NOT RE CO M M E NDE D F OR F UL L
- T E XT P UB L I CA T I ON Fi l e N ame: 10a0580n. 06 N o. 09- 6081 UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT
RO GE R D
. T I L L E Y, P lain tiff -A p p e llan t,
v. CO M M I S S I ONE R O F S OC I AL S E CU RI T Y, D efe ndant
- A ppel l ee. O n A ppeal fr om t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he W es t ern D i s t r i ctof T e n n e ss e e a t M e m p h is

/ Be f o r e : GUY, M O O R E , an d G R IF F IN , C i rcu i t Jud ges. R A L P H B . G U Y , JR . , C i rcui t Judge. Pl ai n ti ff R o g er D
. T il leysee k s rev iew o f the d istric t co u rt’s d e c isio n a f f irm in g a n a d m in istra tiv e law ju d g e ’ s (A L J) d e n ial o f h is appl i cat i on forSoci al Secur i t ydi s abi l i t yand s uppl ement al s ecur i t y i ncome benefi t s . T i l l ey
as s er t s t hatt he A L J ’ s det er m i nat i on w as not s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence and thatt he A L J di d notacc or d pr operw ei ghtt o t he opi ni on of hi s t r eat i ng phy s i ci an. Fi ndi ng t hatt he A L J j us t i fi abl ydi s count ed the opi ni on of Ti l l ey ’ s t r eat i ng phy s i ci an, and thats ubs t ant i al
e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t e d t h e ALJ ’ s d e c i s i o n o v e r a l l , we a f f i r m. I. T i l l ey , w ho w as bor n i n 1 9 5 4 , w en t to sc hool t hr ough t he ei ght h gr ade a nd w or ked pr i m ar i l yas a ma ch ine o p erat orfr om 1976 unt i l J anuary2004. A ft erhe s uffe r ed a w or k-No. 09-6081 2

re late d lo w e r b a c k in

ju ryin Ja n u a ry2 0 0 4 a n d w a s in v o lv e d in a m in o r c a r a c c id e n t in February2004, T i l l eyappl i ed forSoci al Secur i t yD i s abi l ityI ns ur ance and Suppl ement al S e c u rityIn su ra n c e b e n e f its f ro m th e S o c ial S e c u rityA d m in istra tio n . T ill e ya lleg e d th a t h is di s abi l i t ybegan A pr i l 7, 2004, due t o degene r at i ve di s c di s eas e ( D D D ) w i t h r adi cul opathy
s t atus pos tl um bars pi ne sur gery , D i abet es M el l i tus , and H yper t ens i on. T i l l ey ’ s appl i cat i ons
w er e neve ramended. In c o n n ec ti on w i th a w o rke r’s co m p en sati o n claim , T il leyb eg an tr ea ti n g w ith D r. C arl H uff at t he B one and J oi nt C l i ni c i n D y er s bur g, T ennes s ee i n ear l yFebruary , 2004. D r . H uff
re f e rre d T ill e yto n e u ro su rg e o n D r. L a v e rn e L o v e ll fo r e v a lu a tio n a n d tre a tm e n t. L o v e ll exami ned Ti l l eyi n A pr i l 2004 and s chedul ed a bi l at er al L 4- 5 hemilam inect om yand di s kect om y . W hen w or ker ’ s compensa t i on i ns ur ance cover age f ort he s u rge ry w as not author i zed, how ever , t hats ur geryw as canc el l ed. I n O ct ober2004 T i l l eyw as exami ned byD r . D oni t a K eow n, w ho not ed t hats he had revi ew ed repo rt s fr om D rs . H uff and L ov el l
. D r. K eow n co ncluded her r epo rtas fol l ow s: I M P RE S S I ON: 1. H erni at ed di s k ver s us degene rati ve di s eas e of the l um bars pi ne. T he cl ai m anthas exce l l entm obi l i t yi n al l pl anes of m ovementof the l um bars pi ne and ce r vi cal s pi ne, n o rmal m ot ors t r ength, nor m al r efl exi a, and nega t i ve s eat ed strai gh tl eg rai ses. 2. U nr emar kabl e exa m i nat i on of the ce r vi cal s pi ne. 3. N o evi dence of art hr i t i s , norcompl ai nt s of art hr al gi a. W O R K E X P E C T A T IO N S : M r. T ill e yc o u ld sit, sta n d o r w a lk e ig h t h o u rs in an eight -hour day
. H e cou l d p erform fre q u ent l i ft i ng of 1 0 to 15 p ou nd s, occasi on al l i ft i ng of 2 5 to 30 p ou nd s.No. 09-6081 3

