her ei naft er“the caps ul e def i ni t i on”) i m pos ed addi t i onal r equi r ement s , w hi ch the cl ai m antm us ts at i s fyt o m eethi s orherbur den u n d er L ist ing 1 2 . 0 5 (C ): L istin g 1 2 .0 5 c o n tain s a n in tro d u c to r y p a ra g ra p h w ith th e d iag n o stic d e sc rip tio n fo r m e n tal re tar d a tio n . It also c o n tain s fo u r se ts o f c riter ia (p a ra g ra p h s A th ro u g h D ). If y o u r i m p a irm e n t sa tisfies th e d iag n o stic d e sc rip tio n in th e in tro d u c to ryp a ra g ra p h a n d a n yo n e o f th e fo u r se ts of cr i t er i a, w e w i l l fi nd thaty ouri m pai r m entm eets t he l i s t i ng. 2 0 C . F . R . , P t. 4 0 4 , S u b p t. P , A p p . 1 , § 1 2 . 0 0 (A ) (em p h asis ad d ed ). T h e C o m m iss io n e r’s a rg u m e n t ig n o re s o u r ru lin g in C lifto n w h e re w e h e ld thatw e ca n onl yr evi ew A L J deci s i ons thatm ake s peci fi c fi ndi ngs on the fa ct s of- 12-

the ca s e. See 79 F. 3d at1009- 10. I f Peck doe s notm eetthe caps ul e def i ni t i on, th e n th e A L J m u s t m a k e th a t d e te rm in a tio n in th e fir s t in s ta n c e . I n the al t ernat i ve, t he C om m i s s i onerar gues thatthe A L J ’ s fai l ur e t o m ake fi n d i n g s o n Li s t i n g 1 2 . 0 5 ( C) i s h a r ml e s s e rr o r . W e h a v e r e c o g n i z e d th a tALJ d ec isi o n s m ayb e su bject t o a h arm less erro r an aly sis, all o w ing the c o u rtto affirm an A L J ’ s deci s i on – des pi t e an A L J ’ s err orats t ep thr ee – “ w hen conf i r m ed or unchal l enged f

i ndi ngs m ade e l s ew her e i n the A L J ' s deci s i on confi r m the s t ep three determ i nati on un der r eview . ” F i scher- R oss, 43 1 F . 3d at73 4. T ho se fi ndi ngs m us t“conc l us i vel ypr ecl ude C l ai m ant ' s qual i fi cat i on underthe l i s t i ngs at s t ep thr ee” s uch that“‘ no r eas onabl e admi ni s tr at i ve fa ct fi nder , fol l ow i ng the corr ectanal y s i s , coul d have r es ol ved the fa ctual m at t eri n anyotherw ay . ’ ” I d. at 7 3 3 -3 4 , 7 3 5 (c ita tio n s o m itte d ). T h e C o m m issi o n er p o ints t o v ariou s fa cts i n the re co rd c o n ce rnin g P ec k ’s t enth gr ade e ducat i on, vocat i onal tr ai ni ng, dr i ver ’ s l i cens e, r ol e i n the fa m i l yas fi nanci al m anage r , and pas tj obs t o s how thatPeck’ s defi ci t s i n adapt i ve f u n c tio n in g d id n o t in iti a llym a n ife st d u rin g th e d e v e lo p m e n tal p e rio d . W h ile thes e fa ct s m aycutagai ns ta fi ndi ng thatPeck s at i s fi ed the caps ul e def i ni t i on, theybyno m eans concl us i vel yr es ol ve the ques t i on one w ayorthe other . I ndeed, the bes tthatthe C om m i s s i onercan s ayi s thatthe evi dence “ does noti ndi cat e the pr es ence of

