Douglas Gross v. Commissioner Social Security (2016)

Sec., 653 F. App’x 116, 119 (3d Cir. 2016); see also 40 CFR. § 404.1529(c)(3), Next, the ALJ evaluates the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the claimant’s symptoms to determine the extent to which they limit the claimant’s ability to work on a regular and continuing basis.

Sec., 653 Fed.

Sec., 653 F. App’x 116, 120 (3d Cir. 2016) (the Act requires only that the agency’s path “may reasonably be discerned”) (quoting Christ the King Manor, Inc. v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.

Sec., 653 F. App’x 116, 120 (3d Cir. 2016) (the Act requires only that the agency’s path “may reasonably be discerned”) (quoting Christ the King Manor, Inc. v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.

Sec., 653 F. App'x 116, at *4 (3d Cir. 2016)).11 In this case, the ALJ did not discuss or even mention much of the evidence the Commissioner uses in his brief to purportedly show that that ALJ’s rationale is traceable.

Sec., 653 F. App’x 116, 120-21 (3d Cir. 2016); Edwards v. Colvin, No. 14-4235, 2015 WL 4545391 , at *3–5 (E.D.

Sec., 653 F. App’x 116, at *4 (3d Cir. 2016) (quoting Christ the King Manor, Inc. v. Sec'y of Health & Human Services, 730 F.3d 291, 305 (3d Cir. 2013)). 4 This principle does not undermine the reviewing court's “responsibility to uphold a decision of less than ideal clarity if the agency's path may be reasonably discerned.” Christ the King Manor, Inc. v. Sec'y of Health & Human Services, 730 F.3d 291, 305 (3d Cir. 2013) (internal quotation omitted).

Sec., 653 F. App’x 116, 122 (3d Cir. 2016) (remanding when ALJ failed to “explain[] why she credit[ed] some evidence or medical opinions over others.”); Burnett v. Comm’r of Soc.

Sec., 653 F. App’x 116, 121 (3d Cir. 2016) (remanding ALJ’s assessment of pain because the report relied upon by the ALJ had a “reference in the same report that the pain remained moderate to severe.”).