The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
_ MIRANDA SIMPSON, )
) .
Plaintiff, +)
)
Vv. ) 1:18CV747
. )
ANDREW SAUL, )
Commissioner of Social Security,! )
)
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Miranda Simpson (“Plaintiff”) brought this action pursuant to Sections 205(g)
of the Social Security Act (the “Act’), as amended (42 U.S.C. § 405(g)), to obtain judicial
review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying her claim for
Disability Insurance Benefits under Title II of the Act. The parties have filed cross-motions
fot judgment, and the administrative record has been certified to the Court for review.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff protectively filed her application for Disability Insurance Benefits on Januaty
29, 2014, alleging a disability onset date of June 8, 2013. (Tr. at 118, 296-304.)? Her
applications wete denied initially (Ir. at 92-102) and upon reconsideration (Tr. at 103-14).
1 Andrew Saul became Commissioner of Social Security on June 17, 2019. Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, Andrew Saul should be substituted for Nancy A. Berryhill as the Defendant in this
suit. No further action need be taken to continue this suit by reason of the last sentence of section 205(g) of
the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
* Transcript citations refer to the Sealed Administrative Record [Doc. #6].
Thereafter, Plaintiff requested an administrative heating de novo before an Administrative
Law Judge (“ALJ”). (Tr. at 153-54.) Plaintiff, along with her attorney and an impartial
vocational expert, attended the heating on July 13, 2016 (Ir. at 59), and also attended a
supplemental heating on September 9, 2016 (I'r. at 53). After these hearings, the AL]
concluded that Plaintiff was not disabled within the meaning of the Act. (Tr. at 126.)
However, on March 31, 2017, the Appeals Council vacated the AL]’s decision and remanded
the case for another hearing to addtess several errors. (Tr. at 132-34.) Accordingly, Plaintiff
appeared and testified at another administrative heating on July 21, 2017. (Tr. at 15.) On
November 24, 2017, the ALJ again determined that Plaintiff was not disabled within the
meaning of the Act, and on July 6, 2018, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiffs request for
review of that decision, thereby making the ALJ’s conclusion the Commissioner’s final
decision for purposes of judicial review (T'r. at 1-6).
Il. LEGAL STANDARD
Federal law “authorizes judicial review of the Social Security Commissionet’s denial of
social security benefits.” Hines v. Batnhart, 453 F.3d 559, 561 (4th Cir. 2006). However, the
scope of teview of such a decision is “extremely limited.” Frady v. Harris, 646 F.2d 143, 144
(4th Cir. 1981). “The courts ate not to try the case de novo.” Oppenheim v. Finch, 495 F.2d
396, 397 (4th Cir. 1974). Instead, “a reviewing court must uphold the factual findings of the
ALJ if they are supported by substantial evidence and wete reached through application of the
cottect legal standard.” Hancock v. Asttue, 667 F.3d 470, 472 (4th Cir. 2012) (nternal
quotation omitted).
“Substantial evidence means ‘such televant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept
as adequate to support a conclusion.” Hunter v. Sullivan, 993 F.2d 31, 34 (4th Cir. 1993)
(quoting Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 390 (1971)). “It consists of mote than a mete
scintilla of evidence but may be somewhat less than a preponderance.” Mastro v. Apfel, 270
F.3d 171, 176 (4th Cir. 2001) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). “If there is
evidence to justify a tefusal to direct a verdict wete the case before a jury, then there is
substantial evidence.” Hunter, 993 F.2d at 34 linternal quotation marks omitted).
“In reviewing for substantial evidence, the court should not undertake to re-weigh
conflicting evidence, make credibility determinations, or substitute its judgment for that of the
[ALJ].” Mastro, 270 F.3d at 176 (internal brackets and quotation marks omitted). “Where
conflicting evidence allows reasonable minds to differ as to whether a claimant is disabled, the
responsibility for that decision falls on the ALJ.” Hancock, 667 F.3d at 472. “The issue before
[the reviewing court], therefore, is not whether [the claimant] is disabled, but whether the
AL]’s finding that [the claimant] is not disabled is supported by substantial evidence and was
reached based upon a correct application of the relevant law.” Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585,
589 (4th Cir. 1996). . .
In undertaking this limited review, the Court notes that “[a] claimant for disability
benefits beats the burden of proving a disability.” Hall v. Harris, 658 F.2d 260, 264 (4th Cir.
