Opinion ID: 160887
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Step Three Listed Impairment Determination.

Text: “At step three, the ALJ determines whether the claimant’s impairment is equivalent to one of a number of listed impairments that the [Commissioner] acknowledges as so severe as to preclude substantial gainful activity.” Clifton v. Chater , 79 F.3d 1007, 1009 (10th Cir. 1996) (quotation omitted). Plaintiff contends her impairments meet or equal the criteria for Listing 11.11, the listing for anterior poliomyelitis. See 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, App. 1 § 11.11. For plaintiff to qualify under Listing 11.11, she must have anterior poliomyelitis and meet one of the following three conditions: she must exhibit (1) persistent difficulty with swallowing or breathing, (2) unintelligible speech, or (3) disorganization of motor function. Id. Plaintiff’s treating physician, Dr. Brandt, stated his opinion that plaintiff met the listing for anterior poliomyelitis because of her diagnosis of post-poliomyelitis coupled with dysphagia, which causes her difficulty in swallowing. Appellant’s App. at 315. If plaintiff’s impairments meet Listing 11.11, she has satisfied her burden of proving her disability without regard to her age, education, or work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d). The ALJ found that “claimant’s condition does not meet or equal any listing.” Appellant’s App. at 36. The only reason given by the ALJ for this finding was that he concurred with Dr. Pearson, a consultative physician, who -4- testified that plaintiff did not meet the criteria of any listing. The ALJ did not provide any analysis of why plaintiff did not meet Listing 11.11, did not mention or discuss Dr. Brandt’s report, did not provide any explanation for why he disregarded the opinion of a treating physician, and did not provide any reason for giving greater weight to the opinion of a consulting physician than to a treating physician. Thus, the ALJ made several legal errors with respect to this evidence at step three. First, in contravention of Clifton , 79 F.3d at 1009-10, the ALJ did not discuss the evidence he accepted or rejected with respect to the requirements of Listing 11.11. The ALJ is charged with carefully considering all the relevant evidence and linking his findings to specific evidence. Id. (holding the “record must demonstrate that the ALJ considered all of the evidence,” and the ALJ must “discuss[ ] the evidence supporting his decision, . . . the uncontroverted evidence he chooses not to rely upon, [and] significantly probative evidence he rejects”). Here, the ALJ simply stated he concurred with Dr. Pearson that plaintiff did not meet the criteria of any listing. Appellant’s App. at 36. As this court stated in Clifton , “[s]uch a bare conclusion is beyond meaningful judicial review.” 79 F.3d at 1009. Second, the ALJ completely disregarded Dr. Brandt’s opinion that plaintiff’s impairments meet Listing 11.11. An ALJ is required to give -5- controlling weight to a treating physician’s well-supported opinion, so long as it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(d)(2); see also Bean v. Chater , 77 F.3d 1210, 1214 (10th Cir. 1995). When an ALJ decides to disregard a medical report by a claimant’s physician, he must set forth “specific, legitimate reasons” for his decision. Miller v. Chater , 99 F.3d 972, 976 (10th Cir. 1996) (quoting Frey v. Bowen , 816 F.2d 508, 513 (10th Cir. 1987)). Further, there are several specific factors the ALJ must consider, including: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, including the treatment provided and the kind of examination or testing performed; (3) the degree to which the physician’s opinion is supported by relevant evidence; (4) consistency between the opinion and the record as a whole; (5) whether or not the physician is a specialist in the area upon which an opinion is rendered; and (6) other factors brought to the ALJ’s attention which tend to support or contradict the opinion. Goatcher v. United States Dep’t of Health & Human Servs. , 52 F.3d 288, 290 (10th Cir. 1995). The ALJ did not consider any of these factors in disregarding the treating physician’s opinion that plaintiff met the criteria for Listing 11.11. The government argues that Dr. Brandt’s opinion is contradicted by the testimony of Drs. Pearson, Morrison and Smoot, nontreating physicians who opined that plaintiff’s impairments did not meet any listing. None of these physicians reviewed Dr. Brandt’s report stating that plaintiff met the listing, nor -6- did any of them give any supporting explanation whatsoever for their conclusions. Thus, the government’s argument is fallacious for two reasons. First, when, as here, an ALJ does not provide any explanation for rejecting medical evidence, we cannot meaningfully review the ALJ’s determination. See, e.g., Clifton , 79 F.3d at 1009 (holding “[i]n the absence of ALJ findings supported by specific weighing of the evidence, we cannot assess whether relevant evidence adequately supports the ALJ’s conclusion”); Kepler v. Chater , 68 F.3d 387, 391 (10th Cir. 1995) (holding ALJ’s listing of factors he considered was inadequate when court was “left to speculate what specific evidence led the ALJ to [his conclusion]”). Although we review the ALJ’s decision for substantial evidence, “we are not in a position to draw factual conclusions on behalf of the ALJ.” Prince v. Sullivan , 933 F.2d 598, 603 (7th Cir. 1991). Second, as we stated many years ago in Frey , the “findings of a nontreating physician based upon limited contact and examination are of suspect reliability.” 816 F.2d at 515. The reports from Drs. Pearson, Morrison and Smoot are “based on the most limited sort of contact and examination.” Id. “Such evaluation forms, standing alone, unaccompanied by thorough written reports or persuasive testimony, are not substantial evidence. Id. -7- We therefore conclude that the ALJ’s conclusion that plaintiff’s impairments did not meet any listed impairment did not follow correct legal standards and is not supported by substantial evidence.