L ater tha t m o n th, st a te a g en cym ed ical co n su lt an t D r. Jo h n F iel d s p erf o rm ed T il ley ’s P h y sic a l R e sid u a l F u n c tio n a l C a p a c ityA ss e ss m e n t. D r. F ield s f o u n d th a t T ill e yc o u ld fr equent l y l i ft 25 pounds , and occas i onal l y l i ft 50 pounds
. D r . Fi el ds al s o det erm i ned that Ti l l e yc o u l d s t a n d a n d / o rwa l k f o ra b o u t6 h o u r s i n an 8- ho u rwo r k d a y , s i tf o rt h e s a me
num berof hour s , and thatT i l ley ’s a b il it yt o pus h and/ orpul l ( i ncl udi ng oper at i on of hand and/ orfootcontr ol s ) w as unl i m i t ed, ot hert han as s how n forl i ft i ng and ca r r y i ng. T il leyh ad a f

o ll o w -up ap p o intm en t w ith D r. L o v ell in N o v em b er 2 0 0 4
. D r. L o v ell ’s rep o rtind icates tha t b ase d o n the ea rl ier i n fo rm ati o n rec eive d , h e o p ined in A p ri l th at T il ley ’s d is c h e rn ia tio n a n d s ym p to m s “ w e re p ro b a b ly se c o n d a ry to th e m o to r v e h ic le a c c id e n t.” A f ter D r. L o v e ll lea rn e d th a t th e a c c id e n t w a s re lativ e lym in o r, an d th a t T ill e yh a d re g u lar ly lifte d m o re w e ig h t a t th e w o rk p lac e th a n h e h a d in iti a llyb e liev e d , h e se n t a h a n d -w ritten n o te
rec o m m en d ing that h e h ad ch an g ed h is m ind an d that h e w as re co m m en d ing that the in jury “be tr eat ed as a w or k i nj ur yas oppos ed t o s econda r yt o t he mot orvehi cl e ac ci dent
. ” H e then
w r ot e: I n a n y e v e n t , n o t h i n g h a s h a p p e n e d f o rth i s p a t i e n t . He r e ma i n s o f f wo r k
. He cont i nues t o be i n s ever e pai n and i s her e t oday t o pr ocee d on w i t h s ur gi cal i nt ervent i on. I w i l l r ecomm end bi l at er al L 4- 5 hemi
- l ami nect o m y and di s kect om yi n hi s cas e. T i l l eys aw D r . Sr i vas t ava, hi s pr i m arycar e phy s i ci an, for eval uat i on of el evat ed bl ood
s ugar l evel s pr i or t o s ur gery . I n J anuary2005 he w as cl ear ed fors ur gerybyD r . Sr i vas t ava,
a n d Dr
. Lo v e l l pe r fo r me d b a c k s u r g e r yo n Ti l l e yl a t e rt h a tmo n t h
. A p o s t - o p e r a t i v e M RI
s can i n M ar ch 2005 s how ed “[ n] o evi d en ce o f di s c herni at i on, fr actur e orabnorm al enhanc ement . ” A ft er an ear l yA pr i l 2005 fol l ow - up w i t h D r . L ovel l , t he doct ornot ed thatNo. 09-6081 4

th e M R I sh o w e d “ g o o d d e c o m p re ss io n o f th e L 4 -5 n e rv e ro o t.” D r. L o v e ll co n c lu d e d w ith t he f o l l o wi n g p l a n : “ W e wi l l p r e s s o n wi t h wor k c o n d i t i o n i n g f o r t wo wee k s and t hen a F u n c tio n a l C a p a c ity E x a m a f te r th a t. I w ill s e e h im in f o llo w -u p o n c e th e F .C .E . is d o n e .” T i l l eyvi s i t ed D r . L ovel l agai n on A pr i l 25, 2005 , af t erunder goi ng a Funct i onal C apacityE xam . D r. L ov el l report ed thatm ostof T i l l ey ’s “m ult itude o f com plai nts ” addr es s ed i s s ues unr el at ed t o t he w or k i nj ur y , s uch as bur ni ng i n t he fee t and pai n i n hi s neck and s houl der
. D r . L ovel l m ade the fol l ow i ng not at i on: D I SC U SSIO N : I have exhaus t ed t he pos t oper at i ve w or k up, phy s i cal t her apy and now at t empt s at a val i d Funct i onal C apac i t yE xam. I have a l s o exhaus t ed m y sel f ar gu i ng w i t h hi m on each one of hi s vis i t s regar ding a ll o f h is s ym pt om s . T hi s pat i enthas appl i ed forT ennC ar e and Soci al Securi t yon m ul t i pl e occ as i ons acc or di ng t o hi s t es t i m ony t oday t o m e and ha s been tur ned dow n eac h t i m e. I have t ol d hi m t hat I w i l l not per m anent l ydi s abl e hi m bas ed on t hi s W or ker s ’ C om pens at i on di s c s ur gery . I ’ m r el eas i ng hi m t odayw i t h a p erm an en t w eigh t restri cti o n o f 50 p o u n d s. O therw ise, h e is fre e to p erf o rm w or k of anycapa ci t yw i t hi n t hatw ei ghtr es t r i ct i on . . . [h] e i s at m axi m um m edi cal i m pr ovement as of t oday , 25 A pr i l , 2005 w i t h a PPI r at i ng ( acc or di ng t o the A M A G uidel i nes, 5th E d .) o f ten percent ( 10 % ) forl um bar di sc h e rn iatio n w ith b ilate ra l d isk e c to m ya t th a t lev e l. A f ter th is, T ill e yv isited D r. Jo se p h B o a ls i n Ju n e 2 0 0 5 , an d c o n tin u e d tre a tin g w ith D r . Sr i vas t ava. D r . B oal s ci t ed t h e r epor tof D r . L ovel l , r epea t ed the 50- pound w ei ght restri cti o n , an d o p ined that T il ley ’s im p airm en t eq u aled “1 3 % o f the b o d y as a w h o le. ” D r. B o a ls w ro te th a t a n “ e x c e llen t re su lt” w o u ld h a v e b e e n a 1 0 % im p a irm e n t, an d th e re w o u ld h a v e b e e n n o w e ig h t re stric tio n . H e c o n c lu d e d b yw riting th a t T ill e y“ sh o u ld a v o id pr ol onged w al ki ng, s t andi ng, s t oopi ng, s quat t i ng, bendi ng, cl i m bi ng and exc es s i ve fl exi on,
ex tens ion o r rotati o n o f th e ba ck
. H is on e ti m e w eigh t l im itsh o u ld b e d eterm ined b yw o rk t r i al
. ” R ecor ds of T i l l ey ’ s vi s i t s t o D r . Sr i vas t ava f ol l ow i ng s ur gery , dat ed i n M ay , J une, andNo. 09-6081 5