def i ci ts i n adapt i ve f

unct i oni ng bef

or e the age of

22 th a t w o u ld- 13-

s uppor ta pr es um pt i ve fi ndi ng of di s abl i ng m ent al r et ar dat i on. ” A pl e. B r . at29- 3 0 . T he onl ypor t i on of the A L J ’ s deci s i on pot ent i al l yt ouchi ng on the t i m i ng of Peck’ s cogni t i ve def i ci t s i s thatther e w as “no evi dence of an unde r l y i ng, chr oni c di s or derof atl eas t2 y ear s ’ dur at i on r es ul t i ng i n document ed epi s odes of d e c o m p e n sa tio n , m e d ica l h isto ryo f f u n c tio n a l li m itatio n s, o r e v id e n c e o f a h ig h ly s uppor t ed l i vi ng arr angement . ” A pl t . A pp. at26. W hen maki ng thi s fi ndi ng, h o w ev er, th e A L J w as d iscu ssing o rga n ic m en tal d isord ers a n d affe cti v e d isord ers underL i s t i ngs 12. 02 and 12. 04, ther ebygi vi ng no confi r m at i on t o a conc l us i on e ith e r w a yo n m e n tal re tar d a tio n , w h ich is a se p a ra te m e n tal im p a irm e n t. W e th e re fo re re v e rse a n d re m a n d to th e d istric t co u rt w ith d ire c tio n to r emand t he ca s e t o the A L J forfur therpr ocee di ngs t o det erm i ne w hetherPeck has a n im p a irm e n t th a t m e e ts o r e q u a ls L istin g 1 2 .0 5 (C ). A lth o u g h P e c k a sk s u s to or deran i m m edi at e paym entof bene fi t s beca us e “the A L J m ade a l l of the fi ndi ngs nece s s aryt o concl ude thatM s . Peck’ s i m pai r m ent s m eetthe r equi r ement s of L i st i ng 12 . 05 (C ), ” w e are hesi t ant t o assum e t he rol e of fact -fi nd er i n the fi rs t i n s t a n c e . He r e , th e AL J ma d e n o fi n d i n g s r e g a r d i n g L i s t i n g 1 2 . 0 5 ( C) a n d we m u s t r e m a n d to a ffo rd th e A L J th a t o p p o rt u n ity. S e e W illia m s , 8 4 4 F .2 d a t 7 6 0 . C. Peck al s o ar gues thatthe A L J fai l ed t o pr ovi de s peci fi c, l egi t i m at e r eas ons fo r rejecti n g D r. S u n d w all ’s op inion that sh e n ee d s to li e d o w n at l ea st si x h o u rs- 14-

in a n e ig h t-h o u r w o rk d a y , sh e re q u ire s a n u n sc h e d u led b re a k e v e rytw e n tyto thi r tym i nut es , and s he w oul d m i s s m or e than fourday s of w or k perm onth. Peck m ai nt ai ns thatD r . Sundw al l ’ s concl us i ons ar e ent i r el ys uppor t ed bythe r ecor d, a n d sh o u ld h a v e b e e n in c lu d e d in th e A L J’s R F C a ss e ss m e n t. T he A L J m us tgi ve “c ontr ol l i ng w ei ght ” t o the tr eat i ng phy s i ci an’ s opi ni on, p ro v id e d th a t o p in io n is “ w e ll su p p o rte d b yc lin ica l an d lab o ra to ryd iag n o stic t echni ques and . . . i s noti ncons i s t entw i th others ubs t ant i al evi dence i n the r ecor d. ” C as t el l ano v. Sec’ yof H eal th & H um an Servs . , 26 F. 3d 1027, 1029 ( 10th C i r . 1994) . A n exampl e of s uch an opi ni on conce rns the “na tur e and severi tyof the cl ai m ant’ s i m pairm ents i ncludi ng the clai m ant’ s sym ptom s, di agnos i s and pr ognos i s , and anyphy s i cal orm ent al r es tr i ct i ons . ” I d. ( ci t at i on o m itte d ). “A t r eat i ng phy s i ci an’ s opi ni on m aybe r ej ect ed, buti f i ti s r ej ect ed, the [A L J ] m us tgi ve s peci fi c, l egi t i m at e r eas ons forhi s act i on. ” R ey es , 845 F. 2d at 245 ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . A n A L J m aynotr ej ecta tr eat i ng phy s i ci an’ s opi ni on bas ed on “‘ hi s orherow n cr edi bi l i tyj udgm ent s , s pecul at i on, orl ayopi ni on. ’ ” M cG offi n v. B arnhart , 288 F. 3d 1248, 1252 ( 10th C i r . 2002) ( quot i ng M or al es v. Apfe l , 2 2 5 F. 3 d 3 1 0 , 3 1 7 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 0 ) ) ( e mph a s i s o mi t t e d ) . Fu r th e r , i f th e ALJ deci des thata tr eat i ng s our ce’ s opi ni on i s notent i t l ed t o contr ol l i ng w ei ght , he m u st s til l d e ter m in e th e w e ig h t itsh o u ld b e g iv e n a f ter c o n sid e rin g : (1 ) th e len g th of the tr eatm entr el at i ons hi p and the fr equenc yof exa m i nat i on; ( 2) the natur e and- 15-

