A Social Security disability decision needs enough explanation for a reviewing court to understand its reasoning. In Burnett v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, the Third Circuit considered a particularly brief finding at step three of an SSDI claim and sent the case back for further proceedings.
What step three asks
At step three of the disability evaluation, the Social Security Administration considers whether an impairment meets or medically equals the criteria of a listed impairment. If the applicable listing requirements are met, including the relevant duration requirement, the person may be found disabled at that step. Medical equivalence may also involve a combination of impairments; the regulations describe how that comparison is made.
Ethel Burnett alleged disability from knee and back problems. The administrative law judge (ALJ) found a severe musculoskeletal impairment but stated, in the step three discussion, that it did not equal a listed disabling condition. The judge then denied her claim at a later step. The district court affirmed.
Why the court returned the case
On July 25, 2000, the Third Circuit found that the step three conclusion in Burnett’s case was too conclusory to permit meaningful judicial review. It vacated the district court’s order and directed further proceedings. On remand, the ALJ was to develop the record and explain whether and why the back and knee impairments, individually or together, were or were not medically equivalent to a listed impairment.
The court also identified other errors in the decision’s treatment of the evidence. It did not order an immediate award of benefits: further factual findings were needed. A remand for a better explanation does not, by itself, decide whether a claimant ultimately qualifies.
Reading the decision as a whole
The need for meaningful review does not prescribe a single format for every decision. In the later Third Circuit case Jones v. Barnhart, 364 F.3d 501 (3d Cir. 2004), the court explained that Burnett does not require particular words or a prescribed format; a decision read as a whole can provide the necessary explanation. Whether the reasoning is sufficient depends on the decision and the evidence at issue.
SSA’s current SSR 17-2p addresses articulation of medical equivalence. It states that when the evidence does not reasonably support equivalence, a general statement ordinarily suffices under agency policy, with reasoning at later steps providing the basis for review. Judicial review still requires attention to the governing court’s law and the decision as a whole.
For a claimant, the practical question is whether relevant medical findings and their relationship to the listing criteria can be identified in the record. A combination of conditions may warrant consideration even if no single condition meets a listing. Burnett is a Third Circuit case, and its outcome depended on the explanation and evidence in that case.
Source: Burnett v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 220 F.3d 112 (3d Cir. 2000).
Learn more about Feden Law Group’s disability practice or schedule an initial consultation with an attorney.
You can also explore the FLG Claim Analyst (Beta).
This article provides general information, not legal advice. Reading it or requesting a consultation does not create an attorney-client relationship.