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

Heading: Sufficiency of the ALJ’s Explanation

Text: We also reject Cacere’s contention that the ALJ failed to explain properly his discrediting of evidence in the record. We have repeatedly explained that “we are unable to conduct our substantial evidence review if the ALJ fails to identify the evidence he or she rejects and the reason for its rejection.” Walton v. Halter, 243 F.3d 703, 710 (3d Cir. 2001). In viewing the ALJ’s decision as a whole, we conclude that the ALJ’s reasoning was sufficient to allow for meaningful judicial review. As noted above, the ALJ rejected some of the IQ test scores because they were at variance with other evidence, including the report from claimant’s treating psychiatrist and claimant’s status in her age-appropriate grade. Regarding subjective allegations of claimant’s obsessive compulsive disorder, the ALJ explained that it was less severe than alleged by Cacere, relying primarily on the evidence provided by Dr. Hernandez and claimant’s teacher, Mr. Matranga, discussed previously. 9