Sept ember , demonst r at e a va r i etyof compl ai nt s byT i l l ey , i ncl u d ing co m pl ai nt s of l ow er b ac k p ain a n d arthrit is as w ell as pa in i n T il ley ’s legs an d fe et. In S ep tem b er 2 0 0 5 , T il ley ’s
m ai n purpos e forvi s i t i ng D r . Sr i vas t ava w as t o get a fol l ow - up on bl ood pr es s ur e and bl ood
s ugar s . T he r ecor d fr om t hat vi s i t i ndi cat es t hat T i l l ey had s t opped t aki ng hi s pi l l s forback pai n beca us e theyw er e ca us i ng cons t i pat i on. Fol l ow i ng the Soci al Secur i t yA dm i ni s t r at i on’ s i ni t i al deni al of hi s appl i cat i ons for S S D I/ S S I be n ef

it s, T il leyreq u est e d a h ea ri n g b ef o re a n A d m inistrati v e L aw Ju d g e (A L J),
w hi ch w as hel d D ece m ber 7, 2005. Fi ndi ng t hat T i l l ey w as not ful l y cr edi bl e and t h at he
r et ai ned t he r es i dual funct i onal capa ci t y t o per for m a w i de r ange of m edi um w or k, i ncl udi ng hi s pas t r el evant w or k, t he A L J deni ed T i l l ey ’ s appl i cat i ons for bot h D i s abil it y Ins ur ance B en ef it s an d S u p p lem en tal S ec u ri ty Inc o m e pa ym en ts. T h at d ec isi o n w as i ssu ed in F eb rua ry 2006. O n r evi ew , the Soci al Secur i t yA ppeal s C ounci l vaca t ed the hea r i ng deci s i on and
re m a n d e d th e c a se f

o r f u rth e r p ro c e e d in g s, in c lu d in g a n o th e r h e a rin g . T h e A p p e a ls C o u n c il f o u n d th a t th e p a rticu lar p a st re lev a n t w o rk c o n sid e re d b yth e A L J w a s o n lyf iv e m o n th s in dur at i on and di d notgener at e enough i ncome t o b e co n side r ed “qua l i fy i ng pas tr el evant
w o rk ” u n d e r a p p lica b le r e g u latio n s. A d d iti o n a lly , the A p p e a ls C o u n c il f o u n d f a u lt w ith
n o n s p e c i f

i c l a n g u a g e u s e d b y t h e A L J i n a d d r e s s i n g T i l l e y’ s r e s i d u a l f u n c t i o n a l c a p a c i t y. B e tw e e n th e D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 5 A L J h e a rin g a n d th e A p p e a ls C o u n c il’s ru lin g in D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 6 , the re c o rd sh o w s T ill e y m a d e g e n e ra l f o llo w -u p v isits to D r. S riv a sta v a in D ece m ber2005 and M ar ch 2006. T he r ecor d i ndi cat es T i l l ey compl ai ned of pai n i n hi s backNo. 09-6081 6

on bot h occa s i ons . N ot es fr om t he D ece m ber2005 v isi t ref lectT i l l ey ’ s s t at ementt o t he d o c to r th a t h e w a s “ try in g h a rd f o r h is d isa b ili ty .” N o tes f ro m a d d it io n a l d o c to r v isits in J une, Sept ember , and O ct ober2006 ar e i n t he r ecor d, i ndi cat i ng no change i n t he tr eatm ent pl an. T i l l eys aw gener al pr act i t i onerD r . K u rtH arni s ch i n A pr i l 2007, w ho per for m ed an exami nat i on and an a s s es s m entof Ti l l ey ’ s r es i dual funct i onal capa ci t i es . D r . H arni s ch
r epor t ed hi s as s es s m ent t hat T i l l ey coul d l i ftorcarr yl es s t han 10 pounds occa s i onal l yand fr equent l y ; coul d s t and orw al k l es s t han 2 hour s i n an 8- hourw or kday ; coul d s i tl es s t han 6 hour s i n an 8- hour w or kday ; r equi r ed a j ob w her e he c oul d al t ernat e atw i l l betw een s i t t i ng
an d stan d ing ; and sh o u ld li m itstoo p ing , sq u att ing , etc. D r. H arn isch also n o te d T il ley ’s “s i gni fi cantm ani pul at i on l i m i t at i ons i n r eac hi ng, handl i ng . . . et c.”; h i s fat i gue, “w hi ch
w o u ld p rec lud e su stai n ed p h y sical ac ti v it ies”; d e p ression su ff ere d b yT il ley ; and T il ley ’s
n e e d f o r “ c h ro n ic p a in c o n tr o l.” R ecor ds fr om O ct ober 2006 t hr ough A pr i l 2007 r efl ects ever al vi s i t s byT i l l eyt o t he T ennes s ee D epart m entof H eal t h forchec kups on chr o n ic a s w el l as t empora r ym edi cal problem s ( e. g. , s t om ach t r oubl e, s i nus dr ai nage, pai n i n hands )
. D ur i ng t hi s per i od T i l l eyhad a hear t s t r es s t es t per for m ed and appea r s t o have c om pl ai ned onl yonce of “nec k pai n runni ng dow n s houl der and l eg pai n. ” O n t hat dat e, he w as i ns t ruct ed t o “cont [i nue] curr entm eds as d ir e c te d .” A s econd hear i ng befor e t he A L J w as hel d i n M ay2007. T he A L J i s s ued a de ci s i on fin d ing T ille y in e lig ible fo r be n ef it s. T h e A L J co n clud ed that the e v iden ce in the rec o rdNo. 09-6081 7

