Opinion ID: 3039121
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Disability Analysis

Text: The SSA’s process for evaluating disability, whether for disability insurance or SSI, includes five steps.2 Cooper argues that he presented a prima facie case of total disability. Substantial evidence supports the conclusion that he met the requirements of step one; he had not worked for approximately 15 years at the time of the ALJ hearing. Substantial evidence also supports the ALJ’s finding at step two that Cooper had ten separate “severe” ailments. This appeal mainly concerns steps three and five, which we address in turn. 2 Briefly, the five steps involve establishing: (1) non-employment; (2) severe impairment(s); and either (3) that the impairments, or a combination thereof, meet an SSA-listed disability or, as a result of limited residual functional capacity, (4) incapability of performing past work or (5) other work in the economy. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. -6-
At step three, the ALJ found that Cooper did not meet any of the detailed listings required for a showing of total disability. See 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, App. 1, Regs. No. 4. The ALJ specifically considered disabilities of the musculoskeletal system, special senses (including vision) and speech, and cardiovascular system, as well as mental impairments. He also mentioned that Cooper’s various conditions could satisfy no other listing. Thus, the ALJ proceeded to step four, at which he determined that Cooper had residual functional capacity “to perform a restricted range of sedentary work activity” subject to various restrictions. See Ramirez v. Banhart, 372 F.3d 546, 551 (3d Cir. 2004) (describing the relationship between steps three and four). Cooper correctly points out that nothing in the ALJ’s opinion discusses combining any of the many ailments or how those combinations might measure up to the listings at step three of the disability-claim analysis. This contravened SSA regulations, which state that the Commissioner “will consider the combined effect of all of your impairments without regard to whether any such impairment, if considered separately, would be of sufficient severity.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.923 (emphasis added). While the ALJ may have considered Cooper’s ailments as a whole when determining his residual functional capacity at step four of the analysis, 20 C.F.R. § 416.923 is concerned with step three because it refers to the listings, 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, App. 1. There is no evidence (let alone substantial evidence) to support a finding that Cooper’s ailments, -7- taken in combination, do not satisfy a listing at step three.3 Cooper specifically argues that the ALJ should have considered his obesity in combination with other ailments at step three.4 The SSA has directed that “a listing is met if there is an impairment that, in combination with obesity, meets the requirements of a listing.” Soc. Sec. Rul. 02-1p, 2000 WL 628049, at  (Sept. 12, 2002) (emphasis added). It has also observed that “ obesity may increase the severity of coexisting or related impairments” and that “[t]his is especially true of musculoskeletal, respiratory, and cardiovascular impairments,” thus calling for case-by-case determinations regarding obesity’s exacerbating effect on other conditions. Id. Our Court has held that where a claimant “has not specified how [obesity] would affect the five-step analysis undertaken by the ALJ, beyond an assertion that her weight makes it more difficult for her to stand, walk and manipulate her hands and fingers,” a remand was not warranted. Rutherford, 399 F.3d at 552 n.4, 553. The SSA proceedings in that case pre-dated Ruling 02-1p, but we stated that “the analysis would be no different under the new ruling.” Id. In our case, however, Cooper makes a specific request for consideration of his obesity in conjunction with his musculoskeletal, respiratory, and cardiovascular conditions. On remand, the Commissioner should consider Cooper’s physical and 3 At step four, however, the ALJ did consider all of Cooper’s ailments in combination to determine his residual functional capacity. 4 The ALJ found Cooper’s obesity to be “severe” at step two of the disability analysis. -8- psychological ailments in combination with each other and especially with regard to his obesity. Cooper nonetheless retains the burden of persuasion at step three of the disability-claim analysis. (A better-organized list of ailments, grouping all the information by body part, organ system, or psychological disorder, would likely assist in his efforts.)5
Cooper contends that the ALJ failed to shift the burden to the Commissioner at step five. While we disagree, we do have a different concern about the ALJ’s analysis at step five. The vocational expert suggested that Cooper could become an assembler, laborer, inspector/checker, or hand packager. It might be plausible that Cooper could do certain sedentary jobs. But on this record, substantial evidence does not support the conclusion that an individual who is blind in one eye and has poor vision in the other could serve as an inspector/checker, assembler, or hand packager. Those jobs require much hand-eye coordination and visual strain. On remand, the analysis might not reach step five, because Cooper could demonstrate a listed disability at step three. But if the 5 Cooper also contends, regarding step three, that the ALJ made “speculative inferences” from the medical expert testimony when determining that his mental-health conditions did not constitute a disability. Morales v. Apfel, 225 F.3d 310, 317 (3d Cir. 2000). But, as a review of the facts shows, this is not what has happened here. While Dr. Carl Herman’s three examinations in 1998, 1999, and 2002 tended to support Cooper’s claims, other doctors’ examinations suggested that Cooper has slightly greater ability to function, and slightly less social impairment, than Dr. Herman found. With this argument, Cooper is really asking us to re-weigh the evidence, something we will not do. -9- analysis does reach step five, the Commissioner should consider whether Cooper’s eyesight—damaged since an incident in 1986—left him with the residual functional capacity to perform the suggested jobs during the relevant period from February 1997 through September 2004.