Opinion ID: 46664
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Combined Impact of Impairments

Text: Beck alleges that the ALJ did not properly evaluate the combined impact of her impairments and as a result underestimated the severity of her disability. We have held on numerous occasions that in making a disability determination, the examining ALJ must analyze the disabling effect of both the claimant’s ailments individually and for their cumulative impact. See, e.g., Loza v. Apfel, 219 F.3d 378, 399 (5th Cir. 2000); Crowley v. Apfel, 197 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir. 1999); Fraga, 810 F.2d at 1305; see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1523, 416.923. Additionally, a finding of nonseverity based upon the failure to examine the cumulative impact of a claimant’s alleged impairments is per se not supported by substantial evidence. Wingo v. Bowen, 852 F.2d 827, 830-31 (5th Cir. 1988); Loza, 219 F.3d at 394. The ALJ’s findings in this case adequately adhere to the analytical mandates outlined above. In performing his cumulative impact analysis, the ALJ relied on Beck’s own testimony, the reports of her treating physicians, and the DDS examiner to conclude that she suffered from severe impairments. The ALJ then determined that the cumulative impact of Beck’s impairments did not combine to limit her functional capacity and she therefore did not satisfy the requirements for SSI eligibility. See Listing of Impairments at 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. The ALJ’s analysis is supported by substantial evidence and satisfies 7 the proper legal standard required under our cumulative impact jurisprudence.2 3. Consideration of Obesity in the Evaluation Process As a corollary to her cumulative impact argument, Beck posits that the ALJ failed to consider that obesity has a multiplier effect whereby it can exacerbate existing ailments and magnify their cumulative impact. In so doing, Beck contends, the ALJ rendered a decision unsupported by substantial evidence and based on an erroneous legal standard. This contention is without merit. Social Security rulings indicate that obesity – although itself not a listed impairment – can reduce an individual’s occupational base for work activity in combination with other ailments. See SSR 02-1p (stating that obesity remains a complicating factor for many ailments and is a “medically determinable impairment” to be considered in assessing an individual’s RFC); SSR 96-8p (stating that the effects of obesity may be considered as part of an RFC’s function-by-function 2 Beck’s attempt to analogize the ALJ’s findings in this case with those of the ALJ in Scott v. Heckler, 770 F.2d 482 (5th Cir. 1985), is not on point. In Scott, we determined that an ALJ’s conclusory “evaluation of the evidence” without consideration of the combined impact of a claimant’s impairments incorrectly applied the legal standard for cumulative impact required by this court. 770 F.2d at 487. Here, however, the ALJ’s inquiry is squarely in line with the requirement that an ALJ “consider the combination of unrelated impairments ‘to see if together they are severe enough to keep the claimant from doing substantial gainful activity.’” Id. (citing Dorsey v. Heckler, 702 F.2d 597, 605 (5th Cir. 1983)). 8 analysis); 64 F.R. 46122 (retracting obesity as a listed impairment