Alvarez v. Social Security
2:14-cv-12429
| E.D. Mich. | May 28, 2015Background
- Alvarez filed for Disability Insurance Benefits on July 5, 2011, alleging disability beginning January 31, 2011.
- ALJ Hamel held a hearing June 7, 2013, with Alvarez represented by counsel and a vocational expert present.
- ALJ concluded Alvarez was not disabled at Step Four after a five-step sequential analysis.
- The Appeals Council denied review on April 8, 2014, making the ALJ’s decision the final decision.
- Alvarez has Charcot‑Marie‑Tooth disease, neuropathic pain, trigeminal neuralgia, and fibromyalgia, with functional limitations and mobility impairment.
- The district court is asked to remand for further proceedings consistent with the court’s reasoning since the Step Three analysis omitted consideration of Listing 11.14.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ALJ properly evaluated Listing 11.14 at Step Three. | Alvarez argues the ALJ failed to assess whether her impairments meet or medically equal Listing 11.14. | Commissioner contends the Step Three analysis did not require mention of 11.14 and that substantial evidence supports the denial. | Remand required; ALJ’s Step Three error not harmless. |
| Whether the Step Three omission is harmless error given the record. | Alvarez contends the omission prevents meaningful review and could support a finding of disability. | Commissioner argues possible to resolve without remand if evidence shows no Listing match. | Not harmless; remand warranted to consider Listing 11.14. |
Key Cases Cited
- Preslar v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 14 F.3d 1107 (6th Cir. 1994) (burden on claimant at initial steps; framework cited for sequential analysis)
- Heston v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 245 F.3d 528 (6th Cir. 2001) (proper articulation at Step Three; not merely conclusory statements)
- Longworth v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 402 F.3d 591 (6th Cir. 2005) (scope of substantial evidence review)
- Reynolds v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 424 F. App’x 411 (6th Cir. 2011) (presumption of disability if listing met; need for adequate rationale)
- M.G. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 861 F. Supp. 2d 846 (E.D. Mich. 2012) (remand appropriate where listing analysis is inadequate)
- Blakley v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 581 F.3d 399 (6th Cir. 2009) (limits on deference to ALJ when reviewing substantial evidence)