Case Name in Social Security Case - Unavailable

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ANGELICA BROOKSHIRE 	CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO. 24-2384
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 	SECTION: “J”(3)
ORDER
The Court, having considered the record, the applicable law, the Report and
Recommendation 	of 	the 	United 	States 	Magistrate 	Judge 	(Rec. 	Doc. 	21), 	and
Petitioner’s 	Objection 	(Rec. 	Doc. 	22), 	hereby 	approves 	the 	Report 	and
Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and adopts it as its opinion
in this matter.
In the instant matter, Petitioner appeals the Administrative Law Judge’s
holding that Petitioner is not entitled to disability insurance benefits under Title II
of the Social Security Act (“SSA”). Magistrate Judge Eva Dossier recommended that
the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) be affirmed. In her Objection,
Petitioner contends that the Magistrate Judge’s findings are “clearly erroneous”
because, according to Petitioner, “it is an uncontested fact that the ALJ failed to offer
any analysis whatsoever of equivalence at Step 3 [of the five-step analysis required
by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520] and therefore, the Magistrate’s findings are clearly refuted
by the facts.” (Rec. Doc. 22, at 2).
Case 2:24-cv-02384-CJB Document 23 Filed 11/21/25 Page 1 of 3

2
The 	Court 	has 	carefully 	reviewed 	the 	Magistrate 	Judge’s 	Report 	and
Recommendation (Rec. Doc. 21) and the ALJ’s Decision (Rec. Doc. 9, at 17–28), and
the facts simply do not support Petitioner’s assertions.
Petitioner’s primary objection is that the ALJ “conducted no analysis of
medical equivalence at Step 3” (Rec. Doc. 22, at 1) and therefore did not provide an
adequate explanation for the ALJ’s Decision. Instead, Petitioner claims that the ALJ
“summarily dismissed” the issue of medical equivalence at step three of the analysis
by saying, “The severity of the claimant’s mental impairments, considered singly and
in combination, did not meet or medically equal the criteria of listings 12.04, 12.06,
12.08, 12.11, and 12.15 . . . .” (Rec. Doc. 9, at 20).
However, the sentence contained in the ALJ’s Decision which Petitioner cites
was merely the first sentence in a section of step-three analysis that is almost two
pages 	long, 	analysis 	that 	is 	focused 	solely 	on 	whether 	Petitioner’s 	mental
impairments, either singly or in combination, either met or were the medical
equivalent of the criteria of the listings in Appendix 1. In fact, after including this
sentence, the ALJ stated the rule for evaluating the severity of a claimant’s
impairments (“the mental impairments must result in one extreme limitation or two
marked limitations in a broad area of functioning”) and then proceeded to analyze
the severity of Petitioner’s impairments in the following five paragraphs. (Rec. Doc.
9, at 20–21).
This is precisely the analysis required to determine medical equivalence. 20
C.F.R. 	§ 	404.1526 	(“Your 	impairment(s) 	is 	medically 	equivalent 	to 	a 	listed
Case 2:24-cv-02384-CJB Document 23 Filed 11/21/25 Page 2 of 3

3
impairment in appendix 1 if it is at least equal in severity and duration to the criteria
of any listed impairment.”); see also Jones v. O’Malley, 107 F.4th 489 (5th Cir. 2024)
(“To demonstrate such equivalency, a claimant ‘must present medical findings equal
in severity to all the criteria for the one most similar listed impairment.”).
Here, the ALJ presented clear, detailed, and thorough analysis of the severity
of Petitioner’s impairments to reach the decision that Petitioner is not disabled under
the SSA’s definition.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s Objection (Rec. Doc. 22) is
OVERRULED, and the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Rec. Doc.
21) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the Court’s opinion.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 21st day of November, 2025.
____________________________________
CARL J. BARBIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:24-cv-02384-CJB Document 23 Filed 11/21/25 Page 3 of 3