1981). In this context, “disability” means the ““inability to engage in any substantial gainful
activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be
expected to tesult in death ot which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous .
period of not less than 12 months.” Id. (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A)).?
“The Commissioner uses a five-step ptocess to evaluate disability claims.” Hancock,
667 F.3d at 472 (citing 20 C.F.R. 59 404.1520(a)(4); 416.920(a)(4)). “Under this process, the
Commissioner asks, in sequence, whether the claimant: (1) worked during the alleged period
of disability; (2) had a severe impairment; (3) had an impairment that met or equaled the
requirements of a listed impairment; (4) could return to her past relevant wotk; and (5) if not,
could perform any other work in the national economy.” Id.
A finding adverse to the claimant at any of several points in this five-step sequence
forecloses a disability designation and ends the inquiry. For example, “[t]he first step
determines whether the claimant is engaged in ‘substantial gainful activity.’ If the claimant is
working, benefits are denied. ‘The second step determines if the claimant is ‘severely’ disabled.
If not, benefits are denied.” Bennett v. Sullivan, 917 F.2d 157, 159 (4th Cir. 1990).
On the other hand, if a claimant carries his or her burden at the first two steps, and if
the claimant’s impairment meets or equals a “listed impairment” at step three, “the claimant
is disabled.” Mastro, 270 F.3d at 177. Alternatively, if a claimant clears steps one and two,
but falters at step three, ie., “fiJf a claimant’s impairment is not sufficiently severe to equal ot
exceed a listed impairment,” then “the AL] must assess the claimant’s residual functional
3 “The Social Security Act comprises two disability benefits programs. ‘The Social Security Disability Insurance
Program (SSDD, established by Title II of the Act as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 401 et seq., provides benefits to
disabled persons who have contributed to the program while employed. The Supplemental Security Income
Program (SSI), established by Title XVI of the Act as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1381 et seq., provides benefits to
indigent disabled persons. The statutory definitions and the regulations promulgated by the Secretary for
determining disability, see 20 C.F.R. pt. 404 (SSDI); 20 CER. pt. 416 (SSD, governing these two prograins ate,
in all aspects relevant here, substantively identical.” Craig, 76 F.3d at 589 n.1.
capacity (RFC’.” Id. at 179.4 Step four then requires the ALJ to assess whether, based on
that RFC, the claimant can “perform past relevant work”; if so, the claimant does not qualify
as disabled. Id. at 179-80. However, if the claimant establishes an inability to return to prior
work, the analysis proceeds to the fifth step, which “requires the [Government] to prove that
a significant number of jobs exist which the claimant could perform, despite the claimant’s
impairments.” Hines, 453 F.3d at 563. In making this determination, the ALJ must decide
“whether the claimant is able to perform other work considering both [the claimant’s RFC]
and [the claimant’s| vocational capabilities (age, education, and past work experience) to adjust
to a new job.” Hall, 658 F.2d at 264-65. If, at this step, the Government cannot catty its
“evidentiary burden of proving that [the claimant] remains able to work other jobs available
in the community,” the claimant qualifies as disabled. Hines, 453 F.3d at 567.
Ill. DISCUSSION
In the present case, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had not engaged in “substantial gainful
activity” since June 8, 2013, her alleged onset date. The ALJ therefore concluded that Plaintiff
met het burden at step one of the sequential evaluation process. At step two, the ALJ further
determined that Plaintiff suffered from the following severe impaitments:
Fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue, Ehlers Danlos Syndrome, knee and wrist
atthritis[.]
4 “RFC is a measurement of the most a claimant can do despite [the claimant’s] limitations.” Hines, 453 F.3d
at 562 (noting that administrative regulations require RFC to reflect claimant’s “ability to do sustained work-
related physical and mental activities in a work setting on a tegular and continuing basis . . . [which] means 8
hours a day, for 5 days a week, or an equivalent work schedule” (internal emphasis and quotation marks
omitted)). The RFC includes both a “physical exertional or strength limitation” that assesses the clatmant’s
“ability to do sedentary, light, medium, heavy, ot very heavy work,” as well as “nonexertional limitations
(mental, sensory, or skin impaitments).” Hall, 658 F.2d at 265. “RFC is to be determined by the AL) only after
[the ALJ] considers all relevant evidence of a claimant’s impairments and any related symptoms (¢g, pain).”
