2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 4-16-2009 

# Ro de rick v . C omm S o c i al S ecurity P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-2667

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Rode rick v

. C omm S oc i al S e c urity " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1537. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1537T he H onor abl e M aur i ce B. C ohi l l , J r . , Seni orU ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctJ udge fort he * W es t ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_______________ N o. 07- 2667

_______________ CHRI S TY A. RODERI CK

v. CO M M I SS I ON ER O F S OC I AL SECU RI TY *C ar ol R oder i ck o/b/ o C hr i s tyR oder i ck,

A ppel l ant * (P u rs u a n t to R u le 1 2 (a ), F .R .A .P .)

_______________ O n A p p e a l F ro m th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt

forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey ( C i vi l N o. 06- cv- 0517) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Pet erG . Sher i dan S u b m itted U n d er T h ir d C ir cu itL A R 3 4 . 1 (a)

N ovember19, 2008 B efor e: B A R R Y , C H A G A R E S, C i r cui tJ udges , and C O H I L L , D i s tr i ctJ udge. * ( Fi l ed: A pr i l 16, 2009)

__________________R o d erick p asse d aw ayo n Jan u ary1 4 , 2 0 0 7 . (A p p . 2 9 . ) 1 2 OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

__________________ C O H I L L , Seni orD i s tr i ctJ udge. C hr i s tyR oder i ck appe al s fr om a D i s tr i ctC our tor deraff i r m i ng the C om m i s s i oner of Soci al Secur i ty ’ s deni al of C hi l d’ s I ns ur ance B enef i t s underthe Soci al Secur i tyA ct ( “SSA ”) , forthe per i od begi nni ng on A pr i l 1, 1998 and cont i nui ng thr ough J anuary3, 1999. R oder i ck ar gues thatthe dec i s i on of the A dm i ni s tr at i ve Law J udge ( “A L J ”) i s not

1 su p p o rt ed b ysu b stan ti al ev iden ce . W e d isag ree an d w il l aff irm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ju d g m e n t. I. B e c a u se w e w rite s o lelyf o r th e b e n e f

it o f th e p a rties , w e w ill o n lyb rie f ly sum m ari ze t he essenti al fact s. R oder i ck fi l ed fors oci al s ecur i tybenef i t s due t o obes i ty , depr es s i on, s ever e s i nus pr obl ems, knee pr obl ems, ci r cul at i on pr obl ems, and r i ghthand numbness . She s ought C h il d ’s Insu ran ce B en ef it s fro m A p ri l 1, 19 9 8 u n ti l she rea ch ed the a g e o f 2 2 o n Jan u ary 4 , 1 9 9 9 , a n d f

o r S u p p le m e n ta l S e c u ri ty In c o m e p a ym e n ts th e re a f te r. A n admi ni s tr at i ve hea r i ng w as hel d on J une 24, 2004, atw hi ch t i m e R oder i ck t es t i fi ed thats he w as 5' 6" t al l and curr ent l yw ei ghed 348 pounds . ( A pp. 32. ) She t es t i fi ed thats he w ei ghed 310 pounds w hen s he w as i n hi gh s chool i n 1995. ( A pp. 32- 33,3

4 3 .) S h e tes tifie d th a t h e r le f t k n e e p a in w a s c o n sta n t an d se v e re lylim ited h e r a b ili tyto w al k, s t and, ors i t . ( A pp. 32, 33- 34, 37, 39- 40. ) She al s o s uffe r ed r el at ed bac k pai n, s hor tnes s of br eath, and gene r al fat i gue. ( A pp. 34, 37. ) H erknee pa i n began i n 1998 fol l ow i ng a ca racc i dent . She al s o i ndi cat ed thats he has s uffe r ed fr om depr es s i on s i nce h ig h sc h o o l, m a k in g it d if f icu lt t o c o n c e n tra te. (A p p . 3 4 , 4 2 .) S h e w a s d iag n o se d w ith d iabe tes i n Jan u ary , 2 0 0 4 . (A p p . 3 6 -37 . ) S h e d o es n o t l ea v e h er h o u se, an d sit s in d ark ro o m s m o st o f

