Court Opinion

ID: 9472783
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 04:10:39.886019+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:43:08.658754
License: Public Domain

JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The Appeals Council concluded that the AU did not provide any evaluation of the evidence in determining how the claimant’s impairments limited his residual functional capacity. It pointed to the evidence in the record that Sharrah had a mild amount of incoordination in his left arm and leg and would not be able to do any kind of work that would require fine coordination of those limbs. It then concluded that there were numerous sedentary, unskilled jobs that Sharrah could perform despite this mild impairment. Considering the principles set out in the court’s opinion today and the reports of the physicians there discussed, I cannot conclude that the decision of the Appeals Council is not supported by sub*460stantial evidence on the whole record. Accordingly, I would affirm.