Opinion ID: 1349375
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Remand in This Particular Case Would be an Idle and Useless Formality

Text: As the majority correctly observed, the only medical evidence in the record that could support a finding by the ALJ that Rabbers's condition met the B criteria is the testimony of Dr. Fomunung. [5] I also conclude, as did the majority, that the ALJ properly rejected Dr. Fomunung's opinion for the reasons given in the majority opinion. The obvious result, therefore, of any reversal and remand would be a repetition by the ALJ of his rejection of Dr. Fomunung's opinion for exactly the same reasons he previously explained. There then being no medical evidence to counter the medical evidence relied upon by the Commissioner, requiring the ALJ to make the necessary B criteria findings would be fruitless. While I do not regard the intentional or negligent violation of the law by the ALJ to be in any sense a de minimis violation, this is a rare case in which a reversal and remand would be an idle and useless formality. For that reason, and for that reason alone, I concur with the judgment of this court affirming the district court's decision upholding the Commissioner's denial of Rabbers's application for disability insurance benefits.