s how ed t hat T i l l ey w as capa bl e of l i ft i ng and carr y i ng att he medi um l evel of exe r t i on. For th is re a s o n , the A L J d e ter m in e d th a t T ill e y ’s r e sid u a l f u n c tio n a l ca p a c itya llo w e d h im to per for m hi s pas tr el evantw or k as a machi ne oper at or , a j ob per for m ed by T il leyfor18
m ont hs of the pr evi ous 15 y ear s . A ccor di ngl y , t he A L J i s s ued hi s deci s i on fi ndi ng T i l l eyhad notbeen unde ra di s abi l i t yfr om A pr i l 7, 2004 t hr ough t he dat e of hi s deci s i on, J ul y24, 2007. T he A ppeal s C ounci l decl i ned T i l l ey ’ s r eques tforr evi ew of thatdeci s i on, fol l ow i ng w hi ch T i l l eyfi l ed thi s act i on. II
. T o det er m i ne w hethera cl ai m anti s di s abl ed undert he Social Secur i t yA ct , t he C om m i s s i oner of Soci al Secur i t yunder t akes a s equent i al eval uat i on pr oces s . 20 C
. F. R
. §§ 404. 1520, 416. 920. St eps one thr ough t hr ee r equi r e det erm i nat i ons on w hethert he cl ai m ant (1 ) is e n g a g e d in “ su b sta n tial g a in f u l ac tiv ity ;” ( 2 ) h a s a “ se v e re m e d ica llyd e ter m in a b le phy s i cal or m ent al i m pai r m ent ” m eet i ng dur at i on r equi r ement s ; and ( 3) has an i m pai r m ent t hat“meet s orequal s ” one of t he l i sti n g s en u m era t ed i n t he Li s t i ng of I m pai r m ent s . 20 C
. F. R
. §§ 404. 1520( a) ( 4) ( i )
- (i ii ), 416. 920( a) ( 4) ( i )
- ( i i i )
. T he fourt h s t ep r equi r es t he C om m i s s i oner ’ s as s es s m entof the cl ai m ant ’ s “r es i dual funct i onal capaci t y , ” and det er m i nat i on of w hetherthe claim an t c an per for m “pas tr el evantw or k. ” 20 C
. F. R
. §§ 4 0 4 .1 5 2 0 (a )(4 )(iv ), 4 1 6 .9 2 0 (a )(4 )(iv ). If th e a n sw e r to th e f

o u rth in q u iryis n o , the f if th
s t ep— notati s s ue i n t hi s appea l

— i nvol ves a de term ina t i on of w hethert he cl ai m ant“ca n
ma k e a n a d

j u s t me n tt o o t h e rwo r k
. ” 2 0 C. F
. R. § § 4 0 4
. 1 5 2 0 ( a ) ( 4 ) ( v ) , 4 1 6
. 9 2 0 ( a ) ( 4 ) ( v )
. OnNo. 09-6081 8

a l l b u t th e f

if th s te p , th e c la im a n t b e a rs th e b u rd e n o f p ro o f
. See J

o n e s v . Comm ’ rof

Soc. Sec. , 3 3 6 F
. 3 d 4 6 9 , 4 7 4 (6th C ir
. 2 0 0 3 ). W her e the A ppeal s C ounci l deni es r evi ew of an A L J ’ s deci s i on, t hatdeci s i on s t ands
a s th e f in a l d e c is io n o f

th e C o m m is s io n e r o f

S o c i a l S e c u ri ty. See 20 C
. F. R
. § 404. 981. W hen w e ar e re vi ew i ng t hat deci s i on, w e em pl oy t he s ame st andar d t he di s t r i ctcour tus ed:
w e d eterm in e w h e ther the re is sub stan ti al ev iden ce in the rec o rd to su p p o rtthe A L J’s f in d in g s. 4 2 U .S .C . § 4 0 5 (g ); Ro g e rs v . Comm ’ ro f S o c . S ec. , 4 8 6 F .3 d 2 3 4 , 2 4 1 (6th C ir
. 2007)
. Subst ant i al evi dence i s m or e than a “ s ci nt i l l a” of evi dence , butl es s t han a pr e p o n d e r a n c e ; a f

