Pur s uantt o Fed. R . A pp. P. 43( c) ( 2) , M i chae l J . A s true i s s ubs t i tut ed for * J o A nne B . B arnhartas t he appe l l ee i n thi s act i on. A ft erexami ni ng t he 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 antt he 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 t houtor al ar gum ent . T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he 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 . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t ent w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 2 .1 . 

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

### A p ril9,2007 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 A LFR ED L. BR I G G S,

P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. M I CH AEL J . ASTRU E, * C o m m iss io n e r o f

th e S o c ial S e c u rity A dm i ni s t r at i on,

D efe ndant - A ppel l ee. N o. 06- 5141 ( D . C . N o . 0 5 - C V - 2 3 7 - F H M) (N .D . O k la .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T ** B efor e LU CE RO , M c KAY , and GORS UCH , C i rcui tJudg es. A lfred L . B ri g g s ap p ea ls from the o rde r en tered b ythe d istri ct co u rt deny i ng hi s appl i cat i ons fordi s abi l i tyi ns ur ance benef i t s and s uppl ement al s ecur i t yi ncome benefi t s undert he Soci al Secur i tyA ct . E xer ci s i ng j ur i s di ct i on u n d e r4 2 U. S . C. § 4 0 5 ( g ) a n d 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 , we a ffi r m.- 2- I. In h is a p p lica tio n s fo r b e n e fits, p lain tiff a lleg e d th a t h e b e c a m e d isa b led in A pr i l 2003 as a r es ul tof an a bdom i nal w al l herni a and ba ck pr obl ems. A ft er conduct i ng a hea r i ng and r ece i vi ng or al t es t i m onyfr om pl ai nt i ff a nd a voca t i onal expert , t he admi ni s t r at i ve l aw j udge ( A L J ) w entt hr ough the fi ve- parts equent i al eval uat i on pr oces s fordet erm i ni ng di s abi l i tyand deni ed pl ai nt i ff’ s appl i cat i ons fo rb e n e fi t s . Sp e c i fi c a l l y , i n h i s wr i t t e n d e c i s i o n d a t e d Oct o b e r2 1 , 2 0 0 4 , t h e ALJ found that : ( 1) pl ai nt i ff’ s ventr al herni a i s a s ever e i m pai r m entats t ep tw o; ( 2) for purpos es of s t ep thr ee, pl ai nt i ff’ s herni a i m pai r m entdoes notm eetorequal t he cr i t er i a of a nyof the i m pai r m ent s l i s t ed i n 20 C . F. R . Pt . 404, Subpt . P, A pp. 1; (3 ) p lain tiff ’s “ a lleg a tio n s re g a rd in g h is lim itatio n s a re n o t to tallyc re d ib le,” A p lt. A pp. , V ol . 2 at21; ( 4) forpurpos es of s t ep four , pl ai nt i ff r et ai ns t he r es i dual fun ct i on al capac i t yt o p erform t he p hy si cal exert i on requi rem ents of h i s past r el evantw or k as a mai l r oom cl erk and fa s tfood w or ker ; and ( 5) i n the al t ernat i ve, forpurpos es of s t ep fi ve, pl ai nt i ff r et ai ns t he r es i dual funct i onal capa ci t yt o per form t he phy s i cal exert i on r equi r ement s of otherl i ghtand s edent aryj obs t hatexi s ti n s i gni fi cantnum ber s i n the r egi onal and nat i onal e c o n o m ie s . I n M ar ch 2005, t he A ppeal s C ounci l deni ed pl ai nt i ff’ s r eques tforr evi ew of th e A L J’s d e c isio n . P lain tiff th e n filed a c o m p lain t in th e d istric t co u rt. In Ju ly 2006, t he magi s t r at e j udge, s i t t i ng bycons entof the part i es and bydes i gnat i on of- 3-

