Court Opinion

ID: 2964961
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:33:29.516032+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:00:42.298217
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 97-1367

                                   CLAYTON W. MAY,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                     SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

                       [Hon. Gene Carter, U.S. District Judge]
                                          ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                               Selya, Boudin and Lynch,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Rodney F. Vieux and Ray Cebula on brief for appellant.
            _______________     __________
            Jay  P.  McCloskey,  United  States  Attorney,  David  R. Collins,
            __________________                              _________________
        Assistant  United States  Attorney,  and  Wayne  G.  Lewis,  Assistant
                                                  ________________
        Regional  Counsel,  Social  Security  Administration,  on   brief  for
        appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                   October 7, 1997
                                 ____________________

                 Per  Curiam.  Clayton  W. May ("claimant")  appeals from
                 ___________

            the  Commissioner's denial of disability benefits at step two

            of the sequential evaluation process.  See 20 CFR   404.1520.
                                                   ___

            After  a hearing, an  Administrative Law Judge  ("ALJ") found

            that  claimant was disabled  by a combination of physical and

            mental impairments as  of November 1992,  the filing date  of

            his application for Social  Security Income ("SSI") benefits,

            but that  his impairments were  not severe prior  to December

            31, 1985, claimant's date last insured ("DLI").  Accordingly,

            the  Commissioner awarded SSI  benefits but denied disability

            benefits.    On  appeal,  the  district  court  affirmed  the

            Commissioner's decision.1
                                    1

                 At step two of the  evaluation process, claimant has the

            burden of proving "that he has a medically  severe impairment

            or  combination of impairments."   Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S.
                                               _____    _______

            137,  146,  n.5  (1987).   An  impairment  or  combination of

            impairments  is   severe   if  it     "significantly   limits

            [claimant's]  physical or  mental ability  to  do basic  work

            activities."  20 CFR    404.1520(c).  "Under  Social Security

            Ruling 85-28,  a claim may be denied at  step 2 for lack of a

            severe impairment  only where  'medical evidence  establishes

                                
            ____________________

               1 Claimant moved from Vermont to Maine between the time of
               1
            the hearing  before the ALJ  and the  date that he  filed his
            appeal to  the district court.   The  district court  applied
            Second Circuit  law and  neither party has  objected to  that
            aspect of the decision.   In all events, the  relevant law of
            the  two circuits is not significantly different for purposes
            of this appeal.

                                         -2-

            only   a  slight   abnormality  or   combination  of   slight

            abnormalities which would have no  more than a minimal effect

            on an  individual's ability to work even  if the individual's

            age,   education  or   work   experience  were   specifically

            considered. . .  . '"  Barrientos v. Secretary  of Health and
                                   __________    ________________________

            Human Services, 820 F.2d 1, 2 (1st Cir. 1987)(quoting SSR 85-
            ______________

            28).   Ruling  85-28 clarifies  that  the step  two  severity

            requirement  is  intended  "to do  no  more  than  screen out

            groundless  claims."   McDonald v.  Secretary  of Health  and
                                   ________     _________________________

            Human Services, 795 F.2d 1118, 1124 (1st Cir. 1986).
            ______________

                 On appeal,  claimant challenges only  the ALJ's  finding

            that claimant did not suffer from a severe mental  impairment

            prior  to December  31,  1985.   "[This  court's] inquiry  on

            appeal  is limited to determining whether the record contains

            substantial evidence  to support  the Secretary's  findings."

            Barrientos,  820 F.2d at  2.  "Substantial  evidence is 'more
            __________

            than a mere scintilla.  It means such relevant  evidence as a

            reasonable  mind  might  accept  as  adequate  to  support  a

            conclusion.'" Dousewicz v. Harris, 646 F.2d 771, 773 (2d Cir.
                          _________    ______

            1981).  

                 Based  upon our  careful review of  the record,  we find

            that  the evidence  regarding the  date  on which  claimant's

            mental  impairment  became severe  is ambiguous.   Therefore,

            Social Security Ruling  83-20 required the  ALJ to consult  a

            medical advisor.  See Bailey v.  Chater, 68 F.3d 75,  79 (4th
                              ___ ______     ______

                                         -3-

            Cir. 1995);  Spellman v. Shalala,  1 F.3d 357, 363  (5th Cir.
                         ________    _______

            1993); Morgan v.Sullivan, 945 F.2d 1079, 1082(9th Cir. 1991).
                   ______   ________

                 Neither  the absence of  medical treatment  records from

            the  relevant  period  nor the  retrospective  nature  of Mr.

            Karp's  opinion justified the ALJ's finding that the treating

            source's  report was too speculative a basis for establishing

            a severe  impairment.  See Arnone  v. Bowen, 882  F.2d 34, 39
                                   ___ ______     _____

            (2d  Cir.  1989)  (noting   that  dearth  of  contemporaneous

            evidence does not necessarily preclude claimant's entitlement

            to a  "period of disability,"  20 CFR S404.320).   Mr. Karp's

            opinion, as the  retrospective opinion of a  treating source,

            is entitled to "significant weight."  Dousewicz, 646 F.2d  at
                                                  _________

            774;  see  also Deblois  v.  Secretary  of Health  and  Human
                  _________ _______      ________________________________

            Services, 686 F.2d 76, 81  (1st Cir. 1982) (remanding for ALJ
            ________

            to obtain retrospective opinions  regarding claimant's mental

            condition in relevant period).

                 Nor  was Mr. Karp's opinion inconsistent with the record

            as  a whole.    Neither  Dr.  Lichtenstein's  statement  that

            claimant had  been "fully  and totally disabled  . .  . since

            1990," nor any other medical  evidence in the record directly

            contradicts  Mr. Karp's  opinion that  claimant was  severely

            impaired by his mental disability prior to December 31, 1985.

            Dr.  Lichtenstein's  refusal  to give  an  opinion  about the

            status of claimant's  mental condition in the  pre-DLI period

            suggests  that the  general practitioner  had  not formed  an

                                         -4-

            opinion  about the  severity of  claimant's mental  condition

            during  the relevant period.  "[N]or is there 'overwhelmingly

            compelling' non-medical evidence to the contrary  as required

            by  Wagner in  the absence  of  competing medical  opinions."
                ______

            Rivera v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 964, 969 (2d Cir. 1991) (quoting
            ______    ________

            Wagner v. Secretary  of Health and  Human Services, 906  F.2d
            ______    ________________________________________

            856, 862 (2d Cir. 1990)).

                 We conclude  that the  evidence was  at least  ambiguous

            with respect to  whether the claimant met his  burden at step

            two to  show that  his mental impairment  was not  slight and

            that it had "'more than a minimal  effect on . . . ability to

            perform basic work activities' within the meaning of SSR  85-

            28."   Fernandez v. Secretary  of Health and  Human Services,
                   _________    ________________________________________

            826 F.2d 164, 167 (1st Cir. 1987).  Therefore, the ALJ should

            have  consulted with a medical  advisor to determine the date

            on which  claimant's mental  impairment became  severe.   The

            judgment of  the district court  is vacated, and the  case is

            remanded  so  that  it   may  be  further  remanded   to  the

            Commissioner for additional  proceedings consistent with this

            opinion.

                 Vacated and Remanded.
                 _______     ________

                                         -5-