Hines, 453 F.3d at 562-63.
(Ir. at 18.) The AL] found at step three that none of these impairments, individually or in
combination, met or equaled a disability listing. (Tr. at 19.) Therefore, the ALJ assessed
Plaintiffs RFC and determined that she could perform light work with additional limitations.
Specifically, the AL] found that Plaintiff
can sit, stand, and walk for six hours. In addition, [Plaintiff] can frequently
handle, climb, balance, and stoop. [Plaintiff] can occasionally kneel, crouch, and
ctawl. [She] is capable of performing simple routine tasks.
(Tr. at 19.) Based on this determination, the AL] found under step four of the analysis that
Plaintiff was unable to perform any of her past relevant work. (Tr. at 24-25.) However, at
step five of the analysis, the ALJ determined that, given PlaintifPs age, education, work
expetience, RFC, and the testimony of the vocational expert as to these factors, she could
petform other jobs available in the national economy. (It. at 25-26.) The AL] therefore
concluded that Plaintiff was not disabled under the Act. (Tr. at 26.)
Plaintiff now raises three challenges to the AL]’s decision. Specifically, she contends
that the ALJ erted by (1) failing to evaluate Plaintiffs Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome (“EDS”) under
20 C.F.R., Part 404, Subpt. P, Appx. 1, § 14.06 (heteinafter “Listing 14.06”), the listing for
connective tissue disease, (2) failing to properly weigh the opinions of Dr. Alan Spanos, and
(3) “failing to adequately account for Plaintiffs well documented chronic fatigue and pain
when assessing the [RFC].” (Pl’s Br. [Doc. #10] at 1.) After a thorough review of the record,
the Court agtees that Plaintiffs first challenge requires remand, and the Court therefore need
not teach the remaining contentions.
A. Listing 14.06
Plaintiff first contends that the ALJ erred by failing to expressly evaluate whether her
EDS met ot equaled Listing 14.06. At step three of the sequential analysis, the AL] considers
whether any impairment meets or equals one or more of the impairments listed in the
regulations at 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. In analyzing the evidence at step
three, an ALJ is not requited to explicitly identify and discuss every possible listing; however,
he must provide sufficient explanation and analysis to allow meaningful judicial review of his
step three determination, patticulatly where the “medical record includes a fait amount of
evidence” that a claimant’s impairment meets a disability listing. Radford v. Colvin, 734 F.3d
288, 295 (4th Cir. 2013). Where such evidence exists but is rejected without discussion,
“insufficient legal analysis makes it impossible for a reviewing court to evaluate whether
substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s findings.” Id. (citing Cook v. Heckler, 783 F.2d 1168,
1173 (4th Cir. 1986)). In reviewing the AL]’s analysis, it is possible that even “[a] cursory
explanation” at step three may ptove “satisfactory so long as the decision as a whole
demonstrates that the ALJ considered the relevant evidence of record and there is substantial
evidence to support the conclusion.” Meador v. Colvin, No. 7:13-CV-214, 2015 WL 1477894,
at *3 (W.D. Va. Mar. 27, 2015) (citing Smith v. Astrue, 457 F. App’x 326, 328 (4th Cir.2011)).
Nevertheless, the ALJ’s decision must include “a sufficient discussion of the evidence and
explanation of its reasoning such that meaningful judicial review is possible.” Id. If the
.
decision does not include sufficient explanation and analysis to allow meaningful judicial
review of the AL]’s listing determination, remand is appropriate. Radford, 734 F.3d at 295.
In the present case, the ALJ did not specifically mention Listing 14.06. Instead, he
noted at step three that Plaintiff's “impairments do not meet or equal any listing requirements
for any 1.00 or 14.00 Listing.” (Tr. at 19.) He then proceeded to discuss whether Plaintiffs
fibromyalgia “medically equals Listing 14.09D for inflammatoty arthritis,” but found that it
did not meet either this listing or any of the 1.00 or 4.00 listings. Specifically, the ALJ noted
that, with regard to Listing 14.09D, Plaintiff did not demonsttate “evidence of (1) a history of
widespread pain in all quadrants of the body that has persisted for at least three months; (2) at
least 11 positive tender points on physical examination found bilaterally in [sic] both above
and below the waist that ate determined by a physician performing digital palpitation with an
apptoptiate force of 9 pounds; and (3) evidence of exclusion of other disorders that could
cause the symptoms or signs.” (Tt. at 19.) The ALJ further found that Plaintiff's “arthritis
failed to meet the listing for 14.09 because the record does not demonstrate persistent
inflammation and or persistent deformity ot one or more major peripheral joint[s] tn each
upper extremity resulting in the inability to perform fine and gross movements effectively.”
