A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l yt o gr antthe part i es ’ r eques tfora dec i s i on on the br i efs w i thoutor al a rg u m e n t. See F ed . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (f); 10 th C ir . R . 3 4 . 1 (G ). T h e c ase is th ere fo re or der ed s ubm i t t ed w i thoutor al ar gum ent . T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . T he courtgener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an or derand j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### M ay23,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT

STEPH EN LY LES,

P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. J O A NN E B. BA RN HA RT, C o m m iss io n e r, S o c ial S e c u rity A dm i ni s tr at i on,

D efe ndant - A ppel l ee. N o. 04- 7074 ( D . C . N o . 0 3 - C V - 4 1 8 - W) (E .D . O k la .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e P O R F IL IO , BA LD OCK , and EBEL , C i rcui tJudg es.

Pl ai nt i ff St ephen Ly l es appea l s t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s or deruphol di ng the C om m i s s i oner ’ s deni al of hi s appl i cat i on fors oci al s ecur i tydi s abi l i tyand-2-

s u p p l e me n t a l s e c u r i tyi n c o me b e n e fi t s . W e e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 a n d a ffir m . B ackgr ound M r . L y l es cl ai m s di s abi l i tys i nce O ct ober15, 1998, due t o i nj ur i es s u s ta in e d in a m o to r v e h ic le a c c id e n t, in c lu d in g a f ra c tu re d h ip w ith s e q u e la e , a s pl enec t om y , hypert ens i on, obes i ty , and depr es s i on. A n admi ni s tr at i ve l aw j udge ( A L J ) hel d a hea r i ng atw hi ch M r . L y l es w as r epr es ent ed bycouns el . I n addi t i on to M r. L y les’ t esti m o n y , the A L J rec eive d test im o n yfro m a v o ca ti o n al ex p ert aboutthe j obs thatcoul d be per form ed bys om eone w i th M r . L y l es ’ abi l i t i es and lim ita tio n s . T h e A L J a p p lie d th e fiv e -p a rt s e q u e n tia l e v a lu a tio n p ro c e s s . See F ischer- R oss v. B arnh art , 431 F. 3d 729, 731 ( 10th C i r . 2005) ( des cr i bi ng fi ve s t eps ) . H e det erm i ned ats t ep tw o thatM r . L y l es di d nothave as ever e ment al im p a irm e n t, an d a t ste p fiv e th a t h e re tain e d th e re sid u a l f u n c tio n a l ca p a c ity ( R FC ) t o per form a w i de r ange of l i ght - l evel exert i onal j obs thatexi s t ed i n the lo c a l a n d n a tio n a l e c o n o m ie s . T he A ppeal s C ounci l deni ed r evi ew , thus m aki ng the A L J ’ s deci s i on the fin a l d e c is io n o f

th e C o m m is s io n e r. See Je nsen v. Ba rnha rt , 436 F. 3d 1163, 1164 ( 10th C i r . 2006) . T he di s tr i ctcourtaff i r m ed the C om m i s s i oner ’ s deci s i on. L ega lFram ew ork W e r evi ew t he C om m i s s i oner ’ s deci s i on t o as cert ai n w hetheri ti s s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence i n the r ecor d and t o eval uat e w hethers he appl i ed the-3-

