Opinion ID: 3013796
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The ALJ’s Decision is Inadequate

Text: The district court stated that it was “troubled by the inconsistencies in the ALJ’s opinion,” but that “reading the entirety of the opinion, and the record as a whole,” it was convinced that the ALJ’s conclusion should be affirmed. Tr. 13. It dismissed the ALJ’s errors as mere deficiencies in opinion writing and found that there was substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s conclusion. Tr. 13. We, however, find that the major defects in the administrative opinion are significant and compel that further proceedings be held before the ALJ. As described above, the ALJ found that Leech could only do unskilled work, but later concluded that 13 he could do skilled work as a residency supervisor or caseworker. 4 He also found that Leech must avoid stress but seemed not to consider Dr. Reed’s testimony that a person who needed to avoid stress could not do work as a residency supervisor or caseworker. For these reasons, we must remand the case for clarification. This result is further compelled by the fact that there is substantial evidence in the record that Leech’s cognitive difficulties well may have rendered him disabled. His treating physician, Dr. Kant, concluded that throughout the relevant period, Leech was unable to perform his former work. Specifically, Dr. Kant determined that he could not (1) counsel parolees or others in a social service setting; (2) compile, analyze, or report information in an accurate and timely fashion; (3) react appropriately to provocative behavior; or (4) make quick decisions when recalling pertinent facts was required. Tr. 990. Moreover, he rated as “fair” Leech’s ability to concentrate; perform tasks; perform within a schedule; perform at a consistent pace; attend from start to finish; sustain a routine; and reach deadlines or schedules. Tr. 875. Dr. Kant explained that his description of “fair” meant Leech could do these things only in “certain situations” with “serious limitations” and could not “sustain it.” Tr. 990. Likewise, Leech’s treating physician, Dr. Smith-Seemiller concluded that 4 As the district court noted, if Leech were limited to unskilled sedentary work, then Medical-Vocational Rule 201.06 would direct a finding of disability. See 20 C.F.R. Part