th e tim e w ith m ig ra in e h e a d a c h e s. (A p p . 3 4 -3 5 .) S h e is u n a b le to g rip it em s o r l iftce rt ain item s d u e to p ain a n d n u m b n ess in h er righ t han d . (A p p . 3 6 , 4 0 . ) She t es t i fi ed thats he had ne verw or ked more than fourhour s i n a dayexce ptw hen s he w or ked as a nanny . ( A pp. 41- 42. ) She had otherpas tw or k as a t el ephone ope r at or f o r a n a n s w e ri n g s e rv ic e , a c a s h ie r, o n e n ig h t a s a s e c u ri ty g u a rd , a n d a s a te le m a rk e te r. ( A pp. 38, 40- 41, 42, 105. ) She does notdr i ve bec aus e of di ffi cul tygr i ppi ng the s t eer i ng w heel and bec aus e i tr equi r es hert o be s eat ed. ( A pp. 44- 45. ) She r ar el yl eave s the hous e, o th e r t h a n f

o r v is itin g th e d o c to r a b o u t o n c e a m o n th . (A p p . 4 5 -4 6 .) T h e A L J d e t e r m i n e d th a tR o d e r i c k h a d th e f o l l o w i n g s e v e r e i m p a i r m e n t s : o b e s i ty, chondr om al aci a of he rl eftpat el l a, l um bos acr al di s c di s eas e, and dege ner at i ve j oi nt d ise a se in th e lef

t k n e e . (A p p . 1 7 , 2 5 .) T h e A L J a lso f o u n d th a t R o d e ric k h a d “ m e d ica lly det erm i nabl e chr oni c s i nus i t i s , al l er gi c rhi ni t i s , di abet es , depr es s i ve di s or derN O S and anxi ety , and has s ym pt om at i cal l ybeen di agnos ed w i th chr oni c gas tr i t i s and mi gr ai ne heada ches . ” ( A pp. 25- 26. ) H ow ever , the A L J concl uded thatR oder i ck’ s m edi cal4

i m pai rm ent s “do notm eetorm edi cal l yequal anyof the l i s t ed i m pai r m ent s i n” the I m pai r m ent s L i s t . I d. T he A L J al s o det erm i ned thatR oder i ck’ s gener al cr edi bi l i tyw as l ow . ( A pp. 24, 26. ) T he A L J then det erm i ned that“[b] as ed upon the r ecor d as a w hol e, des pi t e the es t abl i s hed medi cal i m pai r m ent s , ” R oder i ck mai nt ai ned the r es i dual funct i onal capa ci tyt o r eturn t o herpas tw or k as a t el ephone ope r at orforan ans w er i ng serv ice. ( A p p . 2 4 -25 , 2 6 . ) T h ere fo re, th e A L J co n clud ed that R o d erick w as n o t un d er a “di s abi l i ty ” as defi ned i n t he SSA atanyt i m e fr om A pr i l 1, 1998 thr ough the dat e of the d ec isi o n , D ec em b er 2 1 , 2 0 0 4 . (A p p . 2 7 . ) T he D i s tr i ctC our taff

i r m ed the A L J ’ s deni al of C hi l d’ s I ns ur ance B enef i t s , and r emanded the mat t erforfur therpr ocee di ngs as i tr el at ed t o the A L J ’ s deni al of Suppl ement al Secur i tyI ncome paym ent s beca us e the A L J fai l ed t o di s cus s the voca t i onal expert ’ s r es pons e t o a hypothet i cal ques t i on thatR oder i ck w as curr ent l yunempl oy abl e. ( A pp. 1- 13. ) T hus the onl yi s s ue on appe al conce rns the deni al of C hi l d’ s I ns ur ance b e n e f its . II. T he D i s tr i ctC our thad s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 42 U . S. C . §§ 405( g) and 1383( c) . W e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291. O urr evi ew i s l i m i t ed t o det erm i ni ng w hethers ubs t ant i al evi dence su p p o rt s the A L J’s find ing that R o d erick w as n o t disab led. 42 U . S . C . § § 4 0 5 (g), 13 8 3 (c); R uther for d v. B arnhart , 399 F. 3d 546, 552 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . “‘ Subst ant i al evi dence ’ has5