c o rr e c t le g a l s ta n d a rd s . G roga n v. B arnh art , 3 9 9 F . 3 d 1 2 5 7 , 1 2 6 1 (10 th C ir . 2005) . “Subs t ant i al evi dence i s m or e than a mer e s ci nt i l l a and i s s uch r el evant evi dence as a r eas onabl e mi nd m i ghtacc eptas adequa t e t o s uppor ta conc l us i on. ” Id. W e d o n o t re w e ig h th e e v id e n c e o r re tryth e c a se , b u t w e “ m e ticu lo u sly exami ne the r ecor d as a w hol e, i ncl udi ng anythi ng thatm ayunder cutordetr act fr om the A L J ’ s fi ndi ngs i n or dert o det erm i ne i f the s ubs t ant i al i tyt es thas been m et . ” Id. at1262. I n thi s cont ext , “di s abi l i ty ” r equi r es both an “i nabi l i tyt o engage i n any s ubs t ant i al gai nful act i vi ty ” and “ a phy s i cal orm ent al i m pai r m ent , w hi ch pr ovi des r eas on forthe i nabi l i ty . ” B ar nhar tv. Wal t on , 535 U . S. 212, 217 ( 2002) (in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d ). T h e im p a irm e n t m u st b e a “ ‘m e d ica lly d e ter m in a b le p h y sic a l o r m e n tal im p a irm e n t w h ich c a n b e e x p e c ted to re su lt i n death orw hi ch has l as t ed orcan be expec t ed t o l as tfora cont i nuous per i od of not l es s than 12 mont hs . . . . ’ ” F ischer- R oss , 4 3 1 F . 3 d a t7 3 1 ( q u o t i n g 4 2 U. S . C. § 4 2 3 (d )( 1 )( A )) . O n a p p e a l, M r. L y les a ss e rts th a t th e A L J e rre d b yfa ili n g to re c o g n ize h is severe m ental i m pairm ents and fai l ed to dev el op the record on this po i nt. H e al so c o n t e n d s th a tt h e ALJ fa i l e d t o i n c l u d e a l l o f h i s p h y s i c a l l i mi t a t i o n s i n h i s RF C, beca us e the R FC as s es s m entdi d notpr oper l ycons i derhi s l eftel bow condi t i on or hi s l i m i t ed abi l i tyt o s t and orw al k.-4- Me n ta l Imp a irm e n ts A ccor di ng t o M r . L y l es , the A L J err ed i n fi ndi ng ats t ep tw o thathe di d not have a s ever e ment al i m pai r m ent . H e mai nt ai ns thatthe evi dence of hi s m ent al im p a ir m e n t w a s s u ffic ie n t to s a tis f yth e s te p -t w o “ d e m in im is ” s h o w in g , s ee G r ogan , 3 9 9 F .3 d a t 1 2 6 3 , a n d to tr ig g e r t h e A L J ’s d u ty to d e v e lo p th e re c o rd . T he A L J has a duty“t o ens ur e thatan ade quat e r ecor d i s devel oped dur i ng the di s abi l i tyhear i ng cons i s t entw i th the i s s ues r ai s ed” i n the nonadve r s ar i al s e ttin g o f

a d is a b ility h e a ri n g . Haw ki ns v. C hat er , 1 1 3 F . 3 d 1 1 6 2 , 1 1 6 4 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) (q u o tatio n o m itt e d ). E v e n so , the b u rd e n is o n th e c laim a n t to p ro v e h is d is a b ility. Id. “O r di nar i l y , t he cl ai m antm us ti n s om e fa s hi on r ai s e the i s s ue s oughtt o be deve l oped w hi ch, on i t s fac e, m us tbe s ubs t ant i al . Speci fi cal l y , the c laim a n t h a s th e b u rd e n to m a k e su re th e re is, in th e re c o rd , ev id e n c e su fficie n t to s ugges ta r eas onabl e pos s i bi l i tythata s ever e i m pai r m entexi s t s . ” Id. at1167 ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . I f he doe s s o, then the A L J ’ s dutyt o or dera cons ul t at i ve e x a m in a tio n a ri s e s . Id. “Iso lat ed an d u n su p p o rt ed co m m en ts bythe c lai m an t are i ns uffi ci ent , bythemsel ves , t o r ai s e the s us pi ci on of the exi s t ence of a nonexert i onal i m pai r m ent . ” Id. A t th e b eg inn ing o f th e h ea ri n g , M r. L y les’ att o rne yreq u ested m o re ps y chol ogi cal t es t i ng forM r . L y l es . T he A L J deci ded t o go ahea d w i th the t es t i m onybeca us e i tw oul d hel p hi m deci de w hetherfur thert es t i ng w as i ndi cat ed and, i f s o, w hatki nd of t es t i ng w as r equi r ed. D ur i ng the hea r i ng, the A L J i nvi t edM r. L y les a ss e rts th a t D r. V a u g h t’s o p in io n is n o t co m p lete a n d th e re fo re is 1 n o t p e rsu a siv e . B e c a u se h e d o e s n o t ex p lain w h y , w e d e c lin e to c o n sid e r th is a rg u m e n t. See Eat er i es , Inc. v. J. R . Si mpl otC o. , 3 4 6 F . 3 d 1 2 2 5 , 1 2 3 2 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) (h o ld in g u n su p p o rte d a p p e llate a rg u m e n t in su fficie n t to in v o k e a p p e llate re v ie w ). -5- M r . L y l es and hi s couns el t o obt ai n and s ubm i taddi t i onal ps y chol ogi cal document at i on. T he A L J t hen or der ed thatthe r ecor d be hel d open t o perm i tthe recei pt of these records, and M r. L y l es l at er pr ov i ded them . N evertheles s, M r . L y l es ar gues thatthe A L J s houl d have or der ed furtherps y chol ogi cal t es t i ng. T h e r e c o r d e v i d e n c e o f M r . L y l e s ’ me n t a l i mp a i r me n tc o n s i s t s o f ( 1 ) two b r i e f me n t i o n s o f