t he di s t r i ctcour tpur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 636( c) ( 1) , ent er ed an or derand a r el at ed ju d g m e n t affirm in g th e d e n ial o f p lain tiff ’s a p p lica tio n s fo r so c ial s e c u rity benef i t s . T hi s appea l fol l ow ed. B eca us e the A ppeal s C ounci l deni ed r evi ew , the A L J ’ s deci s i on i s the C o m m is s io n e r’ s fin a l d e c is io n fo r p u rp o s e s o f th is a p p e a l. See D oyalv. B arnh art , 331 F. 3d 758, 759 ( 10th C i r . 2003) . I n r evi ew i ng the A L J ’ s deci s i on, “w e nei t herr ew ei gh t he evi dence nors ubs t i tut e ourj udgm entforthatof the agenc y . ” C asi as v. Sec’y of Health & Hum an Servs. , 9 3 3 F . 2 d 7 9 9 , 8 0 0 (10 th C ir . 1991) . I ns t ead, w e r evi ew t he A L J ’ s deci s i on onl y“t o det erm i ne w hetherthe fac tual fi ndi ngs ar e s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence i n the r ecor d and w hether t he corr ectl egal s t andar ds w er e appl i ed. ” D oyal , 3 3 1 F .3 d a t 7 6 0 . II. Pl ai nt i ff a r gues t he A L J comm i t t ed r ever s i bl e err orby : ( 1) fai l i ng t o m ake a prope r det erm i nati on atst eps t w o an d thr ee of t he sequ enti al evaluat i on process; (2 ) fa ili n g to f

u llya n d fa irlyd e v e lo p th e a d m in istra tiv e re c o rd ; an d (3 ) fa ili n g to m a k e a p ro p e r c re d ib ili tyd e ter m in a tio n . W e c o n c lu d e th a t p lain tiff ’s a rg u m e n ts a re w ith o u t m e rit. A . St eps T w o and T hree. I n J anuary2000, pl ai nt i ff w as di agnos ed as s uffe r i ng fr om “[m]a r ked re stric tio n o f

m o tio n th ro u g h o u t th e v e rte b ra l sy ste m se c o n d a ryto m o rb id o b e sity and os t eoart hr i t i s . ” A pl t . A pp. , V ol . 2 at136. Pl ai nt i ff w as al s o di agnos ed as- 4-

s u ffe ri n g f

ro m m o rb id o b e s ity in A p ri l a n d M a y2 0 0 3 . Id. at 17 1 , 1 8 8 . In a d d iti o n , in S e p tem b e r 2 0 0 3 , an x -ra yo f p lain tiff ’s a b d o m e n sh o w e d p o ss ib le “s cl er os i s of the l efts acr oi l i ac j oi ntw i th i ncr eas ed dens i tyof the l eftfemora l head, ” i d. a t 2 4 6 , an d p lain tiff c laim s th a t th is “ x -ra ye v id e n c e [ is] c o m p a tib le w i t h ar t hr i t i c cha nges , ” A pl t . O peni ng B r . at8. Pl ai nt i ff a r gues the A L J err ed at ste p tw o b e c a u se h e fa iled to a d d re ss w h e th e r p lain tiff ’s o ste o a rth ritis a n d o b e sity q u a lif ya s s e v e re im p a ir m e n ts . See 20 C . F. R . §§ 404. 1521( a) and 416. 921( a) (p ro v id in g th a t an im p a irm e n t is se v e re fo r p u rp o se s o f ste p tw o if

it sig n ifica n tly lim its th e c la im a n t’ s “ p h y s ic a l o r m e n ta l a b ility to d o b a s ic w o rk a c tiv itie s ” ). W e ar e cons t r ai ned t o di s agr ee. Fi r s t , as t he magi s t r at e j udge not ed i n hi s thor ough and w el l - r eas oned or der , pl ai nt i ff “ r el i es upon a not at i on byW al t erL . W i l s on, D . O . , as s uppor tfor h is a lle g a tio n th a t h e h a s a s e v e re im p a ir m e n t o f o s te o a rt h ri tis .” A p lt. A p p ., V ol . 1 at22. H ow ever , “thi s i s t he onl ym ent i on of s uch a c ondi t i on i n the m edi cal r ecor ds , ” i d. , and “ther e i s no s ugges t i on [anyw her e i n pl ai nt i ff’ s m edi cal r ecor ds ] t hatanyfunct i onal l i m i t at i ons w er e found orr es tr i ct i ons on act i vi t i es w er e i m pos ed due t o os t eoart hr i t i s byPl ai nt i ff’ s heal th car e pr ovi der s , ” i d. a t 2 2 -2 3 . Second, t he magi s t r at e j udge corr ect l ynot ed that“[t ] he r ecor d does not cont ai n a di agnos i s of dege ner at i ve j oi ntdi s eas e oreven a nytr eatm entfors uch a condi t i on. ” Id. at22. A s expl ai ned bythe magi s tr at e j udge:W e n o te th a t th e m e d ica l re c o rd s th a t p lain tiff su b m itt e d to th e A p p e a ls 1 C ounci l s how t hathe had s ur geryt o r epai rhi s ventr al herni a i n D ece m ber2004. See A pl t . A pp. , V ol . 2 at337- 53.

