The case can be remanded under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further consideration.” Faucher v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 17 F.3d 171, 175-76 (6th Cir. 1994); see also Barker v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:15-cv-262-SKL, 2016 WL 3448583, at *3 n.1 (ED. Tenn. June 17, 2016) (citing Faucher, 17 F.3d at 174). A. Standard of Review
The case can be remanded under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further consideration." Faucher v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 17 F.3d 171, 175-76 (6th Cir. 1994); see also Barker v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:15-cv-262, 2016 WL 3448583, at *3 n.1 (E.D. Tenn. June 17, 2016) (citing Faucher, 17 F.3d at 174). 1. "The ALJ erred in failing to apply the 'treating physician rule' to the opinion of Dr. William Platt and further failed to give good reasons for not giving the opinion controlling weight."
In Barker v. Commissioner of Social Security, the Commissioner argued that despite Plaintiff being obese (non-severe) during the relevant period, and the ALJ's failure to explicitly discuss her obesity, remand was not appropriate because "obesity was not a focus of Plaintiff's claim" and "the ALJ relied on the opinions of consultative examiners and physicians who considered Plaintiff's obesity in making their assessments." No. 1:15-CV-262-SKL, 2016 WL 3448583, at *5 (E.D. Tenn. June 17, 2016) (citing to Coldiron, 391 F. App'x at 443 and Bledsoe, 165 F. App'x at 408 in support). Magistrate Judge Lee noted that in Bledsoe, the Sixth Circuit found that the ALJ had properly considered the claimant's obesity by making "explicit mention of [the claimant's] obesity in his finding of facts" and by "credit[ing] an expert's report that considers obesity."
"[T]he complete exclusion of any mention of Plaintiff's [spondylolisthesis] makes it impossible for the Court to tell if the ALJ actually considered this condition in formulating the RFC." Barker v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:15-cv-262-SKL, 2016 WL 3448583, at *6 (E.D. Tenn. June 17, 2106) (distinguishing Nejat, where the impairment was mentioned and considered); see also Laudato v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:15 CV 1143, 2016 WL 8671526, at *5 (N.D. Ohio June 3, 2016) ("Plaintiff's hemochromatosis went completely unacknowledged by the ALJ despite the fact there was a positive diagnosis of the condition . . . in the record.") (report and recommendation, adopted by 2016 WL 4059352 (N.D. Ohio July 29, 2016)); Crowther v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:11-cv-394, 2012 WL 2711041, at *9 (S.D. Ohio July 6, 2012) (when an ALJ "fails to mention relevant evidence in his decision" and "fail[s] to articulate any reasons for rejecting this evidence" the decision is not supported by substantial evidence). The Court accepts plaintiff's objection so far as it argues that it was error for the R&R to equate his condition of spondylolisthesis with degenerative disc disease and to then conclude that the ALJ had adequately addressed this condition.
This complete omission of any mention of Plaintiff's obesity in the ALJ's decision distinguishes Plaintiff's case from Coldiron and Bledsoe. See also Barker v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:15-CV-262-SKL, 2016 WL 3448583, at *5 (E.D. Tenn. June 17, 2016) (applying the same analysis and remanding the claim based on the ALJ's failure to consider or even mention obesity). Also according to the Commissioner, the ALJ "reasonably did not discuss obesity because Plaintiff did not raise the issue" and because "Plaintiff reported no physical limitations whatsoever.
The ALJ considered Patterson's obesity at every step of her analysis, and thus complied with SSR 02-01p. Compare id. at 442-43 with Barker v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:15-CV-262-SKL, 2016 WL 3448583, at *5 (E.D. Tenn. June 17, 2016) ("[T]he ALJ did not mention Plaintiff's obesity in his discussion of the medical evidence, in his RFC determination, or anywhere else in his decision . . . . This omission by the ALJ renders it impossible to tell if he properly considered plaintiff's obesity."). I. The ALJ Properly Considered Patterson's Use of a Cane