d e p r e s s i o n i n Oc t o b e r1 9 9 8 a n d No v e mb e r2 0 0 0 , wh i c h we concl ude ar e t oo r emot e i n t i m e and t oo br i ef t o w arr antcons i der at i on, ( 2) a ment al s t atus exam per form ed byL arryV aught , Ph. D . , on M ay24, 2001, (3 ) a p s y c h ia tr ic re v ie w te c h n iq u e (P R T ) fo rm p re p a re d b yJ a n ic e S m ith , P h .D ., on J une 15, 2001, and ( 4) a ment al R FC form pr epar ed byR . C offe y , a l i cens ed c o u n s e lo r, o n F e b ru a ry 6 , 2 0 0 3 . D r . V aughtdi agnos ed M r . L y l es w i th “D epr es s i ve D i s or der , N O S, ” and

“ S o c ial A n x iety(p ro v isio n a l).” R . at 2 8 5 . H e fo u n d th a t M r. L y les h a d m ild d ifficu ltyin su stai n ed co n ce n tr ati o n an d p ersist en ce , an d p o o r ab il ityto p erfo rm cal cul at i ons . H e not ed thatM r . L y l es r eport ed thathi s s oci al anxi etydi d not pr eventhi m fr om w or ki ng. H e conc l uded thatM r . L y l es ’ funct i oni ng w as nor m al i n the ar eas of s hor t - t erm m emory , abs tr act i on, and j udgm entforhypothet i cal si tuati on s. 1-6-

D r . Sm i th l i kew i s e opi ned thatM r . L y l es s uffe r ed fr om “D epr es s i ve D i s or derN O S, ” i d. at290, and “Soci al A nxi ety( Pr ovi s i onal ) , ” i d. at292. She fo u n d n o m o re th a n “ m ild ” f u n c tio n a l lim ita tio n s , i d. at297, and conc l uded that M r . L y l es ’ m ent al i m pai r m entw as “nons ever e, ” i d. at301. W e n e x t c o n s id e r t h e m e n ta l R F C a s s e s s m e n t p re p a re d b yM r. C o ffe y . A lth o u g h h e sta ted th a t M r. L y les h a d m ild , m o d e ra te, o r m a rk e d lim itatio n s in a ll ar eas of func t i oni ng, t he A L J pr oper l ydi s count ed ordi s r egar ded thi s opi ni on for tw o r eas ons : fi r s t , M r . C offe y ’ s opi ni ons w er e notacc om pani ed bya r at i onal e or di agnos i s , and s econd, he w as notan “a cce pt abl e medi cal s our ce, ” s ee 2 0 C. F . R. §§ 404. 1513( a) ; 416. 913( a) ( l i s t i ng types of m edi cal s our ces w ho can pr ovi de ev iden ce o f m ed icall yd eterm inab le i m p airm en ts) . In a d d it ion , M r. C o ffey ’s opi ni on di ffe r ed fr om t hos e of D r s . V aughtand Sm i th. M r . L y l es t es t i fi ed abouthi s m ent al i m pai r m ent . H e s t at ed thathe t ook m edi cat i on thati m pr oved hi s m ood s w i ngs , al though he cont i nued t o have ni ght m ar es everytw o ort hr ee mont hs . I n addi t i on, he bec ame ner vous i n cr ow ds a n d a ro u n d s tr a n g e rs . E v e n s o , h e w a s a b le to g o s h o p p in g a n d a tte n d c h u rc h . W e con cl ud e t hat the A L J’ s det erm i nati on atst ep tw o thatM r. L y l es’ m ent al i m pai r m entw as nots ever e i s s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence i n the r ecor d as a w hol e. N ei therof the “a cce pt abl e medi cal s our ces , ” D r s . V aughtand Smi th , i n d i c a t e d th a tM r . Ly l e s h a d a s e v e r e me n t a l i mpa i r me n t , a n d th e ALJ p ro p e rl yd is c o u n te d M r. C o ffe y ’s o p in io n . C f. B ranu m v. B arnh art , 385 F. 3d-7-

