Farley

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

The ALJ’s decision is reversed and this case is remanded for an award of benefits. The administrative record clearly demonstrates that Farley has a disability — non-convulsive epilepsy — that should have caused the ALJ to find in his favor at step three. Farley’s failure to raise this issue on appeal does not prevent the Court from considering it, particularly given the obviousness of the error, the clarity and completeness of the record, and the fact that Farley raised the issue of an epilepsy listing at the administrative proceedings.

I

Farley’s counsel advanced only one argument on appeal. That argument — based on the ALJ’s failure to consider a 12.05 *338 listing for intellectual impairments arising during childhood — is unsupported by the record and foreclosed by the facts Farley’s counsel recites in his own moving papers. Nothing suggests Farley suffered from intellectual impairments before age 22. See 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1 §§ 12.00(A), 12.05. By all accounts, Farley himself has never claimed otherwise. See A.R. 62-64, 510. That alone precludes a 12.05…