i n d i n g t h a ts u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t s t h e a g e n c y ’ s f i n d i n g s r e q u i r es
s im p ly th e e x is te n c e o f re le v a n t e v id e n c e a d e q u a te to s u p p o rt a re a s o n a b le c o n c lu s io n . Ib id
. A d ec isi o n w ill b e af

firm ed w h ere there is sub stan ti al ev iden ce to su p p o rtthe a g en cy ’s
co n clus io n , ev en w h ere a p rep o n d era n ce o f th e e v iden ce ex ist s to su p p o rtthe c lai m an t’ s p o s itio n . Jones , 336 F. 3d at474. A . A L J’ s F i ndi ng R egardi ng M edi um W ork T i l l ey fi r s t cl ai m s on appea l t hat t he A L J ’ s det erm i nat i on t hathe coul d per for m t he
exert i onal demands of medi um w or k i s s uppor t ed nei t herbyt he opi ni on of D r . B oal s norby
o th e r m e d ica l e v id e n c e in th e re c o rd
. T ill e y c ites th e C o m m iss io n e r’s d e f in iti o n o f th e f u ll
r ange of m edi um w or k, emphasi zi ng i t s l anguage t hat“bei ng on one’ s fee tform os tof the
w o rk d a y is cr i t i cal
. ” S pecifi cal l y , T i l l eyci t es t o D r. B oals ’s op i nion t hat Til l ey“shou ld avoi d .
. . pr ol onged w al ki ng, s t andi ng, s t oopi ng, s quat t i ng, bendi ng, cl i m bi ng and exc es s i veNo. 09-6081 9

fl exi on, ext ens i on orr ot at i on of the back, ” and as s er t s t hat t hi s opi ni on w oul d notal l ow an i ndi vi dual t o per for m m edi um w or k. A s d e f e n d a n t p o in ts o u t, h o w e v e r, th e A L J d id n o t d e ter m in e th a t T ill e yc o u ld g e n e ra lly per for m m edi um w or k; r ather , he l i m i t ed T i l l eyt o s i t t i ng and s t andi ng as neede d. In d o in g so , the A L J a d o p ted D r. L o v e ll’s 5 0 -p o u n d liftin g re stric tio n , w ith w h ich D r. B o a ls agreed, as w el l as D r. B oals ’s res t ri ct i on on si t t i ng or st and i ng for prol on ged peri od s. C oncerni ng t he otherm edi cal evi dence i n t he re cor d, T i l l eypoi nt s t o D r . K eow n’ s s t at ement t hathe w as l i m i t ed t o “fr equentl i ft i ng of 10 t o 15 pounds , occa s i onal l i ft i ng of 25 t o 30 p o u n d s . ” T i l l e y a s s e r t s t h a tt h e A L J f a i l e d t o e x p l a i n h o w h e r e s o l v e d t h i s “ i n c o n s i s t e n c y” i n t he re cor d. H ow ever , as s peci fi cal l y not ed by t he A L J , D r . K eow n “found l i t t l e i n t he w ay
o f p o s i t i v e o bj e c t i v e f

i n d i n g s , ” a n d p e r f

o r m e d h e re x a m o f

T i l l e y tw o m on ths pri or to h is
s urger y . T hi s i s a s uffi ci entexpl anat i on fornotful l yadopt i ng D r . K eow n’ s pr es ur gi cal
res t ri ct i on s. T il leyalso asse rt s th at t h e o p inion s o f treating p h y sici an D r. S ri v astav a a n d D r. H arni s ch ar e i ncons i s t entw i t h t he A L J ’ s deci s i on. T h e A L J t hor oughl yexami ned the
re c o rd s p e rta in in g to T ill e y ’s v isits to b o th d o c to r s , a n d e x p lain e d w h yh e w e ig h e d th e ir
o p in io n s as h e d id
. T h e A L J re f e re n c e d D r. S riv a sta v a ’s o p in io n th a t T ill e yw a s “ in c a p a b le of per for m i ng even se dent aryw or k, ” butnot ed thati n fac tD r . Sr i vas t ava’ s t r eatm entfocus
w as o n T il ley ’s blo o d su g ar a n d d iabe tes. T h e A L J co n side red the o cc asio n s, ref lected in D r. Sr i vas t ava’ s not es , w her e Ti l l eycompl ai ned of ba ck pai n, and not ed thatt he exa m i nat i ons
w er e w i t hi n nor m al l i m i t s . Fur t her m o re, the A L J ful l yexpl ai ned w hyhe cons i der ed theNo. 09-6081 10

