Opinion ID: 692659
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Articulation of Reasoning

Text: 10 Inmon first claims that the ALJ failed to consider whether he met or equaled Listings 1.12 and 1.13 because the ALJ did not specifically articulate reasons for rejecting those listings. This circuit has only required that an ALJ minimally articulate his or her justification for rejecting or accepting specific evidence of a disability. Pope, 998 F.2d at 481; Steward, 858 F.2d at 1299. Here, the ALJ found that 11 The medical evidence establishes that the claimant has severe residuals of two surgeries on the right wrist and four surgeries on the left knee plus dysthymia and borderline intelligence, but that he does not have an impairment or combination of impairments listed in, or medically equal to one listed in Appendix 1, Subpart P, Regulations No. 4. 12 Tr. 23. 13 This finding is equally, if not more, specific than the articulation we determined to be sufficient in Waite v. Bowen, 819 F.2d 1356, 1359 (7th Cir.1987). There the ALJ concluded that 14 The medical evidence establishes that the claimant has a loss of motor and sensory functions of the left arm, but he does not have an impairment, or a combination of impairments listed, or medically equal to one listed in Appendix Subpart P, of Social Security Regulations No. 4. 15 We thus find the ALJ's discussion of the issue to be sufficient articulation to demonstrate that the ALJ considered the issue whether Inmon met, or presented the medical equivalent of, the requirements of Listings 1.12 and 1.13. Id.