Case: 12-12459 Date Filed: 11/29/2012 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-12459
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cv-00223-MP-GRJ
CHRISTOPHER W. KLAES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(November 29, 2012)
Before CARNES, BARKETT and HULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 12-12459 Date Filed: 11/29/2012 Page: 2 of 5
Christopher W. Klaes appeals the Commissioner’s decision to terminate his
disability insurance benefits (“DIB”). After review, we reverse and remand to the
district court with instructions that the case be returned to the Commissioner for
further proceedings consistent with this opinion.1
I. BACKGROUND
In 2003, an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) found that Klaes was
disabled due to chronic neck and back pain and radiculopathy in his extremities
and awarded Klaes benefits. The ALJ’s 2003 decision reviewed the medical
evidence from 1999 to 2003, including, among other things, findings from medical
examinations, MRIs of his cervical and lumbar spine, nerve conduction studies
and X-rays.
In 2008, the Commissioner determined that Klaes was no longer disabled as
of March 1, 2008 and terminated benefits. Following an administrative hearing,
an ALJ concluded, inter alia, that there had been medical improvement in Klaes’s
impairments as of that date.
II. TERMINATION OF BENEFITS
An ALJ may terminate a claimant’s benefits if there is substantial evidence
1
We review the Commissioner’s social security decision “to determine if it is supported
by substantial evidence and based on proper legal standards.” Crawford v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.,
363 F.3d 1155, 1158 (11th Cir. 2004)
2
Case: 12-12459 Date Filed: 11/29/2012 Page: 3 of 5
that there has been medical improvement in the claimant’s impairments related to
his ability to work, and the claimant is now able to engage in substantial gainful
activity. 42 U.S.C. § 423(f)(1); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1594(a). The ALJ conducts a
multi-step evaluation to determine whether a claimant’s benefits should be
terminated, including (1) whether the claimant is engaging in substantial gainful
activity; (2) if not, whether the claimant has an impairment or combination of
impairments that meet or equal a listed impairment; (3) if not, whether there has
been medical improvement; (4) if so, whether the improvement is related to the
claimant’s ability to work; (5) if there is no medical improvement or if medical
improvement is not related to the claimant’s ability to work, whether an exception
to medical improvement applies; (6) if there is medical improvement related to the
claimant’s ability to work or if an exception applies, whether the claimant has a
severe impairment; (7) if so, whether the claimant can perform his past relevant
work; and (8) if not, whether the claimant can perform other work. 20 C.F.R.
§ 404.1594(f).
The “medical improvement” required at step three is defined by agency
regulation as “any decrease in the medical severity of [the claimant’s]
impairment(s) which was present at the time of the most recent favorable medical
decision that [the claimant was] disabled . . . .” Id. § 404.1594(b)(1). A finding
3
Case: 12-12459 Date Filed: 11/29/2012 Page: 4 of 5
that there has been a decrease in medical severity “must be based on changes
(improvement) in the symptoms, signs and/or laboratory findings associated with
[the claimant’s] impairment(s) . . . .” Id. More specifically, whether medical
severity has decreased “is determined by a comparison of prior and current
medical evidence which must show that there have been changes (improvement) in
the symptoms, signs or laboratory findings associated with that impairment(s).”
Id. § 404.1594(c)(1); see also Freeman v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 565, 566 (11th Cir.
1984); Vaughn v. Heckler, 727 F.2d 1040, 1043 (11th Cir. 1984). The ALJ must
“actually compare” the previous and current medical evidence to show that an
improvement occurred. Freeman, 739 F.2d at 566. If the ALJ fails to evaluate the
prior medical evidence and make such a comparison, we must “reverse and
remand for application of the proper legal standard.” Vaughn, 727 F.2d at 1043.
In Klaes’s case, the ALJ found that “[t]he medical evidence supports a
finding that, as of March 1, 2008, there had been a decrease in medical severity of
the impairments.” In support of his step-three finding, the ALJ relied on medical
records dating from 2006 to 2009. The ALJ did not mention, much less compare,
the medical evidence of Klaes’s impairments between 1999 and 2003 that was
relied upon to make the original 2003 disability determination.
In other words, at step three, the ALJ did not compare the prior and current
4
Case: 12-12459 Date Filed: 11/29/2012 Page: 5 of 5
medical evidence to determine whether it showed changes in the symptoms, signs
or laboratory findings associated with Klaes’s impairments, as required by 20
C.F.R. § 404.1594(c)(1) and this Court’s precedent. Accordingly, the ALJ failed
to follow the proper legal standard, and we must reverse and remand so the
Commissioner can apply the correct standard. See Vaughn, 727 F.2d at 1043.2
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
2
Because the ALJ’s failure to apply the correct legal standard at step three requires
reversal, we do not address the remaining steps in the ALJ’s evaluation and express no opinion
on whether there has been medical improvement or whether Klaes continues to be entitled to
benefits.
5