ext entof the tr eatm entr el at i ons hi p, i ncl udi ng the tr eatm entpr ovi ded and the ki nd o f e x am ination o r t esti n g p erfo rm ed ; ( 3 ) th e d eg ree to w h ich th e treati n g so u rce ’s opi ni on i s s uppor t ed byobj ect i ve evi dence ; ( 4) w hetherthe opi ni on i s cons i s t ent w ith th e re c o rd a s a w h o le; (5 ) w h e th e r o r n o t th e tre a tin g so u rc e is a sp e c ialist in the ar ea upon w hi ch an opi ni on i s gi ven; and ( 6) otherfac t or s br oughtt o the A L J ’s a tte n tio n w h ic h te n d to s u p p o rt o r c o n tr a d ic t th e o p in io n . 2 0 C .F .R . § 4 0 4 . 1 5 2 7 (d)(2 )-( 6 ). O n M ar ch 17, 2003, D r . Sundw al l compl et ed a que s t i onnai r e conc erni ng Peck’ s i m pai r m ent s . A pl t . A pp. at288- 89. H e di agnos ed Peck w i th s us pect ed, butunpr oven mul t i pl e s cl er os i s , cervi cal di s c di s eas e, and chr oni c pai n i n the arm s , and l egs . I d. at288. D ue t o thes e i m pai r m ent s he opi ned thatPeck s uffe r ed fr om t he fol l ow i ng l i m i t at i ons : unabl e t o w al k m or e than a bl ock w i thout s ever e pai n; unabl e t o s i tform or e than thi r tym i nut es atone t i m e; unabl e t o s t and for m ore than t w entym i nu t es aton e t i m e; need s t o recl i ne o r l i e do w n fo r atl east s i x hour s i n an ei ghthourw or k day ; unabl e t o s i tm or e than tw o hour s i n an ei ght h o u rw o r k d a y; u n a b l e t o s t a n d m o r e th a n tw o h o u r s i n a n e i g h th o u rw o r k d a y; r equi r es a j ob t hatperm i t s s hi ft i ng pos i t i ons atw i l l fr om s i t t i ng, s t andi ng, or w al ki ng; needs t o t ake uns chedul ed br eaks everytw entyt o thi r tym i nut es i n an e ig h t h o u r w o rk d a y ; o c c a sio n a llya b le to lift a n d c a rryten p o u n d s; a n d n e v e r a b le t o l i ftorcarr ym or e than tw entypounds . I d. at288- 89. D r . Sundw al l fur ther- 16-