been defined as ‘m ore than a m ere s ci nti l l a. Itm eans such rel evan tevidence 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. ’ ” Sm i th v. C al i fano, 637 F. 2d 968, 970 ( 3d C i r . 1981) ( quot i ng R i char ds on v. Per al es , 402 U . S. 389, 401 (19 7 1 )). III . T h e S S A g iv e s th e C o m m iss io n e r a u th o rityto p a yso c ial s e c u rityb e n e f its to di s abl ed per s ons . 42 U . S. C . §§ 423( d) , 1382. I n or dert o be ent i t l ed t o C hi l d’ s I ns ur ance benef i t s as a di s abl ed adul t , a cl ai m antm us ts how thats he i s the chi l d of an i ns ur ed p erso n w h o is disab led a n d is de p en d en t on the in su red , is un m arried, an d w as u n d er a di s abi l i tyas defi ned i n t he SSA befor e s he att ai ned the age of 22. 42 U . S. C . §§ 402( d) ( 1) , 423( d) ( 1) ( A ) . D i s abi l i tyi s defi ned as the “i nabi l i tyt o engage i n any s ubs t ant i al gai nful act i vi tybyr eas on of anym edi cal l ydet erm i nabl e phy s i cal orm ent al i m pai rm entw hi ch ca n be expe ct ed t o r es ul ti n death orw hi ch has l as t ed orcan be e x p e c te d to la s t f

o r a c o n tin u o u s p e ri o d o f n o t le s s th a n 1 2 m o n th s .” 4 2 U .S .C . § 423( d) ( 1) ( A ) . A n i ndi vi dual i s notdi s abl ed unl es s “hi s phy s i cal orm ent al i m pai r m entor i m pai rm ent s ar e of s uch s ever i tythathe i s notonl yunabl e t o do hi s pr evi ous w or k but cannot , cons i der i ng hi s age, educa t i on, and w or k exper i ence , engage i n anyotherki nd of s u b s ta n tia l g a in f

u l w o rk w h ic h e x is ts in th e n a tio n a l e c o n o m y .” 4 2 U .S .C . § 4 2 3 (d )( 2 )( A ). T h e C o m m iss io n e r a p p lies a f iv e -ste p tes t to d e ter m in e w h e th e r a c laim a n t is6

di s abl ed. 20 C . F. R . §§ 404. 1520( a) ( 4) , 416. 920( a) ( 4) . T he fi r s ttw o s t eps r equi r e the c l a i m a n tt o d e m o n s tr a t e th a ts h e i s n o tc u rr e n t l y e n g a g i n g i n s u b s t a n t i a l g a i n f u l a c t i v i ty, and thats he i s s uffe r i ng fr om a s ever e i m pai r m ent . I d. A fai l ur e of pr oof ats t ep one or s t ep tw o r ender s the cl ai m anti nel i gi bl e forD i s abi l i tyI ns ur ance B enef i t s and S u p p lem en tal S ec u ri tyInc o m e. S ee P lum m er v . A p fe l, 1 8 6 F . 3 d 4 2 2 , 4 2 8 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). I f, how ever , the cl ai m antpr ogr es s es t o s t ep thr ee, then the ques t i on becomes

“ ‘w h e th e r th e im p a irm e n t is e q u iv a len t to o n e o f a n u m b e r o f