(Tr. at 19.)
Notably, none of the factors the ALJ discussed in relation to Listing 14.09 ate
tequirements of Listing 14.06. To meet Listing 14.06, applicable to “Undifferentiated and
mixed connective tissue disease,” a claimant must show the following:
A. Involvement of two ot more otgans/body systems, with:
1. One of the organs/body systems involved to at least a moderate level
of severity; and
2. At least two of the constitutional symptoms of signs (severe fatigue,
fever, malaise, or involuntary weight loss).
ot
B. Repeated manifestations of undifferentiated or mixed connective tissue
disease, with at least two of the constitutional symptoms or signs (severe fatigue,
fever, malaise, ot involuntaty weight loss) and one of the following at the
marked level:
1. Limitation of activities of daily living.
2. Limitation in maintaining social functioning.
3. Limitation in completing tasks in a timely manner due to deficiencies
in concentration, persistence, or pace.
20 C.E.R., Part 404, Subpt. P, Appx. 1, § 14.06.
Plaintiff contends that her EDS, a connective tissue disease, meets Listing 14.06(A)
and that the ALJ etred by failing to specifically consider and discuss this possibility. In
particular, Plaintiff argues that her EDS involved two or mote body systems, including her
musculoskeletal and gastrointestinal systems, with her ongoing, musculoskeletal pain
qualifying as involvement of one body system “to at least a moderate level of severity.”5
Plaintiff further alleges that the record documents sevete fatigue and malaise sufficient to meet
patagtaph (A)(2) of the listing.
Defendant, correctly noting that Plaintiff bears the burden at step three of the
sequential analysis, challenges Plaintiffs ability to meet amy of the requirements of Listing
14.06(A). With tegard to the involvement of two or more body systems, Defendant
acknowledges that Plaintiff suffered from musculoskeletal impairments. However, Defendant
contends that “the record simply does not support [Plaintiffs] claim” that her EDS also
involved her gastrointestinal system. (Def.’s Br. [Doc. #12] at 12.) In support of this
the listings for immune system disorders, “[s]evete means medical severity as used in the medical
community.” 20 C.E.R., Part 404, Subpt. P, Appx. 1, § 14.00(C)(12).
.
contention, Defendant argues that “Plaintiff did not identify gastrointestinal issues when she
applied for benefits (I'r. 327), she received virtually no specific treatment for gastrointestinal
issues (Tr. 449-1526), and the AL] determined Plaintiff's irritable bowel syndrome was not a
sevete medically determinable impairment (Tr. 18).” dd. at 12-13.) Nevertheless, there is no
indication in Listing 14.06(A) that in order to qualify under that listing, the impairment
involving a second body system must be severe. Moreover, the AL}’s decision specifically
recounted Plaintiffs allegation that she was “disabled pet this Agency’s definition due to
sevete medically determinable impairments of fatigue, fibromyalgia, and IBS” (Tr. at 21) and
noted that PlaintifPs medical records contained complaints of IBS (Tr. at 18). Perhaps most
significantly, Dr. Spanos, who treated Plaintiff and limits his practice to EDS patients,
explained that Plaintiff had “multiple gastrointestinal symptoms” associated with EDS.
at 1487.) Specifically, Dr. Spanos noted that Plaintiff suffered from EDS- Hypermobility
Type, and that her EDS-HT includes: .
e Widespread large and small hypermobile joints, some of which sublux and
many of which are painful. . . .
@She also has widespread pain, which in EDS is mainly neuropathic (the cause
is unsure). This should not be labelled ‘fibromyalgia’ as that diagnosis leads to
treatments that ate inappropriate for people with EDS.
e Hypersomnia since childhood.
eLow stamina (ie. reduced activity tolerance). ...
Multiple organic, and functional disorders along the length of the GI tract,
from GERD to hemorrhoids. .
e Anxiety...
eMenorthagia, dysmenorthea, and intetmensttual pelvic pain; pelvic floor
dyskinesia may account for some of this, as well as endomettiosis.