1268, 1272 ( 10th C i r . 2004) ( not i ng cons ul t at i ve ps y chol ogi cal exam r equi r ed w h e re o n ly o th e r r e c o rd s d id n o t c o m e f ro m a n a c c e p ta b le m e d ic a l s o u rc e ). W e al s o det erm i ne thatt he evi dence of M r . L y l es ’ m ent al i m pai r m entw as in su fficie n t to trig g e r th e A L J’s d u tyto d e v e lo p th e re c o rd f u rth e r th a n h e d id w hen he r ece i ved the addi t i onal ps y chol ogi cal evi dence fol l ow i ng the hea r i ng, beca us e the evi dence befor e the A L J di d not“s ugges ta r eas onabl e pos s i bi l i tyt hat a s ever e i m pai r m entexi s t [ed] . ” Haw ki ns , 1 1 3 F .3 d a t 1 1 6 7 (c ita tio n s o m itte d ). Phy s i c a lRFC M r. L y les n e x t ar g u e s th a t th e A L J e rre d b yn o t in c lu d in g a ll o f h is phy s i cal l i m i t at i ons i n hi s R FC det erm i nat i on. Speci fi cal l y , he mai nt ai ns thatt he A LJ fa i l e d t o c on s i de rthe l i mi t a t i on s i mpos e d b yhi s l e fte l bo w , a nd tha tthe RFC forl i ghtw or k r equi r i ng an abi l i tyt o s t and orw al k fors i x hour s i n an ei ght - hour daydi s r egar ded hi s t r eat i ng phy s i ci an’ s opi ni on thathe coul d not“be on hi s fee t a ll th e tim e .” R . a t 2 4 5 . T he r ecor d es t abl i s hes , as the A L J r ecogni zed, thatM r . L y l es s us t ai ned a l i gament ous i nj uryt o hi s l eftel bow i n the 1998 ca racc i dent . T hi s i nj urycaus ed degene r at i ve cha nges w i th s t i ffne s s and l i m i t at i on of m ot i on, as di agnos ed by D rs. A llard , T a y lo r, an d E lli o tt. B u t n o m e d ica l ex p e rt in d ica ted th a t th is condi t i on w as di s abl i ng. T o pr ove di s abi l i ty , a cl ai m ant“mustfurni s h m edi cal and otherevi dence of the exi s t ence of [a ] di s abi l i ty . ” B r anum , 385 F. 3d at1271;-8-

s ee als o Kel l ey v . C hat er , 62 F. 3d 335, 338 ( 10th C i r . 1995) ( r evi ew i ng m edi cal ev iden ce , n o ti n g that n o p h y sici an h ad stat ed claim an t w as d isab led). M or eover , al though M r . L y l es t es t i fi ed thathi s l eftel bow condi t i on pr e ve nt e d h i m fr om l i ft i ng a fi fty - po un d b a g o f c a t t l e fe e d, the A LJ ’ s RFC as s es s m entr equi r ed hi m t o l i ftand ca rryup t o tw entypounds occa s i onal l y , and ten p o u n d s f

