James Ezzell v. Nancy Berryhill
688 F. App'x 199
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- James Ezzell appealed the denial of disability insurance benefits and SSI after the ALJ upheld the Commissioner’s decision.
- Ezzell had reconstructive hip surgery in July 2008 and alleged persistent ambulatory deficits nearly a year post-op.
- A consultative examiner (Dr. Alan Cohen) observed Ezzell used a cane for walking/standing, could not walk a block on rough surfaces, and could not climb a few steps at a reasonable pace using a single handrail; he described walking ability as severely impaired.
- The ALJ gave Dr. Cohen’s opinions "significant weight" and found them consistent with the record when assessing Ezzell’s RFC, yet did not analyze Listing 1.03.
- Listing 1.03 requires reconstructive surgery of a major weight-bearing joint plus inability to ambulate effectively; examples of ineffective ambulation include inability to walk a block on rough surfaces or to climb a few steps using a single handrail.
- The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and upheld the Commissioner; the appellate court vacated and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ erred at Step Three by not considering Listing 1.03 | ALJ failed to evaluate applicability of Listing 1.03 despite evidence of post‑op ineffective ambulation | Implicitly argued any omission was harmless or Listing not met | Vacated and remanded: ALJ must address Listing 1.03 where record contains probative evidence suggesting it may be met |
| Whether ALJ’s reliance on Dr. Cohen’s report but omission on Listing 1.03 was harmless error | Dr. Cohen’s findings support inability to ambulate effectively; error not harmless | ALJ’s RFC findings incorporate Dr. Cohen’s observations, so no harmful error | Error not harmless because ALJ credited Dr. Cohen yet did not explain conflict between that credit and the Step Three conclusion; remand required |
Key Cases Cited
- Mascio v. Colvin, 780 F.3d 632 (4th Cir. 2015) (review standard for ALJ legal error and substantial-evidence review)
- Pearson v. Colvin, 810 F.3d 204 (4th Cir. 2015) (definition and standard for substantial evidence)
- Radford v. Colvin, 734 F.3d 288 (4th Cir. 2013) (ALJ must provide coherent Step Three analysis when record contains evidence suggesting a Listing may be met)
- Cook v. Heckler, 783 F.2d 1168 (4th Cir. 1986) (when ample evidence supports meeting a Listing, ALJ must identify and compare relevant listing criteria to the record)