(Tr. at 558.) Thus, there is cleatly a “fait amount of evidence” that Plaintiffs connective tissue
disease involved two ot mote organs ot body systems, including musculoskeletal,
gasttointestinal, and mental disorders, relevant to the first requirement of Listing 14.06(A), yet
10
the ALJ failed to address that possibility at all. See Radford v. Colvin, 734 F.3d at 295 (4th
Cir. 2013).
Defendant next argues that, “[e]ven assuming Plaintiff could establish the involvement
of two ot mote organs/body systems, .. . she did not prove one of those organ/body systems
was involved to at least a moderate level of severity” as required by Listing 14.06(A)(1).
Defendant goes on to cite multiple occasions in which the medical record reflects “normal”
musculoskeletal findings. (Def’s Br. at 13-14.) However, Defendant fails to reconcile this
atgument with the ALJ’s RFC finding that Plaintiffs impairments, all of which ate
musculoskeletal in nature, reduced her exertional capacity to light work. This fact alone
indicates at least a moderate level of sevetity, as requited by the listing. In addition, the ALJ’s
decision contains little analysis of Plaintiffs more than one thousand pages of medical
treatment notes, which overwhelmingly deal with Plaintiffs ongoing musculoskeletal pain and
fatigue during the time at issue. The AL] instead appeats to minimize these findings by (1)
selectively citing to the record and (2) relying on Plaintiffs ability to perform a number of daily
activities, primarily caring for her children, albeit on a more limited basis than before her
alleged onset date.
Defendant also contends that Plaintiff's “claim also fails because she did not establish
‘{alt least two of the constitutional symptoms or signs (severe fatigue, fever, malaise, or
involuntary weight loss).”” (Def.’s Br. at 15) (citing 20 C.F.R., Part 404, Subpt. P, Appx. 1, §
14.06(A)(2)). As defined in the regulations, “[s]evere fatigue means a frequent sense of
exhaustion that results in significantly reduced physical activity or mental function,” while
“Imlalaise means frequent feelings of illness, bodily discomfott, or lack of well-being that result
11
in significantly reduced physical activity or mental function.” 20 C.F.R., Part 404, Subpt. P,
Appx. 1, § 14.00(C)(2). Again, as discussed above, Plaintiff's lengthy medical record is replete
with complaints of fatigue and malaise which, along with her musculoskeletal pain, led her to
quit her job and significantly reduce her daily activities. As noted above, Plaintiffs treating
physician specifically noted that her EDS involved both low stamina/reduced activity and
widespread pain. (I'r. at 558-62.) Dr. Stanos further opined that Plaintiffs EDS was “an
_ inherited condition with several features in different body systems” including hypermobile
joints, widespread pain, hypetsomnia, prolonged exhaustion that meets the criteria for chronic
fatigue syndrome, anxiety, and multiple gastrointestinal symptoms, all associated with EDS.
(Tr. at 1487.) Moreover, the AL] included chronic fatigue syndrome among Plaintiff's severe
impairments at step two, indicating that fatigue, by definition, significantly limited Plaintiffs
ability to perform basic work activities. (Ir. at 18.) The ALJ ignored, without explanation,
this evidence that Plaintiffs fatigue and widespread pain arguably met part (A)(2) of Listing
14.06.°
Finally, the Court notes that this is not a case where the ALJ provide only a cutsory
explanation at step three but then further considered the evidence and analyzed the issue at
The Commissioner’s brief includes an extended analysis of whether Plaintiff in fact meets Listing 14.06.
However, such an analysis is beyond the scope of this Court’s review. Where, as here, the “medical record
includes a fait amount of evidence” that a claimant’s impaitment meets a disability listing, but the ALJ fails to
analyze the matter, “insufficient legal analysis makes it impossible for a reviewing court to evaluate whether
substantial evidence supports the AL]’s findings.” Radford v. Colvin, 734 F.3d 288, 295 (4th Cir. 2013); see
also Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80, 87 (1943) (courts must review administrative
decisions on the grounds upon which the record discloses the action was based); Anderson v. Colvin, No.