re q u e n tly . F u rth e r, M r. L y les tes tifie d th a t h e c o u ld lift tw e n ty pounds forone- thi r d of a w or k dayand thathe coul d l i ftthe fi fty - pound bag of catt l e fe ed w i th hi s r i ghtarm . A ccor di ngl y , w e conc l ude thatal though M r . L y l es had dege ner at i ve cha nges i n hi s l eftel bow thatcaus ed s t i ffne s s and l i m i t ed the r ange of

m ot i on, he fa i l ed t o m eethi s bur den t o s how thatthi s condi t i on w as di s abl i ng. Fi nal l y , w e addr es s M r . L y l es ’ chal l enge t o the A L J ’ s det erm i nat i on thathe cou l d “si t , st and or w al k u p to 6 ho urs i n an 8 h ou r w ork day . ” R . at23 . W e fi rs t r ej ectM r . L y l es ’ i nt erpr et at i on thatthe A L J l efttw o hour s of the w or k day unacc ount ed for . R ather , w e conc l ude thatthe A L J det erm i ned thatM r . L y l es c o u l d s t a n d o rwa l k fo rs i x h o u r s , wi th n o r ma l b r e a k s ; th e r e ma i n i n g wo r k t i me w oul d be s pents i t t i ng. T hi s i s t he s chedul e i ndi cat ed byD r . R ut t er ’ s phy s i cal R FC as s es s m ent , w hi ch the A L J gave “ gr eatw ei ght ” bec aus e i tw as cons i s t ent w ith th e m e d ic a l e v id e n c e o f re c o rd . Id. a t 1 8 . M r . L y l es ar gues thatthe A L J di s r egar ded the opi ni on of hi s tr eat i ng phy s i ci an, D r . A l l ar d. I n hi s r eportof A pr i l 1999, D r . A l l ar d s t at ed,-9-

it w o u ld b e a g re a t id e a fo r [ M r. L y les ] to b e a b le to g o b a c k to s chool and l earn a tr ade thatw oul d notr equi r e hi m t o be on hi s fee t a ll th e tim e . H e h a s n o p a rticu lar re stric tio n s . . . b u t I th in k it w o u ld be im po ssi ble for hi m t o b e on his feet8 h ou rs a day , 40 ho urs a w eek, doi ng anytype of manual l aborforanyl ength of t i m e. R . at245. C ontr aryt o M r . L y l es ’ as s er t i on, the A L J cons i der ed D r . A l l ar d’ s l at er o p in io n , m a d e in O c to b e r 1 9 9 9 , th a t M r. L y le s h a d n o p a rt ic u la r r e s tr ic tio n s . Id. a t16 . Tha top i ni on c on c ur s w i th Dr . Rut t e r ’ s Fe brua ry20 03 ph y s i c a l RFC a s s e s s mentw hi c h, i n turn, i s c on s i s t e ntw i th Dr . Fe i ge l ’ s J un e 20 01 ph y s i c a l RFC as s es s m ent . M or eover , the A L J “i s notr equi r ed t o di s cus s everypi ece of evi dence i n the r ecor d” as l ong as he “di s cus s [es ] the uncontr overt ed evi dence he choos es nott o r el yon, as w el l as s i gni fi cant l ypr obat i ve evi dence he r ej ect s . ’ ” Threetv. B arnh art , 353 F. 3d 1185, 1190 ( 10th C i r . 2003) ( quot i ng C l i f t on v. C hat er , 7 9 F . 3 d 1 0 0 7 , 1 0 1 0 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 )). W e c o n clud e tha t th e A L J’s deci s i on compl i es w i th thi s rul e. T h e j u d g me n to f

t h e d i s tr i c tc o u r ti s AF F I RMED . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

B obbyR . B al dock C i r cui tJ udge