Opinion ID: 22974
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Legal Standard Applied by the ALJ

Text: 35 Where a claimant attempts to show an inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which . . . can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months, 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A), the ALJ must follow a five-step sequential process, the first four steps of which place the burden on the claimant. Muse v. Sullivan, 925 F.2d 785, 789 (5th Cir. 1991). The five steps are: 36 (1) An individual who is working and engaging in substantial gainful activity will not be found disabled regardless of medical findings. 37 (2) An individual who does not have a severe impairment will not be found to be disabled. 38 (3) An individual who meets or equals a listed impairment in [20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1] will be considered disabled without the consideration of vocational factors. 39 (4) If an individual is capable of performing the work he has done in the past, a finding of not disabled will be made. 40 (5) If an individual's impairment precludes him from performing his past work, other factors including age, education, past work experience, and residual functional capacity must be considered to determine if other work can be performed. 41 Greenspan v. Shalala, 38 F.3d 232, 236 (5th Cir. 1994) (citing Villa v. Sullivan, 895 F.2d 1019, 1022 (5th Cir. 1990)); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (b)-(e). 42 In the fifth step, the burden is on the Commissioner to show that the claimant can perform relevant work. If the [Commissioner] meets this burden, the claimant must then prove that he cannot in fact perform the work suggested. Muse, 925 F.2d at 789. 'A finding that a claimant is disabled or is not disabled at any point in the five-step review is conclusive and terminates the analysis.' Greenspan, 38 F.3d at 236 (quoting Lovelace v. Bowen, 813 F.2d 55, 58 (5th Cir. 1987)). 43 The Commissioner has instituted a corollary procedure for determining the merits of mental disability claims. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520a. Under the procedure in effect at the time of Boyd's hearing before the ALJ, 11 the examiner of the mental disability claim (in this case, the ALJ) must first record the pertinent signs, symptoms, findings, functional limitations and effects of treatment contained in [the] case record, in order to determine if a mental impairment exists. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520a(b)(1). If an impairment is found, the ALJ must determine whether certain medical findings relevant to a claimant's ability to work are present or absent. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520a(b)(2). The ALJ must then evaluate the degree of functional loss resulting from the impairment in four separate areas deemed essential for work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520a(b)(3). If the degree of functional loss falls below a specified level in each of the four areas, the ALJ must find the impairment not severe, which generally concludes the analysis and terminates the proceedings. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520a(c)(1). If the mental impairment is severe under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520a(c)(1), the ALJ must then determine if it meets or equals a listed mental disorder under 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1, 12.00-12.09. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520a(c)(2). If the impairment is severe, but does not reach the level of a listed disorder, then the ALJ must conduct a residual functional capacity assessment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520a(c)(3). The ALJ must also append a standard document outlining the steps of [the § 4014.1520a] procedure to the decision. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520a(d). 44 Boyd argues that the ALJ did not apply the proper legal standard in evaluating his claim. Boyd appears to contend that Finding Eight, in which the ALJ states that [t]he claimant's residual functional capacity for the full range of light work is not reduced by nonexertional limitations (Tr. 38), conflicts with language elsewhere in the ALJ's findings indicating that Boyd's impairments were severe. 12 Boyd also appears to contend that the ALJ did not proceed beyond the finding that Boyd's impairments did not meet the requirements of listings 12.00-12.09, and did not conduct an analysis of what kinds of work Boyd would be able to perform. 45 In paragraph three of his decision, the ALJ stated that Boyd has a combination of impairments that is severe. The ALJ considered whether the combination of impairments met or equaled impairments listed in 12.00-12.09, and found that they did not. The ALJ then performed a residual functional capacity assessment, concluding that while Boyd could not continue to perform his past work, Boyd had the residual functional capacity to perform jobs available in significant numbers in the national economy. 46 The ALJ's finding that Boyd had a combination of impairments that is severe did not foreclose a finding that Boyd had a residual functional capacity to perform a range of light work, and is not necessarily inconsistent with that finding. Even if the degree of impairment is severe, the regulations require an assessment of whether the impairment meets or exceeds the criteria of listed disorders in 12.00-12.09. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520a(c)(2); Duncan v. Apfel, 2000 WL 1839196 (7th Cir. 2000)(noting ALJ's finding that although claimant's impairments were severe, the impairments did not satisfy the requirements of listing 12.04); Wittler v. Shalala, 46 F.3d 1130 (4th Cir. 1995) (same). The ALJ found that Boyd's impairments did not satisfy these criteria. The ALJ properly proceeded to conduct the residual capacity analysis. The analytical procedure and legal standard that the ALJ followed corresponds to the procedure and standard set out in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520a. This court finds no error.