Hart
Hart v. Barnhart
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Julie Hart appeals the denial of social security benefits. On de novo review, Moore v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 920, 924 (9th Cir.2002), we find legal error at step three 1 and reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this disposition.
The ALJ asked the doctor to base his opinion as to whether Hart’s impairments met or equaled a listed impairment on Hart’s anxiety-related disorder alone, rather than on her combined mental and physical impairments. Because “the collective symptoms, signs and laboratory findings of all of the claimant’s impairments will be evaluated to determine whether they meet or equal the characteristics of any relevant listed impairment,” Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1099 (9th Cir.1999) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1526 ), we agree with Hart that this was legal error and reverse and remand for a determination based upon Hart’s combined impairments.
We also agree with Hart that the ALJ should have considered whether her impairments equaled the listing based on medical testimony that Hart had problems with “concentration, persistence, and pace” that would have been “fairly severe” at times.