holding that additional evidence not submitted to ALJ “cannot now be used as a basis for a finding of reversible error.”
How later courts described this case
- holding that additional evidence not submitted to ALJ “cannot now be used as a basis for a finding of reversible error.”
- stating that the ALJ need not provide a written evaluation of every piece of evidence, but need only “minimally articulate” his reasoning so as to make a bridge between the evidence and his conclusions (citations omitted)
- recognizing that “it is proper to read the ALJ’s decision as a whole”
- recognizing that “it is proper to read the ALJ’s decision as a whole . . . because it would be a needless formality to have the ALJ repeat substantially similar factual analyses at” various steps in the sequential process
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Fulfer v. Astrue, 917 F. Supp. 2d 883 (2013)
To begin, Rice is distinguishable from this case.
The opinion
ROYNER, Circuit Judge,
concurring in the judgment.
I agree that the case may be summarily affirmed on the basis of the inadequately *372 explained Circuit Rule 30 violation and I therefore concur in the judgment. As for the merits of the case, I cannot agree that the ALJ’s decision was supported by substantial evidence. The ALJ’s “reasoning” was thin at best, and contained a substantial error that even the SSA acknowledged on appeal. In footnote 12 of the response brief, the Commissioner explains that the ALJ’s finding that Rice was capable of medium work is not consistent with the medical opinion advanced by the State’s own doctors. The agency doctors opined that Rice could only occasionally climb, balance, stoop, kneel, crouch and crawl. For medium work, a person must be capable of frequent stooping and crouching. Nonetheless, the agency doctors concluded, contrary to the agency’s own regulations, that Rice was capable of medium work, and the ALJ adopted this unsupported conclusion. The Commissioner urged us to find this error harmless because the agency doctors’ opinions would support a finding that Rice could perform light work, and thus was not disabled. Given the medical record documenting Rice’s severe spinal disorder and accompanying pain, as well as the analytical error overlooked by both the agency doctors and the ALJ, I have no confidence that the agency doctors or the ALJ properly analyzed Rice’s residual functional capacity. Because I would find that the ALJ’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence, I respectfully concur in the judgment.