Opinion ID: 678830
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Adequacy of Development of the Record

Text: 32 Bowling contends that the ALJ failed to develop the records relative to the February 1989 and October 1991 hearings adequately. When a claimant is unrepresented by counsel, the ALJ has a duty scrupulously and conscientiously [to] probe into, inquire of, and explore for all the relevant facts. Kane v. Heckler, 731 F.2d 1216, 1219-20 (5th Cir.1984) (internal quotation and citation omitted). We shall, however, reverse an ALJ's decision for failure to develop the record adequately only if a claimant shows that he was prejudiced as a result of the hearing. As Bowling was afforded two additional hearings after the February 1989 hearing, in both of which medical facts were developed further and Bowling was allowed to submit additional medical evidence, he has not shown such prejudice. 33 The most recent remand order directed the ALJ to obtain an orthopedic consultative exam and a medical assessment, yet we find nothing in the record to reflect that any medical assessment was thereafter conducted concerning Bowling's kidney condition. The orthopedic evaluation was conducted on July 1, 1991, by Dr. Stephen Wilson. He concluded that Bowling could return to some form of gainful activity if correctly motivated. Dr. Wilson also noted that Bowling had had multiple surgical procedures done for kidney problems; however, on evaluation of orthopedic problems today concerning his back and left knee, [Dr. Wilson found] no objective findings other than for the minimal degenerative changes present. Especially in light of Bowling's pro se status and the ALJ's heightened factual exploration duty which that entails, the ALJ does not appear to have properly and adequately developed the record with regard to Bowling's kidney condition and the extent to which Bowling may have been disabled thereby. 34 As for the October 1991 hearing, Bowling refers to the vocational expert in claiming that the ALJ blocked [Bowling's] right ... to cross-examine the ALJ's expert witness. When the ALJ asked Bowling if he wished to question the expert, Bowling responded by asking the ALJ whether the expert had seen the medical restrictions. The ALJ then stated that it was up to the ALJ to tell the vocational expert what the ALJ thought the medical restrictions were. 35 When Bowling then asked the expert whether Dr. Kidd's reports concerning Bowling's kidney condition figured into the expert's determinations, the ALJ answered that he (the ALJ) had given the vocational expert the hypothetical that [Bowling's] kidney problem had been practically resolved. When Bowling then referred to Dr. Kidd's letter of July 29, 1991, detailing continuing kidney problems, the ALJ asked Bowling if he had anything else [he] want[ed] to ask [the expert]. The expert never responded to Bowling's inquiry regarding Dr. Kidd's July 1991 letter. This constituted error on the part of the ALJ, but given our determination today to vacate and remand, the failure of the ALJ in his duties regarding the record of the October 1991 hearing is harmless for lack of prejudice to Bowling. 36 Finally, Bowling argues that the several ALJs failed properly to evaluate his complaints of pain. We agree. An ALJ cannot ignore altogether a claimant's subjective complaints of pain. Carrier v. Sullivan, 944 F.2d 243, 247 (5th Cir.1991). Here, the AC directed the second ALJ to develop evidence of pain, including the impact of pain medication on Bowling's other medical ailments. The second ALJ could find no statement of any pain medication's adverse effects on [Bowling's] kidney problem ... in any medical report. It is arguable that the second ALJ did not adequately develop the needed testimony and evidence in this regard. See Kane, 731 F.2d at 1219-20. 37 The magistrate judge determined that the third ALJ's failure to consider four letters submitted to the AC concerning Bowling's pain was harmless error. No jurisprudential authority for the application of a harmless error analysis is cited, and we are aware of none. The third ALJ also failed to develop facts regarding the negative side effects, if any, that the pain medication would have on Bowling's kidney disorders. Again, however, the failure of the ALJ's heightened duty to develop the record adequately becomes harmless in light of our decision to vacate and remand, thereby eliminating any prejudice that Bowling may otherwise have suffered. III