L iste d Im p a irm e n ts [art i cul at ed i n 20 C . F. R . Pt . 404, Subpt . P, A pp. 1] thatthe C om m i s s i oneracknow l edges ar e s o s ever e as t o pr ecl ude s ubs t ant i al gai nful act i vi ty . ’ ” K nepp v. A pfel , 204 F. 3d 78, 84 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ( quot i ng B ow en v. Y uckert , 482 U . S. 137, 141 ( 1987) ) ; s ee a l s o 20 C . F. R . § 404. 1520( a) ( 4) ( i i i ) . I f the cl ai m ant ’ s s peci fi c i m pai r m enti s nota Li s t ed I m pai r m ent , the A L J m us tcons i derw hetherthe cl ai m ant ’ s i m pai r m entorcombi nat i on of im p a ir m e n ts is “ m e d ic a lly e q u iv a le n t” to a L is te d Im p a ir m e n t. S e e 2 0 C .F .R . § 4 0 4 .1 5 2 6 (a ). A n i m pai r m entorcombi nat i on of i m pai r m ent s i s “medi cal l yequi val ent ” t o a L i s t ed I m pai r m enti f i ti s “atl eas tequal i n s ever i tyand dur at i on t o the cr i t er i a of a ny [ L ]iste d [ I]m p a irm e n t.” Id . In o th e r w o rd s, th e c laim a n t’s im p a irm e n t “‘ m u st m e e t a llof the s peci fi ed medi cal cr i t er i a. A n i m pai r m entthatm ani fes t s onl ys om e of thos e cr i t er i a, no m att erhow s ever el y , does notqual i fy . ’ ” W i l l i ams v. Sul l i van, 970 F. 2d 1178, 1186 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 2 ) (q u o tin g S u lli v a n v . Z e b ley, 4 9 3 U .S . 5 2 1 , 5 3 0 (1 9 9 0 )(e m p h a sis in7

Z ebl ey ) ) . A cl ai m antw ho s at i s fi es s t ep thr ee “ i s concl us i vel ypr es um ed t o be di s abl ed. ” K nepp, 204 F. 3d at84. A cl ai m antw ho fai l s ats t ep thr ee mustcont i nue t o s t eps fourand fi ve. A ts t ep four , the ques t i on i s “w hetherthe cl ai m antr et ai ns the r es i dual funct i onal capa ci tyt o per form herpas tr el evantw or k. ” Pl um m er , 186 F. 3d at428. I ti s the c la im a n t’ s b u rd e n to e s ta b lis h a n in a b ility to re tu rn to h e r p a s t r e le v a n t w o rk . S e e id . A fai l ur e of pr oof ats t ep fourdoom s the cl ai m ant ’ s cas e. See 20 C . F. R . §§ 404. 1520( a) ( 4) ( i v) , 416. 920( a) ( 4) ( i v) . I f, how ever , the cl ai m ants at i s fi es thi s bur den, then the b u rde n o f p rod u cti o n sh ift s to the C o m m issi o n er to sh o w , at st ep fiv e, th at “the re ar e otherj obs exi s t i ng i n s i gni fi cantnum ber s i n the nat i onal economyw hi ch the cl ai m ant ca n p erf o rm , co n sist en t w ith h er m ed ical i m p airm en ts, ag e, ed u ca ti o n , p ast w o rk exper i ence , and r es i dual funct i onal capa ci ty . ” Pl um m er , 186 F. 3d at428. T hi s s t ep r equi r es the A L J t o cons i derthe cl ai m ant ’ s r es i dual funct i onal capa ci ty , age, educa t i on, and pas tw or k exper i ence t o det erm i ne w hetherthe cumul at i ve ef fec tof al l of the claim an t’ s im p airm en ts r en d ers h er c ap ab le of w o rkin g . S ee 2 0 C . F . R . § 4 0 4 . 1 5 2 0 (g). I V. O n appea l , R oder i ck ar gues thatthe A L J ’ s deci s i on i s nots uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . She s peci fi cal l ychal l enges the A L J ’ s det erm i nat i on thatR oder i ck di d not su f f e r a se v e re p sy c h iatric im p a irm e n t. S h e a lso a rg u e s th a t th e A L J e rre d in f a ili n g to addr es s the voca t i onal expert ’ s r es pons e thatR oder i ck w as notcapa bl e of w or ki ng; that8

i s , R oder i ck ar gues thatthe err ori dent i fi ed bythe D i s tr i ctC our tthatr es ul t ed i n the D istric t C o u rt’s r e m a n d o f th e m a tter a s it re late d o n lyto d e n ial o f S u p p lem e n tal S e c u rity In c o m e , a ls o re q u ir e s a re m a n d a s it r e la te s to th e d e n ia l o f C h ild ’s In s u ra n c e B e n e f its . T he D i s tr i ctC our taff