Till ey m akes th e ad di ti on al argument th at th e A L J im pr op erly f ound h e ha d no menta l i m

pa irm ent, 1 be caus e D r. H ar

ni sc h fo un d li mit at io ns o n Till ey ’s menta l s tatu s ex amin at ion. As re fute d by d ef en dant , how ev er, Dr. H arnisch’s specialty is family medicine, D r. H arnis c h mad e no reco m m endatio n fo r mental tr eatment forTille y , and n o othe r evid en ce o f re co rd in di cate d any

is su e w ith, o r tr eatment f or , Til le y ’s m ental h ealth. “m o st c o m p e llin g ” e v iden ce to b e tha t of T il ley ’s su rge o n D r. L o v ell , rathe r th an D r. Sr i vas t ava. C o n c e rn in g D r. H a r n is c h ’ s o p in io n , the A L J p o in ted o u t th a t th e lar g e ly i ndeci pher abl e not es r efl ect ed j us tone vi s i t , an d p ri m ar i l yr ei t er at ed Ti l l ey ’ s s ubj ect i ve compl ai nt s . T he A L J poi nt ed outt hatw hi l e D r . H arni s ch compl et ed a M edi cal Sour ce S tat em en t r ec o m m en d ing li m it ati o n s o n T ille y ’s “ h an d li n g , fin g ering an d fe eli n g , ” the re
w er e no obj ect i ve fi ndi ngs , and t hat t he l i m i t at i ons r epr es ent ed a “ gr os s exagge r at i on” on the p a r to f D r . H a r n i s c h , o n e t h a tl e d t h e A L J t o d i s c r e d i tD r . H a r n i s c h ’ s o p i n i o n g e n e r a l l y. Wh i l e T i l l e ya s s e r t s t h a tDr
. Ha r n i s c h ’ s r e p o r ti s “ r e p l e t e wi t h me d i c a l f i n d i n g s , ” we
concurw i t h t he A L J ’ s as s es s m ent , r ei t er at ed byt he di s t r i ctcour t , t hat“D r . H arni s ch found few obj ect i ve fi ndi ngs on hi s exami nat i on and gene r al l yrec it ed Pl ai nt i ff’ s s ubj ect i ve
co m p lai n ts. ” W e f

ind the A L J’s d eterm ination that the “ o b jecti v e f ind ing s d o n o t sup p o rt 1 t he extr eme degr ee of

l i m i t at i on i m pos ed by t hi s phy s i ci an” t o be s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence
. B . R es i dual F unct i onal C apaci t y t o R et urn t o P as t R el evant W ork T i l l eynex tcl ai m s that the A L J i m properl ydeterm i ned t hat he could return t o h i s past
r el evantw or k as a machi ne oper at or/ut i l i t ym an. T i l l eyar gues t hathe di d noti ndi cat e that h is pa st w o rk a s a m ac h ine o p era tor i n v o lved an ysitti n g at all
. T il leycit es t o h is ow n rep o rtNo. 09-6081 11

t hathi s pas tr el evantw or k r equi r ed, on a dai l y bas i s , 3 hour s of w al ki ng, 3 hour s of s t andi ng,

. 25 hour s of cl i m bi ng, 3 hour s of s t oopi ng, 3 hour s of cr ouchi ng, 6 hour s o f h an dl i ng, gr abbi ng, orgr as pi ng bi g obj ect s , and 2 hour s of r eac hi ng. W e not e t hatt he ac cur acyof s uch
a re p o rtis qu esti o n ab le, g iven that the tim e sp en t on the task s li sted b yT il ley ad d u p to m o re hour s t han the 8- hourw or kdayhe r epor t ed on the p rev ious page. M or eover , as defe ndant
as s er t s , pl ai nt i ff s t at ed in a di ffe r entr epor ti n t he r ecor d t hatt he j ob of M achi ne O per at or i n v o l v e d s i t t i n g f

o r t wo h o u r s . Th i s i s s u f f i c i e n te v i d e n c e f

o rt h e f i n d i n g ma d e b yt h e ALJ t hatpl ai nt i ff’ s pas tr el evantw or k w oul d al l ow fora s i tand s t and opt i on, as neede d. C . O pi ni on of

T reat i ng P hy s i ci an W e s t at ed i n Hens l ey v . A s tr ue , 5 7 3 F .3 d 2 6 3 (6 th C ir. 2 0 0 9 ) th a t: [i]n so cial sec u ri tyca ses in v o lving a claim an t’ s d isab il ity , the C o m m issi o n er’s r e g u la ti o n s re q u ire th a t if th e o p in io n o f th e c laim a n t’s tre a tin g p h y sic ian is
“ w e ll-su p p o rte d b ym e d ica lly a c c e p tab le c lin ica l an d lab o ra to ryd iag n o stic t echni ques ” and [i s ] “not i ncons i s t ent w i t h t he ot her s ubs t ant i al evi dence i n t he c a s e re c o rd ,” it m u s t b e g iv e n “ c o n tr o llin g w e ig h t.” I d. at266 ( quot i ng W

i l s on v. C om m ’ rof

Soc. Sec. , 378 F. 3d 541, 548 ( 6t h C i r . 2004) )
. T i l l ey
as s er t s t hatt he A L J i m pr oper l yacc or ded “l i t t l e w ei ght ” t o D r . Sr i vas t ava’ s opi ni on t hat T i l l eyw as notabl e t o per for m even s edent ary w o r k, and ar gues t hatt he mer e exi s t ence of
a c o n tr aryo p inion in th e reco rd did n o t give the A L J a v ali d b asis to rejec t D r. S ri v astav a’s
o p inion
. T il ley co n tend s that the A L J’s rejecti o n o f D r. S ri v astav a’s op inion d id n o t com p o rt
w ith th e re g u la tio n s , w h ic h lis t s ix f a c to rs to c o n s id e r i n w e ig h in g m e d ic a l o p in io n s . See 20 C
. F
. R
. § 4 0 4
. 1 5 2 7 (d).No. 09-6081 12

