Source: http://me.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20171026_0000652.DME.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 09:15:11+00:00

Document:
John C. Nivison U.S. Magistrate Judge.
On Plaintiff Lawrence Tyrrell's application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, Defendant, the Social Security Administration Acting Commissioner, found that Plaintiff has certain medically determinable impairments, but that the impairments are not “severe.” Defendant, therefore, denied Plaintiff's request for disability benefits. Plaintiff filed this action for judicial review of Defendant's final administrative decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
Following a review of the record, and after consideration of the parties' arguments, I recommend the Court vacate the administrative decision and remand the matter for further proceedings.
The Commissioner's final decision is the November 12, 2015, decision of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). (ECF No. 9-2.) The ALJ's decision tracks the familiar five-step sequential evaluation process for analyzing social security disability claims, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920, but concludes at step 2 of the process.
The ALJ found that Plaintiff has several impairments, including but not limited to right ankle degenerative joint disease and thoracic spine disorder, but that the impairments are not severe. (Id. ¶¶ 3, 4.) In other words, the ALJ found that Plaintiff does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that has significantly limited (or is expected to significantly limit) Plaintiff's ability to perform basic work-related activities for twelve consecutive months. (Id. ¶ 4.) The ALJ did not call a medical expert to testify at the hearing.
A court must affirm the administrative decision provided the ALJ applied the correct legal standards and provided the decision is supported by substantial evidence. This is so even if the record contains evidence capable of supporting an alternative outcome. Manso-Pizarro v. Sec'y of HHS, 76 F.3d 15, 16 (1st Cir. 1996) (per curiam); Rodriguez Pagan v. Sec'y of HHS, 819 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 1987). Substantial evidence is evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a finding. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971); Rodriguez v. Sec'y of HHS, 647 F.2d 218, 222 (1st Cir. 1981). “The ALJ's findings of fact are conclusive when supported by substantial evidence, but they are not conclusive when derived by ignoring evidence, misapplying the law, or judging matters entrusted to experts.” Nguyen v. Chater, 172 F.3d 31, 35 (1st Cir. 1999).
On December 6, 2013, David Houston, Ph.D., on behalf of Disability Determination Services, determined that Plaintiff's mental impairments are not severe. (Ex. 2A, R. 53 - 54, ECF No. 9-3.) On December 12, 2013, Donald Trumbull, M.D., also on behalf of Disability Determination Services, determined that Plaintiff's physical impairments are not severe. (Id., R. 55.) Upon reconsideration of the determinations at Plaintiff's request, on August 25, 2014, after Plaintiff received a consultative psychiatric evaluation by Richard Parker, Ph.D., (Ex. 2F, ECF No. 9-7), Jan Jacobson, Ph.D., determined that Plaintiff's psychological condition does not result in significant limitations in Plaintiff's ability to perform basic work activities and, therefore, is not severe enough to be considered disabling. (Ex. 3A, R. 61 - 64, ECF No. 9-3.) The Disability Determination Services' review of Plaintiff's application did not include a consultative physical exam.

References: § 405
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.