Opinion ID: 3199033
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Step Three Standard

Text: Whitehead next contends that the ALJ applied the wrong standard in determining that Whitehead did not meet or medically equal Listing 1.04(A). 2 1 Whitehead also cites Epps v. Harris, 624 F.2d 1267 (5th Cir. 1980), to assert that the Appeals Council was required to discuss the additional evidence, and that, in the absence of any discussion, remand is required. Having already concluded that Whitehead’s newly submitted evidence was not sufficiently significant to require remand under Sun v. Colvin, 793 F.3d 502, (5th Cir. 2015), we also reject Whitehead’s contention that, as in Epps, the newly submitted evidence directly contradicted the ALJ’s rationale such that remand is required. See Epps, 624 F.2d at 1273. Additionally, as we noted in Sun, Epps arose in a different procedural context where the Appeals Council affirmed the decision of the ALJ and thus has little bearing on the Appeals Council’s denial of a request for review. Sun, 793 F.3d at 510–11 (citing Parks ex rel. D.P. v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 783 F.3d 847, 853 (11th Cir. 2015)). 2 Listing 1.04(A) outlines the criteria for disorders of the spine and states as follows: Disorders of the spine (e.g., herniated nucleus pulposus, spinal arachnoiditis, spinal stenosis, osteoarthritis, degenerative disc 6 Case: 15-30893 Document: 00513485007 Page: 7 Date Filed: 04/28/2016 No. 15-30893 At step three of the evaluation process, Whitehead has the burden of establishing that his impairment meets or equals the criteria for presumptive disability described in the listings. Muse v. Sullivan, 925 F.2d 785, 789 (5th Cir. 1991). “For a claimant to show that his impairment matches a listing, it must meet all of the specified medical criteria.” Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 530 (1990). At step three, the ALJ concluded that “the medical evidence d[id] not establish the requisite evidence of the nerve root compression, spinal arachnoiditis or lumbar and cervical spinal stenosis as required under listing 1.04.” Whitehead argues that this conclusion was based upon application of the wrong legal standard and that the facts do not support this conclusion. To the extent Whitehead argues that the ALJ applied an improper legal standard by requiring EMG or MRI evidence of nerve root or spinal cord compression, there is no evidence that the ALJ did in fact apply such a standard. Rather, the ALJ simply stated that the medical evidence does not establish the requisite evidence of nerve root compression. Thus, our inquiry is whether the ALJ’s determination is supported by substantial evidence. Newton, 209 F.3d at 452. We conclude that it is. First, at no point during his treatment of Whitehead did Dr. Isaza disease, facet arthritis, vertebral fracture), resulting in compromise of a nerve root (including the cauda equina) or the spinal cord. With: A. Evidence of nerve root compression characterized by neuroanatomic distribution of pain, limitation of motion of the spine, motor loss (atrophy with associated muscle weakness or muscle weakness) accompanied by sensory or reflex loss and, if there is involvement of the lower back, positive straight-leg raising test (sitting and supine). 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpart P, App. 1, § 1.04(A). 7 Case: 15-30893 Document: 00513485007 Page: 8 Date Filed: 04/28/2016 No. 15-30893 diagnose Whitehead with nerve root or spinal cord compression, nor is there any other direct evidence of nerve root compression contained in the record. See Zimmerman v. Astrue, 288 F. App’x 931, 937 (5th Cir. 2008) (affirming Commissioner’s conclusion that plaintiff’s impairment did not meet or equal Listing 1.04 where there was no direct indication of nerve root compression). 3 In fact, the only medical record that references “cord impingement” is the letter of Dr. Maury Drummond, Whitehead’s primary care physician, which the ALJ discounted as being inconsistent with the generally normal findings and because Dr. Drummond sees Whitehead only when he is sick and did not treat Whitehead for his cervical spine condition. Given the evidence from Dr. Isaza, we cannot say that “no credible evidentiary choices or medical findings support the [ALJ’s] decision.” Boyd, 239 F.3d at 704. Accordingly, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination at step three. 4