A lth o u g h tr e a ti n g p h y sic ian s’ o p in io n s c a n b e e n tit led to “ c o n tro lli n g w e ig h t,” it is
c lea r th a t a trea tin g p h y sic ian ’s o p in io n th a t is no t “ w e ll su p p o rte d b ym e d ica llya c c e p tab le cl i ni cal and l abor at or ydi agnos t i c t echni ques , ” or i s “i ncons i s t ent w i t h t he ot hers ubs t ant i al evidence, ” i s no t con t rol l i ng . 20 C
. F
. R
. § 404
. 15 27 (d) (2)
. W hil e T ill e y c it es B l akl ey v . C o m m iss io n r o

f So c ia l S e c u rity , 5 8 1 F. 3 d 3 9 9 , 4 1 0 ( 6 t h Ci r . 2 0 0 9 ) , i n a s s e r t i n g t h a tt h e ALJ i m pr oper l yfai l ed t o addr es s eac h of the r egul at or yfac t or s i n eval uat i ng t he opi ni on of the tr e a tin g p h y s ic ia n , B la ke ly does nots uppor thi s ar gum ent . T he B la ke ly deci s i on, fi ndi ng t hat t he A L J had fa i l ed t o gi ve good r eas ons foraccord i ng l es s t han contr ol l i ng w ei ghtt o t he plai nti ff’s treat i ng sources, rem and ed the case t o the C om m i ssi on er for fur t her proceedings. U nl i ke i n B la ke ly , t he A L J ’ s deci s i on i n t he i ns t antcas e ful l y des cr i bed t he r eas oni ng fo r disco u n ting D r. S ri v astav a’s o p inion
. T h e A L J tho rou g h lyrev iew ed D r. S ri v astav a’s notes an d found thathi s phy s i cal exams of Ti l l eyw er e “e s s ent i al l ynor m al , ” and thatt he
e v id e n c e c o n tain e d “ li tt le o r n o o b jec tiv e f in d in g s s h o w in g a n ysig n if ica n t ch a n g e in [ T ille y ’s ] m e d ic a l co n d itio n s in c e h e w a s re le a s e d b y h is s u rg e o n in A p ri l 2 0 0 5 .” Fur t her m or e, t he A L J det erm i ned that t he opi ni on of D r . L ovel l , T i l l ey ’ s neur os ur geon, w as
e nti t l ed t o m ore w ei gh t as a speci al i st and speci fi c t reat er of T i l l ey ’s back pro b lem s, in
a c c o rd a n c e w ith 2 0 C .F .R . § 4 1 6 .9 2 7 (d )(5 ). W e d o n o t f in d th a t th e A L J’s d e ter m in a tio n to
ac co rd g rea ter w eigh t t o the o p inion o f D r. L o v ell w as im p rop er. D . A L J’ s C redi bi l i t y D et erm i nat i on T he A L J ques t i oned Ti l l ey ’ s cr edi bi l i t yi n hi s deci s i on: [a] ft ercons i der i ng t he evi dence of rec or d, t he under s i gned fi nds t hatt he cl ai m ant ’ s m edi cal l y det er m i nabl e i m pai r m ent s coul d r eas onabl ybe expe ct edNo. 09-6081 13

This claim

was resolv ed essentially

as one inv olv ingallege d disability from a back inj ury . To the 2 degree that at o ral argum ent co unsel for claimant seem ed to sug g est that disab ilitysho uld h av e be en fo und a s a r e s ul tof

th e to t a l i ty of

pl a i nt i f f ’ s me di c a l co nd i t i on s , thi s cl a i m f a i l s si nc e th e r e is a l a c k of ob j e c t i ve me d i c a l e vi d e n c e i nth e r e c o r d t o s up p o rts u c hac l a i m. t o pr oduce the al l ege d s ympt o ms , b u tth a tt he cl ai m ant ’ s s t at ement s conce r ni ng t he i nt ens i t y , per s i s t ence and li m i t i ng eff ect s of thes e s ym pt om s ar e not ent i r el ycr edi bl e. O n r evi ew , “w e ar e t o acc or d t he A L J ’ s det erm i nat i ons of cr edi bi l i t ygr eatw ei ghtand def ere n ce pa r t i cul ar l ys i nce the A L J has t he oppor tuni t y , w hi ch w e do not , of obs ervi ng a
w i t nes s ’ s demeanorw hi l e t es t i fy i ng. ” Jones , 336 F. 3d at476. W e fi nd t hats ubs t anti al evi dence s uppor t s t he A L J ’ s det erm i nat i on conce r ni ng T i l l ey ’ s c r e d i b i l i t y . Fo r i n s t a n c e , t h e ALJ n o t e d t h a t t h e r e c o r d c o n t a i n e d “ l i t t l e o r no” evi dence of obj ect i ve fi ndi ngs s how i ng anychang e in T i l l ey ’ s condi t i on aft erA pr i l 2005. F u rth erm o re, al so n o ted b ythe A L J, T ille y d id n o t r eg u larl yco m p lai n o f b ac k p ain to D r. Sr i vas t ava and i nfor m ed hi m atl eas tonce thathe w as “tr y i ng har d forhi s di s abi l i t y . ” The A L J al s o not ed thatr ecor d document s fr om T i l l ey ’ s pos t - s ur geryper i od i ndi cat ed thatT i l l ey

