Miller v. Saul, 1:18-cv-00350-RJC-SCR

Plaintiff Ricky Dewayne Miller sought judicial review of the Commissioner’s denial of Social Security disability benefits; case filed Dec. 12, 2018 in W.D.N.C.
ALJ evaluated Miller’s seizures under neurological Listing 11.02 and mental impairments under Listings 12.04 and 12.06, but did not analyze Listing 12.07 (pseudoseizures).
Medical records contained evidence of psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (pseudoseizures), which the Listings instruct should be evaluated under the mental disorders body system (Listing 12.07) rather than the epilepsy listing.
Plaintiff argued the ALJ erred by failing to identify and apply Listing 12.07 and compare its criteria to the record evidence.
Magistrate Judge recommended granting Plaintiff’s motion, denying the Commissioner’s motion, reversing the decision, and remanding for further proceedings under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the ALJ erred by failing to consider Listing 12.07 for pseudoseizures	Miller: the medical record implicates Listing 12.07 and the ALJ must apply the listing criteria to the evidence	Commissioner: ALJ evaluated seizures under neurological listing and mental listings 12.04/12.06 (implicitly no need to analyze 12.07)	Court: ALJ erred; Listing 12.07 was implicated and remand is required for proper listing analysis

Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (1971) (defines the scope of substantial-evidence review in Social Security cases)
Cook v. Heckler, 783 F.2d 1168 (4th Cir. 1986) (ALJ must identify relevant listings and compare each listing criterion to the record)
Radford v. Colvin, 734 F.3d 288 (4th Cir. 2013) (an incomplete ALJ analysis requires remand rather than the court supplying missing findings)
Smith v. Heckler, 782 F.2d 1176 (4th Cir. 1986) (describes substantial evidence standard and limits on district court review)
Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292 (1993) (explains sentence-four remand effects on litigation)