Audler v. Astrue, 07-60187 Summary Calendar.
Decision Date | 21 September 2007 |
Docket Number | No. 07-60187 Summary Calendar.,07-60187 Summary Calendar. |
Citation | 501 F.3d 446 |
Parties | Justene M. AUDLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Stephen R. Graben, Asst. U.S. Atty., Gulfport, MS, for Astrue.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.
Before JOLLY, DENNIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Justine Audler filed an application for disability insurance benefits on account of back and neck problems, migraine headaches, and depression. After a hearing, an Administrative Law Judge found that Audler was capable of performing her past work, and could also perform other sedentary level jobs, which exist in significant numbers in the national and local economy. The ALJ therefore denied Audler's claim, finding that Audler was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. The Appeals Council denied Audler's request for review and the district court, on recommendation from the magistrate judge, affirmed the Commissioner's decision. Audler then filed this appeal arguing that the decision denying her benefits was not supported by substantial evidence and that the Administration failed to follow its own legal standards in considering her claim.
In reviewing the Commissioner's determination, we consider only whether the Commissioner applied the proper legal standards and whether substantial evidence in the record supports the decision to deny benefits. See Greenspan v. Shalala, 38 F.3d 232, 236 (5th Cir.1994). Substantial evidence is Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401, 91 S.Ct. 1420, 28 L.Ed.2d 842 (1971) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We may not reweigh the evidence or substitute our judgment for that of the Commissioner. Hollis v. Bowen, 837 F.2d 1378, 1383 (5th Cir.1988).
In evaluating a disability claim, the Commissioner conducts a five-step sequential analysis to determine whether (1) the claimant is presently working; (2) the claimant has a severe impairment; (3) the impairment meets or equals an impairment listed in appendix 1 of the social security regulations; (4) the impairment prevents the claimant from doing past relevant work; and (5) the impairment prevents the claimant from doing any other substantial gainful activity. If, at any step, the claimant is determined to be disabled or not disabled, the inquiry is terminated. Lovelace v. Bowen, 813 F.2d 55, 58 (5th Cir. 1987). The claimant bears the burden of showing she is disabled through the first four steps of the analysis; on the fifth, the Commissioner must show that there is other substantial work in the national economy that the claimant can perform.
At step three, the ALJ summarily concluded that "[t]he medical evidence indicates that the claimant has status post lumbar laminectomy, cervical disc herniation, headaches and chronic neck and back pain, impairments that are severe within the meaning of the Regulations but not severe enough to meet or medically equal one of the impairments listed in Appendix 1, Subpart P, Regulations No. 4." The ALJ did not identify the listed impairment for which Audler's symptoms fail to qualify, nor did she provide any explanation as to how she reached the conclusion that Audler's symptoms are insufficiently severe to meet any listed impairment. "Such a bare conclusion is beyond meaningful judicial review." Clifton v. Chater, 79 F.3d 1007, 1009 (10th Cir.1996).1
Under the Social Security Act,
[t]he Commissioner of Social Security is directed to make any findings of fact, and decisions as to the rights of any individual applying for a payment under this subchapter. Any such decision by the Commissioner of Social Security, which involves a determination of disability and which is in whole or in part unfavorable to such individual shall contain a statement of the case, in understandable language, setting forth a discussion of the evidence, and stating the Commissioner's determination and the reason or reasons upon which it is based.
42 U.S.C. § 405(b)(1). By the explicit terms of the statute, the ALJ was required to discuss the evidence offered in support of Audler's claim for disability and to explain why she found Audler not to be disabled at that step. Although the ALJ is not always required to do an exhaustive point-by-point discussion, in this case, the ALJ offered nothing to support her conclusion at this step and because she did not, "we, as a reviewing court, simply cannot tell whether her decision is based on substantial evidence or not." Cook v. Heckler, 783 F.2d 1168,...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Doddy v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin.
- Rio Home Care, LLC v. Azar
- Acosta v. Astrue
-
Lopez-Baca v. Geren
... ... to Dismiss, or, in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs EEO Allegations & Motion for ... might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Audler v. Astrue, 501 F.3d 446, 447 (5th Cir.2007) (quoting ... ...
-
Case Index
...(7th Cir. Jan. 6, 2005), 7th-05 Case Index § 104.7. ALJ’s Duty to Discuss Whether Impairment(s) Meets/Equals a Listing Audler v. Astrue , 501 F.3d 446 (5th Cir. Sep. 21, 2007), 5th-07 Barnett v. Barnhart , 381 F.3d 664 (7th Cir. Aug. 25, 2004), 7th-04 Boettcher v. Astrue , 652 F.3d 860 (8th......
-
Table of cases
...(1st Cir. 2000), 7th-11 Atterberry v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs ., 871 F.2d 567, 572 (6th Cir. 1989), § 203.1 Audler v. Astrue , 501 F.3d 446 (5th Cir. Sep. 21, 2007), 5th-07 Auer v. Robbins , 519 U.S. 452, 461, 117 S.Ct. 905, 137 L.Ed.2d 79 (1997), 8th-04 Auke Bay Concerned Citizen......
-
Case index
...F.3d 798 (7 th Cir. Jan. 6, 2005), 7 th -05 § 104.7 ALJ’s Duty to Discuss Whether Impairment(s) Meets/Equals a Listing Audler v. Astrue , 501 F.3d 446 (5 th Cir. Sep. 21, 2007), 5 th -07 Case Index-109 SOCIAL SECURITY ISSUES ANNOTATED Barnett v. Barnhart , 381 F.3d 664 (7 th Cir. Aug. 25, 2......
-
Table of Cases
...(1st Cir. 2000), 7th-11 Atterberry v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs ., 871 F.2d 567, 572 (6th Cir. 1989), § 203.1 Audler v. Astrue , 501 F.3d 446 (5th Cir. Sep. 21, 2007), 5th-07 Auer v. Robbins , 519 U.S. 452, 461, 117 S.Ct. 905, 137 L.Ed.2d 79 (1997), 8th-04 Auke Bay Concerned Citizen......