ALAN N. BLOCH, District Judge.
AND NOW, this 28th day of March, 2018, upon consideration of the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, the Court, upon review of the Commissioner of Social Security's final decision denying Plaintiff's claim for disability insurance benefits under Subchapter II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 401
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (document No. 9) is DENIED and that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (document No. 11) is GRANTED.
The version of Listing 11.07 in effect at the relevant time provided that to meet the listing for cerebral palsy, it must be established that Plaintiff has been so diagnosed, and that she meets the criteria of one of four additional subsections. (The Court notes that this listing was revised significantly effective September 29, 2016.
While the ALJ did specifically discuss and find that Plaintiff did not meet Listing 11.07, Plaintiff suggests that there is sufficient evidence in the record to necessitate a more thorough analysis by the ALJ. She points to examples in the record, largely from the consultative examinations performed by John C. Kalata, D.O., on September 7, 2012, and November 7, 2013, that demonstrate a history of gait and motor difficulties such as spasticity of the lower extremities and footdrop. (R. 401, 420, 422, 516-18, 626). She argues that, in light of this evidence, the ALJ's conclusory discussion regarding Listing 11.07 was insufficient and requires remand. The Court disagrees.
There is no question that an ALJ has an obligation at Step Three of the sequential process to fully develop the record and provide adequate analysis in regard to whether a claimant meets a listing.
Therefore, although Plaintiff focuses on the one paragraph in the ALJ's lengthy decision that expressly discusses Listing 11.07 (R. 25), looking at the decision as a whole gives a very different perspective on the adequacy of the ALJ's evaluation. To start, the ALJ considered not just Listing 11.07, but also other potential listings at Step Three either containing the same requirement of persistent disorder of motor function (e.g., Listing 9.00) or a similar requirement regarding the need to effectively ambulate (e.g., Listing 1.02). (R. 24). The ALJ pointed out that no treating or examining physician had opined that Plaintiff met any listing, nor had her counsel asserted that she met any at the hearing. He discussed the fact that Plaintiff does not use an assistive device to ambulate, that clinical findings have shown normal sensation and strength in the lower extremities, and that her activities of daily living, including driving, shopping, and cleaning, demonstrate that she does not suffer from listing-level ambulatory or motor issues. He also noted Plaintiff's relatively conservative treatment. (R. 24-25). These are all proper factors to consider in determining whether Plaintiff exhibits significant and persistent disorganization of motor function in two extremities, resulting in sustained disturbance of gross and dexterous movements, or gait and station, as required by Listings 11.07 and 11.04B.
Moreover, the ALJ expressly stated in his Step Three analysis that the evidence pertaining to those issues would be further developed in his discussion of Plaintiff's residual functional capacity. (R. 25). In that section of the decision, the ALJ discussed the evidence of record at great length, including the objective medical findings, Plaintiff's treatment history, her activities of daily living, and her subjective complaints. He acknowledged the evidence demonstrating that Plaintiff had some problems with gait, balance, and motor function, but explained that other record evidence demonstrated that these issues were not so severe as to render her disabled. (R. 27-39). His discussion was more than sufficient to allow for judicial review, and the Court finds that substantial evidence supports his findings.