Filed: Jun. 24, 2014
Latest Update: Jun. 24, 2014
Summary: ORDER CYNTHIA M. RUFF, District Judge. AND NOW, this 19 th day of June 2014, upon consideration of the Plaintiff's Motion in Support of Request for Review [Doc. No. 7], Defendant's response and Plaintiff's reply, the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Linda K. Caracappa [Doc. No. 13], to which there were no objections, and after a careful, independent review of the complete administrative record, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to r
Summary: ORDER CYNTHIA M. RUFF, District Judge. AND NOW, this 19 th day of June 2014, upon consideration of the Plaintiff's Motion in Support of Request for Review [Doc. No. 7], Defendant's response and Plaintiff's reply, the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Linda K. Caracappa [Doc. No. 13], to which there were no objections, and after a careful, independent review of the complete administrative record, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to re..
More
ORDER
CYNTHIA M. RUFF, District Judge.
AND NOW, this 19th day of June 2014, upon consideration of the Plaintiff's Motion in Support of Request for Review [Doc. No. 7], Defendant's response and Plaintiff's reply, the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Linda K. Caracappa [Doc. No. 13], to which there were no objections, and after a careful, independent review of the complete administrative record, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to remove this action from civil suspense;
2. The carefully reasoned Report and Recommendation is APPROVED AND ADOPTED, with additional guidance from this Court;1
3. Consistent with the R & R, the Plaintiff's Motion is GRANTED, and the case is REMANDED to the Commissioner in accordance with the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for proceedings consistent with the Report and Recommendation and this Order.
It is so ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. In determining that Plaintiff's mental health conditions (attention deficit disorder and depression) were not severe at Step 2 of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ's opinion, dated February 6, 2012, improperly applied the "Listing oflmpairments" criteria (20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, App'x 1, Listing 12.00C). At Step 2 of the sequential evaluation process, an impairment is considered "not severe" only if it is "a slight abnormality (or combination of slight abnormalities) that has no more than a minimal effect on the ability to do basic work activities." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1521; Social Security Rulings 85-28 and 96-3p. The Listing oflmpairments is properly consulted not at Step 2, but rather at Step 3, to determine whether the claimed impairments are sufficiently severe to meet (or equal) the criteria set forth in the appropriate Listing. Thus, in finding Plaintiffs mental health conditions were "not severe" at Step 2, the ALJ applied the wrong legal standard. Therefore, in addition to approving and adopting the R & R's conclusion that the ALJ's application of the Listing criteria to the facts of this case was not supported by substantial evidence, the Court notes the improper use of the Listing criteria at Step 2 of the sequential analysis, and directs the ALJ to apply the correct criteria at Steps 2 and 3 on remand.
