5 WL 4604000, at *4 (W.D.N.Y. July 30, 2015) (remanding where the ALJ's “decision lacks a meaningful discussion of Listing 1.04(A), which leaves this Court unable to assess whether the ALJ's decision is supported by substantial evidence”); see also Rowe v. Berryhill, No. 17-cv-00208 (MAT), 2018 WL 4233702, at *3 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 6, 2018) (remanding where the ALJ did not discuss at step three the evidence suggesting the requirements of Listing 1.04(A) were met); McIntosh v. Berryhill, No. 17-cv-5403 (ER)(DF), 2018 WL 4376417, at *18 (S.D.N.Y. July 16, 2018) (remanding where “conflicting medical evidence left unaddressed by the ALJ, combined with significant omissions in Plaintiff's medical records, render this Court unable to conclude that the ALJ's ultimate decision that Plaintiff failed to satisfy Listing 1.04(A) was supported by substantial evidence), report and recommendation adopted, No. 17-cv-5403 (ER)(DF), 2018 WL 4374001 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 12, 2018). On appeal, the Commissioner's attorneys combed the record for examination findings “at odds with the strict requirements for disability under Listing 1.04(A)” to show why plaintiff did not meet satisfy the Listing 1.04(A) criteria.
Where evidence in the record suggests that a plaintiff could meet criteria of Listing 104(A), remand is proper when the court "cannot determine whether the ALJ properly considered the Listing because his only reference to it is a recitation of the standard." See Torres, 2015 WL 4604000, at *4; Cherico, 2014 WL 3939036, at *28; see also McIntosh v. Berryhill, No. 17-cv-5403 (ER) (DF), 2018 WL 4376417, at *18 (S.D.N.Y. July 16, 2018) ("[C]onflicting medical evidence left unaddressed by the ALJ, combined with significant omissions in Plaintiff's medical records, render this Court unable to conclude that the ALJ's ultimate decision that Plaintiff failed to satisfy Listing 1.04(A) was supported by substantial evidence), report and recommendation adopted, No. 17-cv-5403(ER)(DF), 2018 WL 4374001 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 12, 2018). District courts have discretion to remand for further proceedings when the results of physical examinations are not discussed as to how they relate to listing criteria in the step three analysis and when "boilerplate language" is used instead.