“ w a s u n m o t i v a t e d , p r o m p t i n g h i s p o s ts u r g i c a l p h ys i c a l t h e r a p y t o b e t e r m i n a t e d
. ” S i m i l a r l y, t he A L J i ns pect ed r ecor ds fr om t he Tennes s ee D epart m entof H eal t h, and corr ect l ynot ed that t heys h o w ed “e s s ent i al l ynor m al fi ndi ngs on exami nat i ons and onl yi nt erm i t t ent
m u s c u lo s k e le ta l c o m p la in ts .” W hetherornotw e w oul d have come t o t he concl us i on r eac hed by t he A L J , w e fi nd t hats ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t s hi s deci s i on. Fort he r eas ons gi ven above , w e AF F I RM th e d e c isio n o f

th e d istric t co u rt. 2No. 09-6081 14

K A R E N N E L SO N M O O R E , C i rcui t Judge, di s s ent i ng. B eca us e I do notbel i eve th a t su b sta n tial e v id e n c e su p p o rts th e A L J’s d e te r m in a tio n th a t R o g e r T ill e yw a s a b le to
re tu rn to h is p re v io u s e m p lo ym e n t as a m a c h in e o p e ra to r, I re sp e c tf u llyd iss e n t. I agr ee w i t h t he m aj or i t y t hat t her e i s s ubs t ant i al evi dence i ndi cat i ng t hat , w hi l e Ti l l ey
w or k e d a s a ma c h i n e o p e r a t o r , h e was a b l e t o s i t f o r a t l e a s t p a r t o f t h e d a y . I can f i nd no evi dence , how ever , t hatT i l l eyw as abl e t o “s i tand s t and as neede d, ” A .R . a t 2 4 (e m p h a sis
a d d e d ), a f

a c e t o f th e A L J’s R F C d e ter m in a tio n th a t th e m a jo rityo p in io n m a k e s n o e f f o rt to addr es s . T he A L J r eas oned thatbeca us e Ti l l eyw as r es pons i bl e forr el i evi ng w or ker s w hen t heyt ook t hei r br eaks , T i l l ey “di d notper for m [hi s ] j ob i n a cons t antpos i t i on. ” Id . A ll th is i ndi cat es , how ever , i s t hat T i l l ey m i ght have m or e oppor tuni t i es t o al t ernat e hi s pos i t i on t han t he ave r age machi ne oper at or
— t her e i s no i ndi cat i on t hatT i l l ey had anycontr ol overw hen t hos e oppor tuni t i es occurr ed. O nce a r el i ef w or keras s um es contr ol of m achi ne, he presum ablym ustcon t i n u e t o w ork att hat m achine un t i l t he o ri ginal op erat or r eturns. Per haps t hatl ength of t i m e i s s hor tenough t o acc om m odat e Ti l l ey ’ s s peci fi c l i m i t at i ons , but t her e i s s i m pl yno evi dence t o s ugges tt hatthi s i s s o. A t S ta g e F o u r o f

th e s e q u e n tia l a n a lysis , T ille yh a s th e b u rd e n o f p ro o f
. W

al t ers v. C om m ’ rof

Soc. Sec. , 1 2 7 F .3 d 5 2 5 , 5 2 9 (6 th C ir. 1 9 9 7 ). A lth o u g h th e re is n o e v id e n c e in t he r ecor d i ndi cat i ng t hat T i l l eycoul d not sit as n ee d ed w h il e w o rkin g as a m ac h ine o p era tor, th e re is a lso n o e v id e n c e th a t h e c o u ld sit o r sta n d a s n e e d e d . T h e c laim a n t is n o t so lely
r es pons i bl e for devel opi ng t he re cor d w i t h r es pect t o t he phy s i cal demands of hi s pr evi ous jo b
. W i nf r ey v . C hat er , 92 F. 3d 1017, 1024 ( 10t h C i r . 1 996)
. R ather , undert he Soci alNo. 09-6081 15

S e c u rityP ro g ra m P o licyS tate m e n t, th e A L J is re q u ire d to m a k e sp e c if ic f in d in g s o f

f a c t w ith
r es pect t o “the phy s i cal and m ent al demands of [the cl ai m ant ’ s ] pas tj ob/ occupa t i on, ” Soc. S ec . R u l. 8 2 -6 2 , 1 9 8 2 W L 3 1 3 8 6 , at *4 (19 8 2 ), an d m u st m ak e “ ev eryef fo rt. . . to se cu re evi dence t hat r es ol ves t he i s s ue as cl ear l yand expl i ci t l yas ci r cumst ance s per m i t , ” i d. at*3; see al so Henri e v. U
. S. D ep’tof H ealth & H

um an Servs. , 1 3 F
. 3 d 3 5 9 , 3 6 0 -6 1 (10 th C ir
. 1 9 9 3 )
. Th e r e f

o r e , p u r s u a n t t o So c . Se c . Rul
. 8 2
- 6 2 , I wou l d r e ma n d Ti l l e y ’ s c a s e t o t h e ALJ t o devel op the rec o r d w i t h r es pectt o w hetherT i l l ey ’ s pr evi ous pos i t i on as a machi ne oper at oral l ow ed hi m t o s i tand s t and as neede d. I re sp e c tf

u llyd iss e n t.