- 5- A r adi ol ogi s t ’ s r epor tof “I ncr eas ed dens i tyi n the l efts acr oi l i ac j oi nt a n d lef t fe m o ra l h e a d w h ich m a yb e d u e to tec h n iq u e se c o n d a ryto t he pat i ent ’ s l ar ge bodyhabi tus ver s us degene r at i ve cha nge ver s us o ther” d o es n o t sup p o rtP lai n ti ff ’s all eg ati o n that this i s a se v ere i m pai r m ent . [R . 246] . St andi ng al one, thi s obs ervat i on bythe ra d io lo g ist, w h o w a s re v iew in g P lain tiff ’s x -ra y s in re latio n to h is compl ai nt s of abdomi nal pai n, does notcons t i tut e s ubs t ant i al evi dence of dege ner at i ve j oi ntdi s eas e as a s ever e i m pai r m entats t ep t w o. Id. T hi r d, w e agr ee w i t h t he magi s tr at e j udge thatthe A L J di d noterrats t ep t wo b yfa i l i n g t o c o n s i d e rwh e t h e rp l a i n t i ff ’ s o b e s i tyi s a s e v e r e i mp a i r me n t . As t he magi s t r at e j udge not ed:

Pl ai nt i ff di d notaddr es s hi s obes i tyei theri n hi s appl i cat i on forbenef

i t s oratt he hea r i ng befor e the A L J , buthe now cont ends t hatt he A L J fai l ed t o cons i derthe l i m i t at i ons of Pl ai nt i ff’ s obes i tyas r equi r ed byS. S. R . [02- 1P] ( r equi r i ng A L J t o cons i derobes i tyat var i ous poi nt s of the fi ve- s t ep ana l y s i s ) . Pl ai nt i ff’ s phy s i ci ans not ed the c o n d it ion in se v era l m ed ical rep o rt s. [R . 1 3 5 , 1 3 6 , 1 6 9 ]. In par t i cul ar , D r . W hi t w or t h, r efus ed t o per form el ect i ve s ur geryon Pl ai nt i ff’ s herni a on A pr i l 30, 2003, beca us e of “ a veryhi gh chanc e o f s i g n i fi c a n tc o mp l i c a t i o n s a n d e v e n d e a th ” d u e t o th e “ e x tr e me w e ig h t in th is re g io n .” [ R . 1 7 0 ]. T h e A L J a c k n o w led g e d th is 1 evi dence . [R . 18] . H ow ever , none of Pl ai nt i ff’ s phy s i ci ans i ndi cat ed t hatobes i t yw as a fa ct ori n r egar d t o exert i onal , pos tur al and s oci al f u n c tio n s. N o r d id P lain tiff tes tifyth a t h is w e ig h t co n trib u ted to h is i nabi l i t yt o engage i n act i vi t i es i n anyw ay . B eca us e ther e i s no e v id e n c e re g a rd in g o b e sityin th e re c o rd th a t th e A L J fa iled to co n side r or tha t th e A L J im p rop erlyco n side red , P lai n ti ff ’s c o n ten tio n o f

e rro r o n th e p a rt o f

th e A L J fo r fa ili n g to sp e c ifica lly id e n tifyo b e sitya s a se v e re im p a irm e n t at s tep tw o is w ith o u t m e rit.- 6-

Id. a t 2 3 (fo o tn o te a d d e d a n d fo o tn o te o m itt e d ); see also Soc . Se c . Rul i ng 02 - 1P, 2 0 0 0 W L 6 2 8 0 4 9 , a t * 4 (“ N e ith e r d o d e s c ri p tiv e te rm s fo r l e v e ls o f o b e s ity (e .g ., ‘se v e re ,’ ‘e x tre m e ,’ o r ‘m o rb id ’ o b e sity ) e sta b lish w h e th e r o b e sityis o r is n o t a

