M.G. v. Commissioner of Social Security, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38072

M.G., a child, challenged the Commissioner’s denial of SSI; the district court adopted the magistrate judge’s R&R remanding for further proceedings.
The R&R recommended granting the plaintiff’s summary judgment in part, denying the Commissioner’s in part, and remanding to articulate Listings and criteria and to re-evaluate functional domains.
ALJ previously found no disability and did not clearly identify the Listing(s) for comparison; the court noted the need for a more explicit step-three discussion.
Six functional domains govern the functional-equality analysis; the ALJ found no ‘extreme’ or ‘marked’ limitations except in one domain, and did not adequately consider depression as an analog or interacting impairment.
Evidence from educational and medical evaluations (autism spectrum issues; Asperger’s syndrome; emotional impairment; depression) and teacher/counselor reports suggested impairments in social interaction, communication, and coping, which the court found insufficiently integrated into a meets/medically-equals analysis.
On remand, the ALJ must specify which Listing(s) are being compared and address criteria within those Listings, and may adjust the functional-equality analysis if warranted by the record.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the ALJ adequately analyze Listing 112.10 at Step Three?	M.G. meets or medical-equals Listing 112.10.	ALJ permissibly found no Listing match and did not need detailed Listing articulation.	Remand required for explicit Listing comparison and rationale.
Was the ALJ's functional-equivalence analysis properly supported by substantial evidence across domains?	Evidence supports more than a less-than-marked limitation in multiple domains.	ALJ reasonably concluded no more than non-marked limitations in most domains.	Remand appropriate to reevaluate domains with more thorough explanation.
Should psychologist/depression evidence have been integrated into meets/medically-equals analysis?	Depression and emotional impairment were not adequately considered in the Listing analysis.	Depression was acknowledged but not weighed as altering the Listing comparison.	Remand to address depression's impact on Listing analysis if necessary.

Rabbers v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 582 F.3d 647 (6th Cir. 2009) (harmless error review and whether missing findings prejudices claimant)
Clifton v. Chater, 79 F.3d 1007 (10th Cir. 1996) (need for step-three listing discussion and explanation)
Burnett v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 220 F.3d 112 (3d Cir. 2000) (remand when step-three discussion is insufficient)
Reynolds v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 424 F. App’x 411 (6th Cir. 2011) (remand where step-three analysis inadequate and credibility considerations.)
Robbers v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 582 F.3d 647 (6th Cir. 2009) (special technique errors and harmless-error review in step-three context)
Scott ex rel. Scott v. Astrue, 529 F.3d 818 (8th Cir. 2008) (careful harmless-error analysis when evaluating evidence)