stating that, so long as the “the evidence of record permits [the court] to glean the rationale of an ALJ’s decision,” an ALJ is not required to “mention[] every item of testimony presented to him or [] explain[] why he considered particular evidence unpersuasive or insufficient to lead him to a conclusion of disability”
How later courts described this case
- stating that, so long as the “the evidence of record permits [the court] to glean the rationale of an ALJ’s decision,” an ALJ is not required to “mention[] every item of testimony presented to him or [] explain[] why he considered particular evidence unpersuasive or insufficient to lead him to a conclusion of disability”
- explaining what when “the evidence of record permits us to glean the rationale of the ALJ’s decision, we do not require that he have mentioned every item of testimony presented to him or have oi = explained why he considered particular evidence unpersuasive or insufficient to lead him to a conclusion of disability.”
- holding that when ““the evidence of record permits us to glean the rationale of the ALJ’s decision, we do not require that he have mentioned every item of testimony presented to him or have explained why he considered particular evidence unpersuasive or insufficient to lead him to a conclusion of disability.”
- holding 20 that, where the ALJ discusses a piece of evidence in a manner which indicates that 21 he is aware of the evidence, it is reasonable to infer that he considered that 22 evidence in forming his conclusions regarding the plaintiff’s ability to work
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BARTELS, Senior District Judge:
I respectfully dissent.
My dissent is limited to the majority’s rejection of Mongeur’s contention that the ALJ did not adequately consider his wife’s testimony concerning his fainting spells.
Mongeur points out that the ALJ’s silence shows that he failed to consider his wife’s testimony. It is true that we do not require an ALJ “explicitly to reconcile every conflicting shred of medical testimony.... ” Miles v. Harris, 645 F.2d 122, 124 (2d Cir.1981). However, in reaching a conclusion he cannot fail to explain evidence of an important factor which is totally uncontra-dicted and which is basic to Mongeur’s claim of disability. Gf. Aubeuf v. Schweiker, 649 F.2d 107, 112 (2d Cir.1981); Marcus v. Califano, 615 F.2d 23, 27 (2d Cir.1979). Where a factor is crucial it is not enough *1041 for the ALJ to state that he examined the entire record. He should also explain whether the evidence of a critical factor, although considered, was not believed or, under the circumstances, was insufficient for a finding of disability. Otherwise the reviewing court is left in the dark and is not in a position to determine whether there is substantial evidence to support his findings involving the factor critical to a disability claim. As this court stated in Berry v. Schweiker, 675 F.2d 464, 469 (2d Cir.1982) (per curiam):
Cases may arise, however, in which we would be unable to fathom the ALJ’s rationale in relation to evidence in the record, especially where credibility determinations and inference drawing is [sic] required of the ALJ. In such instances, we would not hesitate to remand the case for further findings or a clearer explanation for the decision.
This is such a case. Any finding by the ALJ that Mongeur did not suffer from fainting spells of a serious nature (or at all) must necessarily be implied and then we must guess whether his finding rested upon credibility assessment of the wife’s testimony or upon an inference drawn from Nurse Laro’s report. There is simply no other evidence in the record to sustain any such finding.
It is obvious that Mongeur’s fainting spells were brought to the ALJ’s attention, not only through the form filled out by Mongeur and the testimony of his wife but also through a letter written by Nurse Laro after the hearing but before the ALJ’s decision. The evidence of his fainting is an important portion of the record in determining disability, for as Judge Coffrin states, “[o]bviously, a propensity to faint unexpectedly may well prevent plaintiff from engaging in any substantial gainful employment.”
In his able opinion Judge Coffrin stated that the failure of Mongeur and his wife to mention the fainting spells to any medical personnel led him to conclude that the ALJ had considered the wife’s testimony and had rejected her claims. But such an inference predicated on the ALJ’s silence, does not necessarily follow and is, at best, speculative. Because the fainting spells are so crucial and are not addressed elsewhere in the record, the ALJ should at least have specifically mentioned them. Assuming the ALJ did consider this important evidence, his consideration of it should not have been buried in a general statement that he had considered all the evidence. We should not be left to glean by inference from other portions of the record a crucial fact. Accordingly, I would hold that the purposes of the Act would best be served by reversing and remanding the case to the Secretary for the limited purpose of explicitly weighing, considering and deciding the effect, if any, of Mongeur’s fainting spells upon his claim of disability.