‘ s ever e’ i m pai r m entfordi s abi l i t ypr ogr am purpos es . R ather , w e w i l l do an i ndi vi dual i zed a s s es s m entof the i m pactof obes i tyon an i ndi vi dual ’ s funct i oni ng w h en d ec iding w h ethe r th e im p airm en t i s sev ere . ”). Fi nal l y , pl ai nt i ff a r gues t hatthe A L J err ed byfai l i ng t o cons i derats t ep t hr ee w hetherthe combi ned effec t s of hi s os t eoarthr i t i s and obes i tym eetorequal a lis te d im p a ir m e n t u n d e r t h e lis tin g s fo r m u s c u lo s k e le ta l a n d re s p ir a to ry sys te m s . A s t he magi s t r at e j udge poi nt ed out , how ever , “[b] eca us e the C our t[found] no err oron t he partof the A L J i n hi s s t ep tw o fi ndi ngs , Pl ai nt i ff’ s i nci dent al ar gum entw i t h r egar d t o t he A L J ’ s s t ep thr ee f i ndi ngs [i s ] l i kew i s e w i thout m er i t . ” A pl t . A pp. , V ol . 1 at24. B. D e ve l opment of

t he R e c or d. Pl ai nt i ff’ s couns el r eques t ed thatt he A L J “ai d i n the deve l opm entof the re c o rd b yo b tain in g a n e x a m in a tio n b ya c o n su ltativ e e x a m in e r (C E ).” A p lt. O p en ing B r. at 29 (cit ing A p lt . A p p . , V o l. 2 at 39 5 ). S p ec ifi ca ll y , the re co rd s how s t hatpl ai nt i ff’ s couns el “r eques t ed a CE t o eval uat e C l ai m ant ’ s knee pa i n, i ncl udi ng x- r ay s of the knee s , and eva l uat e hi s hand s ym pt om s forcarpal tunnel s yndr om e, i ncl udi ng el ectr odi agnos t i c t es t i ng of the upperextr emi t i es . ” Id. at30 ( ci t i ng A pl t . A pp. , V ol . 2 at395) . Pl ai nt i ff a r gues t hata cons ul t at i ve exa m i nat i on- 7-

w as nece s s aryt o “r es ol ve the conf l i ctorambi gui tyr egar di ng C l ai m ant ’ s hand l i m i t at i ons due t o al l eged c arpal tunnel s yndr om e, and the pr es ence orabs ence of os t eoart hr i t i c cha nges i n t he knee s , ” i d. , and he c l ai m s thatthe A L J comm i t t ed r ever s i bl e err orbyfai l i ng t o or derthe r eques t ed cons ul t at i ve exa m i nat i on. T he magi s t r at e j udge ac cur at el ys um m ar i zed the A L J ’ s dutyt o devel op t he adm i nis t rat i ve record as foll ow s:

A n A L J has t he r es pons i bi l i ty“i n everycas e ‘ t o ens ur e thatan adequa t e r ecor d i s devel oped dur i ng the di s abi l i tyhear i ng cons i s t ent w i t h t he i s s ues r ai s ed. ’ ” [ Haw ki ns v. C hat er , 113 F. 3d 1162, 1164 ( 10t h C i r . 1997) ] ( quot i ng Henr i e v. Uni t ed Stat es D ep’ tof Heal th & Hum an Servs. , 1 3 F .3 d 3 5 9 , 3 6 0 -6 1 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 3 )) . . . . T h is resp o n sibil ityto d ev elop the re co rd m ayreq u ir e the A L J to o rde r a c o n s u lta tiv e e x a m in a tio n . See Haw ki ns , 113 F. 3d at1166. T he C om m i s s i oneri s gi ven br oad l at i tude, how ever , i n m aki ng a dec i s i on to o rd e r s u c h a n e x a m in a tio n . D i azv. Sec’ y of Heal th & Hum an Servs. , 8 9 8 F . 2 d 7 7 4 , 7 7 8 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 0 ). M o reo v er, th e A L J’s dut yi s t r i gger ed onl yaft erthe cl ai m anthas s at i s fi ed hi s orher b u rd e n to p ro v id e o bjec tiv e e v id e n c e “ su fficie n t to su g g e st a r eas onabl e pos s i bi l i t yt hata s ever e i m pai r m entexi s t s . ” Haw ki ns , 113 F. 3d at1167. A pl t . A pp. , V ol . 1 at24- 25. W e agr ee w i t h t he magi s t r at e j udge thatpl ai nt i ff fai l ed t o m ake a s uffi ci ent sh o w in g to re q u ire th e A L J to o rd e r a c o n su ltativ e e x a m in a tio n . T h e re is s im p ly no m edi cal evi dence i n t he r ecor d i ndi cat i ng thatpl ai nt i ff s uffe r s fr om hand or k n e e im p a irm e n ts, a n d p lain tiff h a s n o t ar g u e d th a t an yo f h is o th e r im p a irm e n ts req u ir ed a c o n su lt ati v e e x am ination . A cc o rdin g ly , w e c an n o t acc ep t plainti ff ’s- 8-

