Oakes v. Barnhart - ED Pa. - October 18, 2005
http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/05D1276P.pdf
The court rejected the magistrate's recommendation that summary judgment be granted to plaintiff (P) and, rather, granted s/j to defendant (D).
The magistrate believed that the ALJ's equivalency decision was not supported by substantial evidence, because the ALJ failed to secure the testimony of a medical expert before determining that plaintiff's impairment did not equal a listing. The magistrate recommended that the case be remanded for the taking of medical evidence about whether the combination of P's impairments equaled a listed impairment.
The court rejected this reasoning and agreed with SSA that under its "testing modifications" policy set out at 20 CFR 404.906(b)(2), it had "fundamentally altered" its former long-standing policy by allowing an ALJ to use medical expert testimony when "appropriate," rather than requiring the opinion of a medical consultant to determine if a claimant met or equaled a listed impairment. This testing modification policy applies to cases decided in Pennsylvania and nine other states.
The court held that 20 CFR 404.906(b)(1) and (2) established a "single decisionmaker model" and that the ALJ is not required to seek a medical opinion of the issue of equivalence, although s/he may do so where "appropriate," thus going from a "mandatory to discretionary use of medical experts on the issue of equivalency."
The Court upheld the ALJ decision on (non)equivalency and granted s/j to defendant.
Donald Marritz
MidPenn Legal Services