o p in e d th a t P e c k w a s lik e ly to b e a b s e n t f ro m w o rk m o re th a n fo u r t im e s a m o n th . Id . a t 2 8 9 . I n det erm i ni ng Peck’ s R FC ats t ep four , the A L J l i s t ed the func t i onal l i m i t at i ons r eport ed byD r . Sundw al l , and then s t at ed: In su p p o rto f th ese restri cti o n s, D r. S u n d w all att ac h ed D r. A p fe lbau m ’s let ter, . . . an d so m e b ri ef o ffice n o tes, m o stl yd etail in g th e c lai m an t’ s m edi cat i ons . H e ad d ed thatthe cl ai m antcannots i torw al k m or e than 2 hour s i n an 8- hourday , t ot al , beca us e herr i ghtl eg i s w eak a nd s he gets st i ff an d n um b w hen si t t i ng . H e did not further exp l ai n h ow these s ym p tom s m andat ed 6 orm or e hour s a dayof l y i ng dow n orr ecl i ni ng. H i s office not es contai ned no i nd icat i on that he con du ct ed an yt est s. F i nall y , D r. A pfelbaum ’s con cl usi on s do n ot appear to just i fyt hese l i m i t at i ons , t o the ext entdes cr i bed byD r . S u ndw al l . H ow ever , t he under s i gned does agr ee that the cl ai m ant has s i gni fi cant phy sical and m e n ta l lim ita tio n s , i.e ., s e v e re im p a ir m e n ts . Id . a t 2 9 . P e c k c o rre c tlya ss e rts th a t an A L J m u st p ro v id e sp e c ific a n d leg iti m a te r eas ons forr ej ect i ng the opi ni on of a tr eat i ng phy s i ci an. H er e, the A L J di d not s peci fi cal l yi dent i fyhow eac h l i m i t at i on pr ovi ded i n D r . Sundw al l ’ s opi ni on w as i ncons i s t entw i th ot herm edi cal evi dence i n the r ecor d, butourcas e l aw does not re q u ire th a t d e g re e o f d e tail. S e e C lifto n , 7 9 F .3 d a t 1 0 0 9 -1 0 (sta tin g th a t w h ile “[t ] he r ecor d m us tdemonstr at e thatthe A L J cons i der ed al l of the evi dence , . . . an ALJ i s n o tr e q u i r e d t o d i s c u s s e v e ryp i e c e o f e v i d e n c e ” ) . I n a n ye v e n t , th e ALJ p rov ided legiti m ate rea so n s fo r rejecti n g D r. S u n d w all ’s op inion . D r. S u n d w all ’s rec o m m en d ed p h y sical l im it ati o n s co n sisto f c h ec k ed b o x es a n d circled n u m b ers o n a fo rm . C f. F reyv . B o w en , 8 1 6 F . 2 d 5 0 8 , 5 1 5 (10 th C ir . 1 9 8 7 ) (“D r.- 17-

G a b b e r t ’ s r e p o r ti n th i s r e g a r d c o n s i s t s s o l e l y o f b o x e s c h e c k e d o n th e S e c r e t a r y's form t o i ndi cat e hi s concl us i on of no l i m i t at i on on r i ghtarm us e. Such eval uat i on form s , s t andi ng al one, unacc om pani ed bythor 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 . ”) . D r . Sundw al l ’ s opi ni on w as not su p p o rt ed w ith ad d it ion al ex p lana ti o n , b u t r efere n ce d a lett er f rom D r. A p fe lb a u m , a n d D r. S u n d w a ll’ s p a tie n t n o te s . T h e A L J fo u n d that n eith er D r. A p fe lbau m ’s l ett er, no r D r. S u n d w all ’s p a tie n t n o te s ju s tifie d th e e x te n t o f D r. S u n d w a ll’ s re c o m m e n d e d lim ita tio n s . A tre a tin g p h y sic ian ’s o p in io n sh o u ld b e a c c o rd e d c o n tro lli n g w e ig h t, bu t o n lyif it i s w el l s uppor t ed bym edi cal fi ndi ngs . A bs entfr om the r ecor d i s m edi cal evi dence oropi ni ons fr om doct or s , tr eat i ng orotherw i s e, t o confi r m the degr ee of li m it ati o n s o p ined b yD r. S u n d w all ’s fo rm . T h e A L J p rop erlyev alua ted D r. S u n d w all ’s op inion in the co n text o f th e re co rd o f a s a w h o le, an d the A L J’s deci s i on i s s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . III . In su m , w e re v e rse a n d re m a n d to th e d istric t co u rt w ith d ire c tio n to r emand t he ca s e t o the A L J forfur therpr ocee di ngs t o det erm i ne w hetherPeck has an im pairm ent that m eet s or equals L i st i ng 12 . 05 (C ). W e affirm the A L J’ s- 18-

reje c tio n o f

D r. S u n d w a ll’ s re p o rt . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt M aryB eck Bri s coe C i r cui tJ udge