You are on page 1of 12
 
*
 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determinedunanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oralargument.
See
 Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is thereforeordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, andcollateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms andconditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
F I L E D
United States Court of AppealsTenth Circuit
May 9, 2006
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of CourtUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
CHARLOTTE L. DYE,Plaintiff-Appellant,v.JO ANNE B. BARNHART,Commissioner of the Social Security Administration,Defendant-Appellee. No. 05-5182(D.C. No. 04-CV-538-PJC)(N.D. Okla.)
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
*
Before
PORFILIO
,
BALDOCK 
,
 
and
 EBEL
, Circuit Judges.Charlotte L. Dye appeals from an order of the district court affirming theCommissioner’s decision denying her application for disability insurance benefits. Ms. Dye filed for these benefits on September 29, 1998, alleging January 17,
 
-2-
1997, as her onset date of disability. The agency denied her application initiallyand on reconsideration. Ms. Dye received a de novo hearing before anadministrative law judge (ALJ) and the ALJ issued an unfavorable decision. The district court reversed and remanded. On remand, Ms. Dye had another hearing before the ALJ. The ALJdetermined that Ms. Dye could perform light exertional work. The ALJ thereforedenied Ms. Dye’s application for benefits concluding that she was not disabled atstep four of the analysis because she could perform her past relevant work as asales clerk.
See Williams v. Bowen
, 844 F.2d 748, 750-52 (10th Cir. 1988)(explaining five-step process for evaluating claims for disability benefits).On appeal, Ms. Dye contends that the ALJ failed to perform a properevaluation at step three of the sequential process and failed to properly evaluatethe opinion of her treating physician. We review the Commissioner’s decision todetermine whether the factual findings are supported by substantial evidence inthe record and whether the correct legal standards were applied.
Winfrey v.Chater
, 92 F.3d 1017, 1019 (10th Cir. 1996). We reverse and remand for further proceedings.The Step Three Determination“At step three, the ALJ determines whether the claimant’s impairment isequivalent to one of a number of listed impairments that the Secretary
 
-3-
acknowledges as so severe as to preclude substantial gainful activity.”
Clifton v.Chater
, 79 F.3d 1007, 1009 (10th Cir. 1996) (quotation omitted). The ALJ’s stepthree finding should discuss the evidence and explain why the ALJ found that theclaimant was not disabled at that step.
 Id.
 “[A]n ALJ is not required to discussevery piece of evidence. Rather, in addition to discussing the evidence supportinghis decision, the ALJ also must discuss the uncontroverted evidence he choosesnot to rely upon, as well as significantly probative evidence he rejects.”
 Id.
 at1009-10 (citation omitted). Here, the ALJ made the following step three findings: As variously described within the medical evidence, the claimant’sasthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart impairment,and hand impairment are ‘severe’ by Social Security definition. However, her impairments, either singularly or in combination, donot meet or equal the severity of any impairment listed in Appendix 1to Subpart P, Regulations No. 4. The claimant’s impairments wereconsidered under Sections 3.02 and 3.03, respectively, of theimpairment listings. Pulmonary test results show that the claimant’slevel of function does not meet the requirements of either Section3.02 or 3.03. (Exhibit 3F, page 8). While the claimant’s test resultsdid fall within the parameters of the impairment listings during onetrial, the balance of the evidence otherwise indicates that she wascapable of demonstrating sufficient pulmonary capacity. As set outin the preamble for impairments of the respiratory system underSection 3.00E., the best of three results are used for purposes of determining listing level severity. As the claimant was able toachieve a reading FEV¹ of 1.42 and a FVC 1.57, the requirements fora person of her height (FEV¹ of 1.25 or FVC of 1.45) are not met. Under Section 1.02B, the claimant remained able to effectively useher upper extremities for gross and fine manipulation, so therequirements of this provision are not established. Although theclaimant[] has a noted heart impairment, the requirements fordisability under Sections 4.01 through 4.12 are not met. Disability,therefore, cannot be established under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d).

Reward Your Curiosity

Everything you want to read.
Anytime. Anywhere. Any device.
No Commitment. Cancel anytime.
576648e32a3d8b82ca71961b7a986505