Opinion ID: 2975163
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Listings Requirements

Text: Morris argues that the ALJ erred in determining that he failed to satisfy the Listings requirements. Specifically, Morris appears to argue that his diagnosis of diabetic retinopathy, cataract development, and glaucoma along with retinal hemorrhages and micro-aneurysms in both eyes qualify under the Listing 9.08C, which requires significant impairment of the claimant’s vision. Morris has not alleged that his vision has been significantly impaired, nor do his medical records suggest that it has. While he argued before the ALJ that he also met Listing 9.08A, which requires “[n]europathy demonstrated by significant and persistent disorganization of motor function,” he has not raised that argument here on appeal. The ALJ’s determination is supported by substantial evidence. Morris also argues that he meets the requirements for Listings 4.11 and 4.12. The ALJ provided a thorough and accurate evaluation of the requirements of Listings 4.11 and 4.12 and explanation of why Morris’ condition did not qualify. JA at 694. We find that that conclusion is supported by substantial evidence. Next, Morris argues that his physical and mental impairments, taken together, are the equivalent of a Listing. The Social Security regulations provide that, [i]f [the claimant] ha[s] a combination of impairments, no one of which meets a listing . . ., [the Agency] will compare [the claimant’s] findings with those for closely analogous listed impairments. If the findings related to [the claimant’s] impairments 6 are at least of equal medical significance to those of a listed impairment, [the Agency] will find that [the claimant’s] combination of impairments is medically equivalent to that listing.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.926(b)(3). Morris does not offer an analogous listed impairment in his argument. Rather, he argues only that, as a result of his mental impairments, he has difficulty in controlling his diabetes. That may be so. However, he has not argued that, as a result, his diabetes is or will imminently be medically equivalent to a Listing. Giving his argument its most favorable reading, he contends that his diabetes might some day worsen to the severity contemplated by the Listings. Medical evidence is to the contrary. While Morris has been diagnosed with diabetes related eye disease, his slight vision loss is correctable. Furthermore, his ophthalmologist Dr. Leeper has consistently noted that Morris’ condition was stable. Nor are any of his other physical impairments at risk of imminent, significant decline. Finally, Morris argues that the ALJ erred by not inferring episodes of decompensation from changes in Morris’ medication and increased visits by his social workers. As the Agency points out, Morris identifies only two isolated changes to his medication. In addition, two state agency psychologists found that Morris did not have any episodes of decompensation. As a result, we find that the ALJ’s finding is supported by substantial evidence.