Padilla v. Heckler (1986)

Disposition Because we are unable to determine from the record before us whether there is any other kind of substantial gainful employment existing in the national economy in which plaintiff could engage, we find that a remand is appropriate to allow the Commissioner to reconsider plaintiffs *137 claim in light of these additional limitations. 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g); see Johnson v. Bowen, 817 F.2d 983, 986 (2d Cir.1987); Padilla v. Heckler, 643 F.Supp. 481, 488 (S.D.N.Y.1986).

Cf. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1503 (1988) (AU must make reasonable effort to have claimant examined where evidence of mental incapacity exists); Padilla v. Heckler, 643 F.Supp. 481, 487 (S.D.N.Y.1986) (court ordered re *1272 mand where the plaintiff claimed not only-nervousness, but also that she experienced hallucinations and heard voices).

See Padilla v. Heckler, 643 F.Supp. 481, 488 (S.D.N.Y.1986) (ALJ’s failure to consider undisputed, relevant evidence in denying benefits prevented reviewing court’s finding that the ALJ’s decision was based on substantial evidence); cf. Richardson, 402 U.S. at 401, 91 S.Ct. 1420 (substantial evidence “means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion”) (emphasis added). *261 c.