01-3302 Scott v. Barnhart

Listen to this article

“Although the Commissioner submits that the evidence of record demonstrates that Darius could not satisfy Listing 112.05’s diagnostic definition of mental retardation, we are hard pressed to find this precise conclusion either implicitly or explicitly in the ALJ’s opinion. See Steele, 290 F.3d at 941; see also Sarchet v. Chater, 78 F.3d 305, 307 (7th Cir. 1996). The failure to discuss Listing 112.05 is further compounded by the ALJ’s perfunctory consideration and analysis of the evidentiary record. In assessing whether Darius satisfied the listing, the ALJ had before him several significant pieces of evidence relating to this child.

“Without meaningful analysis from the ALJ regarding this evidence, the parties have been left to dispute before this court the significance of the different diagnoses in light of Listing 112.05, and we are left with a record that does not permit us to engage in the meaningful, albeit deferential, review that the statute mandates.”

Reversed and remanded.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Schenkier, Mag. J., Ripple, J.