Jimmy Radford v. Carolyn Colvin
734 F.3d 288
| 4th Cir. | 2013Background
- Radford, a tree trimmer, injuries his back in 2002 and applies for social security disability benefits.
- An ALJ denied benefits, finding Radford did not meet or equal Listing 1.04A for spine disorders and that he could perform other work.
- Radford’s medical record over five years showed varying signs of nerve root compression but no consistent disability finding.
- Appeals Council denied review; district court reversed, finding Radford met Listing 1.04A and remanded for benefits.
- Commissioner appeals, arguing the district court misapplied the listing and the remedy; the court agrees the district court erred in ordering benefits but not in the standard applied.
- Court vacates and remands for further agency proceedings to clarify why Radford does not meet Listing 1.04A.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Listing 1.04A requires simultaneous findings | Radford contends proximity is not required | Commissioner argues proximity is required | No proximity requirement; 12-month duration governs; symptoms may be intermittent |
| Appropriate remedy after review of the ALJ’s decision | District court should award benefits if evidence supports Listing 1.04A | Remand for further explanation is proper | Remand for clarification, not automatic award of benefits |
| Sufficiency of ALJ's reasoning on Listing 1.04A | ALJ’s brief analysis insufficient to show substantial evidence | Record supports ALJ's determination | Remand to provide proper explanation of why Radford does or does not meet Listing 1.04A |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137 (1987) (framework of SSA disability evaluation)
- Hancock v. Astrue, 667 F.3d 470 (4th Cir. 2012) (five-step process and burden at steps 1–4)
- Healthkeepers, Inc. v. Richmond Ambulance Auth., 642 F.3d 466 (4th Cir. 2011) (durational inquiry aligned with 12-month rule)
- Westmoreland Coal Co. v. Cochran, 718 F.3d 319 (4th Cir. 2013) (standard of substantial evidence review in SSA cases)
- Cook v. Heckler, 783 F.2d 1168 (4th Cir. 1986) (reversal/remand when ALJ fails to compare to listings)
- Kastner v. Astrue, 697 F.3d 642 (7th Cir. 2012) (need for meaningful review; not reweighing evidence by court)
- Anim v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 243 (4th Cir. 2008) (agency interpretation not entitled to deference when unambiguous)
- McNunis v. Califano, 605 F.2d 743 (?) ( Listing interpretation; conclusive presumption)
- Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729 (1985) (remand appropriate for additional explanation)