i r m ed the deni al of C hi l d’ s I ns ur ance B enef i t s not i ng thatt he few m edi cal r ecor ds thatexi s tforthe r el evantt i m e per i od of A pr i l 1, 1998 t o J anuary3, 1999, do not“conc l ude orr emot el ycorr obor at e the cont ent i on that[R oder i ck] can not w or k atanyj ob. ” ( A pp. 8. ) W e agr ee. W i th r egar d t o a ps y chi atr i c i m pai r m ent , R oder i ck’ s pr i m aryphy s i ci an di agnos ed depr es s i on bas ed s ol el yon R oder i ck’ s s el f- r eport . ( A pp. 193. ) H e di d notr el yon any o b jec tiv e e v id e n c e to su p p o rt th e d iag n o sis , d id n o t re f e r h e r to a m e n tal h e a lth p rof essio n al, an d n o ted th at R o d erick ref u sed to tak e a n ti -de p ressa n ts. (A p p . 1 9 3 , 1 9 7 . ) I n addi t i on, R oder i ck’ s pr i m aryphy s i ci an’ s obs ervat i ons of herm ent al s t atus and a c tiv iti e s s u p p o rt a f

in d in g th a t R o d e ric k w a s n o t su f f e rin g f ro m a d e b ili tatin g p sy c h iatric im p a irm e n t. (A p p . 1 9 8 , 2 0 0 .) T h e re is n o o th e r m e d ica l ev id e n c e to su p p o rt a p sy c h iatric di agnos i s forthe r el evantt i m e per i od. R oder i ck underw enta cons ul t at i ve ment al e x a m in a tio n o n J u ly 9 , 2 0 0 3 , w e ll a f te r s h e re a c h e d th e a g e o f 2 2 o n J a n u a ry 4 , 1 9 9 9 . (A p p . 2 0 5 -2 0 9 .) A t th a t ti m e th e e x a m in in g p sy c h o lo g ist d iag n o se d R o d e ric k w ith d e p re s s iv e d is o rd e r, p a n ic d is o rd e r w ith a g o ra p h o b ia , a n d g e n e ra liz e d a n x ie ty d is o rd e r. ( A pp. 208. ) T he exa m i ni ng ps y chol ogi s tal s o not ed thatR oder i ck had no hi s t oryof p sy c h iatric h o sp italiz a tio n s o r o u tp a tien t p sy c h iatric tre a tm e n t, an d n o c u rre n t p sy c h iatric9

tr eatm ent . ( A pp. 205. ) T he exa m i ni ng ps y chol ogi s t ’ s di agnos es al s o w er e bas ed on R o d e ri c k ’s s e lf

-r e p o rt s , w h ic h w e re c o n tr a d ic te d b yth e p s y c h o lo g is t’ s o b s e rv a tio n s . (A p p . 2 0 7 -2 0 8 .) F o r th e tim e p e rio d in q u e stio n th e re is n o m e d ica l ev id e n c e to su p p o rt a f in d in g th a t R o d e ri c k is d is a b le d . G iv e n th e lac k o f

m e d ica l ev id e n c e to su p p o rt a f in d in g o f “ d isa b led ” p rio r to Ja n u a ry4 , 1 9 9 9 , the h yp o th e tica l q u e stio n p o se d to th e v o c a tio n a l ex p e rt n e c e ss a rily i ncl uded l i m i t at i ons thatw er e nots uppor t ed bythe obj ect i ve medi cal r ecor d forthe r el evantt i m e per i od. A hypothet i cal m us tonl yi ncl ude i m pai r m ent s thatar e s uppor t ed by the m ed ical reco rd. R u therf o rd, 39 9 F . 3 d at 55 4 . T h u s, w e f ind n o erro r w ith the A L J’s fa il u re to a d d ress the v o ca ti o n al ex p ert’s r esp o n se a s itrelates to the d en ial o f C h il d ’s In s u ra n c e B e n e f

its . T hus , w e fi nd thatthe A L J pr oper l ycal cul at ed R oder i ck’ s r es i dual funct i onal c a p a c ity a n d s u s ta in e d h is b u rd e n a t s te p f o u r o f th e s e q u e n tia l e v a lu a tio n . V. F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e w ill a f f irm th e D istric t C o u rt’s ju d g m e n t.