Opinion ID: 3020650
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Claimant’s Obsessive Compulsive Disorder

Text: Cacere also argues that claimant’s obsessive compulsive disorder qualified as an additional and significant impairment under Listing 112.05D, and that the ALJ’s finding is based on “evidence nullification.” We disagree. The additional and significant impairment under Listing 112.05D must be a “severe” impairment, as defined in 20 C.F.R. § 416.924(c). To demonstrate a “severe” impairment, an applicant must demonstrate something beyond “a slight abnormality or a combination of slight abnormalities that causes no more than minimal functional limitations. . . .” 20 C.F.R. § 416.924(c); see also McCrea v. Commissioner of Soc. Sec., 370 F.3d 357, 360 (3d Cir. 2004). 8 We conclude that the ALJ’s finding that Cacere had not met her burden of demonstrating more than a “slight abnormality” attributable to claimant’s obsessive compulsive disorder is supported by substantial evidence. Significantly, Dr. Hernandez opined that claimant’s medical regimen resulted in improvement in symptoms of claimant’s obsessive compulsive disorder. Of equal import, claimant’s school teacher, Mr. Matranga, did not mention any significant behavioral abnormalities in his submission.