1:10CV671, 2014 WL 1224726 at *1 (M.D.N.C. March 25, 2014) (noting that this Court’s “[rJeview of the AL]’s
ruling is. limited further by the so-called ‘Chenery Docttine, which prohibits courts from considering post hoc
tationalizations in defense of administrative agency decisions.... Under the doctrine, a reviewing court ‘must
judge the propriety of [agency] action solely by the grounds invoked by the agency... If those grounds are
inadequate or improper, the court is powerless to affirm the administrative action by substituting what it
considers to be a mote adequate or proper basis’ ”).
12 .
subsequent steps, such that the conclusion is supported by substantial evidence when the
decision is viewed as a whole. Instead, it appears that the AL]’s failure to adequately analyze
the medical evidence with regard to the listings is indicative of a more pervasive problem with
his analysis of Plaintiffs EDS and the medical opinion evidence. Indeed, as noted above, the
ALJ issued a ptior determination that was reversed and remanded by the Appeals Council
because the original decision did not “contain an evaluation of [Plaintiffs] Ehlers Danlos
Syndrome.” (It. at 133.) In the temand order the Appeals Council directed the ALJ to
evaluate Plaintiffs EDS in accordance with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520, and if necessaty, “obtain
evidence from a medical expert to clarify the natute and severity of this impairment.” (Ir. at
134.) In particular, the Appeals Council noted as follows:
The evidence shows that [Plaintiff] was diagnosed with EDS by Alan Spanos,
M.D., a pain specialist with experience treating this disorder. The EDS
diagnosis was also confirmed by Sean Dawson, M.D., who conducted a
consultative examination on July 30, 2016.... As Dr. Spanos explains, EDS is
an inherited condition that affects different body systems and could reasonably
be expected to produce many of [Plaintiffs] alleged symptoms, such as
widespread pain, excessive sleepiness, and episodes of fatigue.... The decision
needs to evaluate this impairment and the impact it has on [Plaintiff's RFC].
(I'r. at 133.) Despite these clear deficiencies in the ALJ’s original decision, the AL] in the
present determination did no more than acknowledge Plaintiffs EDS as a severe impaitment
at step two. He did not exptessly evaluate the impact of Plaintiff's EDS at step thtee, in
assessing Plaintiff's RFC, ot indeed at any step of the sequential analysis. The ALJ assigned
little weight to Dr. Spanos’ opinions.’ Despite this, the ALJ did not obtain evidence from a
7 The AL] relies on Dr. Spanos’ one-time statement that Plaintiff may be misdiagnosed with EDS to support
his dismissal of that doctot’s opinions and even the overall effects of EDS on Plaintiffs ability to work. Gee
Tr. at 23, 24.) However, the ALJ omits the context of Dr. Spanos’ statement. After learning from Plaintiff that
she potentially had a family member with Marfan Syndrome, Dr. Spanos suggested further genetic testing to
determine whether Plaintiff's condition was Marfan rather than EDS. (Tr. at 1490.) Notably, both EDS and
130
medical expert to fill what he ostensibly perceived as an evidentiary gap in assessing the nature
and severity of Plaintiffs EDS, which she contends is the most limiting of her impairments.
Thus, the AL]’s decision continues to suffer from the same deficiencies as the Appeals Council
noted with tespect to the original decision. Ultimately, given the AL]’s failure to adequately
address Plaintiffs EDS, including failing to consider Listing 14.06, remand is requited.
IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that the Commissioner’s decision finding
no disability be REVERSED, and that the matter be REMANDED to the Commissioner
under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The Commissioner should be ditected to remand
the matter to the ALJ for proceedings consistent with this Recommendation. To this extent,
Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [Doc. #11] should be DENIED, and
Plaintiffs Motion for a Judgment Reversing the Decision of the Commissioner of Social
Security ot Remanding the Cause for a Rehearing [Doc. #9] should be GRANTED. However,
to the extent that Plaintiffs motion seeks an immediate awatd of benefits, it should be
DENIED.
This, the 30% day of August, 2019.
/s/ Joi Elizabeth Peake
United States Magistrate Judge
Marfan Syndrome ate multi-systematic, genetic disorders primarily affecting connective tissue, and Dr. Spanos
specifically stated that one of these conditions occasionally “can mimic the other.” (Ir. at 1490.) See also
“Ehlers-Danlos syndromes and Marfan syndrome,” https://www.ncbinlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18328988 (last
visited August 29, 2019).
14