Opinion ID: 724046
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Phase One: Plaintiff's Residual Functional Capacity

Text: 21 In determining a claimant's physical abilities, the ALJ should first assess the nature and extent of [the claimant's] physical limitations and then determine [the claimant's] residual functional capacity for work activity on a regular and continuing basis. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(b). Here, the ALJ concluded that plaintiff had the physical ability to do a full range of medium work. SSR 83-10 defines full range of work as [a]ll or substantially all occupations existing at an exertional level, and provides that [t]he considerable lifting required for the full range of medium work usually requires frequent bending-stooping ... [f]lexibility of the knees as well as the torso is important for this activity. Soc. Sec. Rep. Serv., Rulings 1983-1991, at 30. 4 Dr. Dandridge, an orthopedic surgeon who examined plaintiff in 1993 at the request of the Secretary, concluded that plaintiff could climb, stoop, kneel, balance, crouch, and crawl only occasionally, commenting that, [a]t this patient's age, flexibility and elasticity of tissues prevent frequency of activities. Tr. at 294. The ALJ credited Dr. Dandridge's opinion, but determined that it did not conflict with a determination that plaintiff could do a full range of medium work. The ALJ reasoned that, because kneeling and crouching are forms of bending, plaintiff's ability to stoop, kneel, and crawl occasionally meant that he could frequently bend-stoop. In her brief on appeal, the Secretary does not even attempt to justify this fallacious reasoning. 22 The ALJ's RFC determination also failed to take into account the physical limitations found by Dr. Combs, plaintiff's treating physician. Although the ALJ stated that he found entirely credible Dr. Combs' opinion that plaintiff would have difficulty loading cargo, pulling down doors and latching them, the ALJ did not include any of these limitations in his determination of plaintiff's RFC. Thus, the RFC finding the ALJ made at the first phase of the step four analysis did not accurately reflect plaintiff's exertional limitations. 5 23 The ALJ also erred in evaluating plaintiff's mental RFC. When there is evidence of a mental impairment that allegedly prevents a claimant from working, the Secretary must follow the procedure for evaluating mental impairments set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520a and the Listing of Impairments and document the procedure accordingly. Cruse v. United States Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 49 F.3d 614, 617 (10th Cir.1995). Documentation is made by completing a PRT form, which the ALJ must attach to his written decision. [T]he record must contain substantial competent evidence to support the conclusions reached on the PRT form[, and] if the ALJ prepares the form himself, he must 'discuss in his opinion the evidence he considered in reaching the conclusions expressed on the form.'  Id. at 617-18 (quoting Washington, 37 F.3d at 1442). Here, the ALJ repeated in the body of his written opinion the conclusions he reached on the PRT, but he did not relate these conclusions to the evidence. The ALJ also recited his conclusions as to those abilities that are the subject of the Medical Assessment of Ability to Perform Work-Related Activities (Mental) form. Again, however, the ALJ did not relate his conclusions to the evidence, other than to state that they were based on a reasonable understanding of the medical records, Tr. at 31. We note that the ALJ's conclusions as to plaintiff's abilities differed dramatically from Dr. Spray's conclusions; a difference which the ALJ did not explain. 24