perhaps. In any event, there is nothing on the record that might arguably support the possibility plaintiff could "arrange to have his seizures on a regular basis."
Thus under two of the hypothetical scenarios, the vocational expert stated plaintiff would not be able to work and the record supports these two hypothetical scenarios. The other two scenarios, under which the vocational expert opined plaintiff could find and sustain work, were based on wholly unfounded assumptions of facts or medical opinions that have no support in the record. The patent deficiencies in these hypotheticals improperly influenced the ALJ's decision. Podedworny v. Harris, 745 F.2d 210 (3d Cir. 1984); Wallace v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 722 F.2d 1150, 1155 (3d Cir. 1983). In Podedworny and Wallace, the ALJ had omitted one of the claimant's impairments from the hypothetical, and the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit found, "the fact that these conditions were not included in the hypothetical question rendered that question defective, and thus the expert's answer cannot be considered substantial evidence." Podedworny, 745 F.2d at 218 (citing Wallace, 722 F.2d 1150 at 1155). The Court of Appeals further held: "the insufficiency of the ALJ's proffered hypothetical question and the corresponding deficiency in the answer of the vocational expert would necessitate a remand to the Secretary for further proceedings." Podedworny, 745 F.2d at 219 (citing Wallace, 722 F.2d 1150 at 1155).
The ALJ must analyze all of the evidence in the record and provide an adequate explanation for disregarding evidence, Brewster v. Heckler, 786 F.2d 581, 584 (3d Cir. 1986); Cotter v. Harris, 642 F.2d 700 (3d Cir. 1981); Dobrowolsky v. Califano, 606 F.2d 403, 407 (3d Cir. 1979), yet in his adjudication, the ALJ provided no explanation for discounting the "Dr. Kennedy hypothetical" which included Claimant's substantial nonexertional limitations as set forth in the very medical report the ALJ himself had credited. The vocational expert's response to the "Dr. Kennedy" question demonstrates that plaintiff was disabled as a result of a listed impairment, his bipolar condition and other mental impairments, as of December 4, 1992.
The Adjudication of the ALJ, as adopted by the Commissioner, is completely infested with misjudgment, mischaracterization of testimony, disregard of competent and largely uncontradicted medical evidence, and wholly lacks substantial evidence to support the denial of SSI benefits. Accordingly, the decision of the ALJ, as affirmed by the Commissioner, must be reversed, and this case remanded for an award and calculation of benefits.
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 25th day of February, 1998, for the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum opinion, it is HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:
1. Plaintiff Robert L. Akers' Motion for Summary Judgment (Document No. 7) is GRANTED.
2. Defendant John J. Callahan, Acting Commissioner of Social Security's Motion for Summary Judgment (Document No. 5) is DENIED.
3. Summary judgment is entered in plaintiff's favor.
4. This case is remanded to the Commissioner for calculation of supplemental security income benefits from December 4, 1992, forthwith.
DONALD J. LEE
United States District Judge