as s er t i on t hat“[t ] her e w as a cl earneed fora cons ul t at i ve exa m i nat i on and te s tin g .” A p lt. O p e n in g B r. a t 3 1 . C. Cre di bi l i t y. T he A L J found thatpl ai nt i ff’ s “al l egat i ons r egar di ng hi s l i m i t at i ons ar e not totall ycre d ible. ” A p lt . A p p . , V o l. 2 at 21 . P lai n ti ff arg u es th at th e A L J’s adver s e cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i on i s nots uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence i n the r ecor d. H e s peci fi cal l ychal l enges t he A L J ’ s fi ndi ngs and/ orl ack of fi ndi ngs re g a rd in g h is a b d o m in a l an d sh o u ld e r p a in , h is d a ilya c tiv iti e s, h is o b e sity , h is al l eged fai l ur e t o m ake a n effor tt o i m pr ove hi s heal th byl os i ng w ei ghtand q u itti n g sm o k ing , an d h is ab il ityto sitan d stan d . “C red ibil ityd eterm ination s are pecul i ar l yt he pr ovi nce of t he fi nderof fa ct , and w e w i l l notups ets uch det erm i nat i ons w hen s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . ” D i az , 898 F. 2d at777; see also White v. B arnh art , 287 F. 3d 903, 910 ( 10th C i r . 2001) ( s t at i ng that

“ A L J ’s c re d ib ility fin d in g s w a rr a n t p a rt ic u la r d e fe re n c e ” ). W e conc l ude thatt he A L J ’ s adver s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on i s s uppor t ed b ysu b sta n tial e v id e n c e in th e re c o rd , an d w e se e n o m e rit in th e a rg u m e n ts a d v a n c e d b yp lain tiff

in th is a p p e a l. In p a rticu lar , w h ile p lain tiff h a s c o rre c tly not ed thathe w as neverpr es cr i bed a di etorothert r eatm entforhi s obes i ty , t he A L J d id n o t er r in re ly in g o n th e m e d ica l re c o rd s o f D r. W h itw o rth a s p a rt o f h is cr edi bi l i t yeval uat i on. A s poi nt ed outbyt he magi s tr at e j udge, t hos e r ecor ds i ndi cat e that“D r . W hi t w or t h r epor t ed thatw hen he r ecomm ended Pl ai nt i ff ‘ s ee- 9-

t he cl i ni c on Sout h H arvar d’ t o i ni t i at e tr eatm entforhi s w ei ghtand s m oki ng, P la in tiff b e c a m e b e llig e re n t a n d w a s n o t m o tiv a te d to d o s o .” A p lt. A p p ., V o l. 1 at 26 (qu o ti n g D r. W h itw o rth ’s m ed ical reco rd d ated A p ri l 30 , 2 0 0 3 ). M o reo v er, pl ai nt i ff’ s fai l ur e t o fol l ow D r . W hi tw or th’ s advi ce w as notthe onl yfac t orthe A L J r el i ed on t o s uppor thi s adver s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on. A s not ed bythe m ag istrate jud g e, th e A L J also “c it ed ev iden ce in the rec o rd th at P lai n ti ff ’s t r eat i ng doct or s r el eas ed hi m t o r eturn t o w or k w i th the l i m i t at i on of no l i ft i ng, pus hi ng orpul l i ng of m or e than 20 pounds . H e al s o ci t ed Pl ai nt i ff’ s t es t i m ony t hathe ca n cont i nue s i t t i ng and s t andi ng i f he i s al l ow ed t o change pos i t i on. ” Id. W e al s o r ej ectpl ai nt i ff’ s ar gum entthatthe A L J fai l ed t o pr oper l ycons i derthe m edi cal evi dence per t ai ni ng t o hi s herni a. A s expl ai ned bythe magi s tr at e j udge,

“ [ t]h e A L J fo u n d P lain tiff ’s h e rn ia to b e a se v e re im p a irm e n t an d a ss e ss e d h is [r es i dual funct i onal capa ci t y ] acc or di ngl y . ” Id. T h e j u d g me n to f

t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r ti s AF F I RMED . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt N ei l M . G or s uch C i r cui tJ udge