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 6-9-2009 

# C athe rine W

i l son 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 . 08-2560

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 " C athe rine W

i l s on v . C omm S oc i al S e c urity " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1213. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1213H o n . L o u is H . P o ll ak , S en ior Ju d g e, U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rtfo r th e E astern * 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 U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 08- 2560

CA T HE RI NE WI L S ON A ppel l ant

v. M I CH AE L J . AS T RU E , CO M M I S S I ONE R O F S OC I AL S E CU RI T Y, A ppel l ee O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

f o rth e D i s tr i c to f

N e w J e r s e y ( D . C . N o. 07- 3469 ) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Pet erG . Sher i dan

Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ar ch 6, 2009 B efor e: SL O V I T E R and H A R D I M A N , C i r cui tJ udges , and PO L L A K , D i s tr i ctJ udge * ( Fi l ed: J une 9, 2009)

_____ OP I NI ON

______2

PO L L A K , D i s tr i ctJ udge: A p p ell an t C athe ri n e W il so n ap p ea ls th e o rde r of the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s eyaff i r m i ng the C om m i s s i oner ’ s deni al of hercl ai m . T he C om m i s s i oner , adopt i ng the dec i s i on of the A dm i ni s tr at i ve Law J udge ( “A L J ”) w ho e v a lu a ted th e c laim , fo u n d th a t W ilso n re tain e d th e re sid u a l f u n c tio n a l ca p a c ityto per form herpas tr el evantw or k as a dat a- entrycl erk and s o deni ed herappl i cat i on for D is a b ility In s u ra n c e B e n e f its (“ D IB ” ) a n d S u p p le m e n ta l S e c u ri ty In c o m e (“ S S I” ). W il so n also see k s to su p p lem en t th e re co rd w ith m aterial sh e sa y s is essen ti al t o su p p o rt th e a rg u m e n t th a t th e A L J f a ile d to c o n s id e r t h e p ro g re s s iv e w o rs e n in g o f h e r c o n d itio n . W e w il l den ythe re q u est t o su p p lem en t th e re co rd a n d w il l aff irm the C o m m issi o n er’s deci s i on. I. B ecause the part i es ar e fam i l i ar w i th the fact s and the recor d, w e need no tdis cuss th e m in d e tail. W ilso n is a 5 2 -y e a r o ld w o m a n w ith a h ig h sc h o o l d ip lo m a . In th e p a st, s h e h a s wo r k e d a s a d a t a - e n tr yc l e r k a n d th e n a n a s s i s t a n tma n a g e rf o ra b r o k e r a g e f

i r m, i n partr equi r i ng hert o s can i m ages , ent erdat a, pack boxe s w i th paper , and s t or e the boxes ( w hi ch coul d w ei gh up t o 15 pounds ) on s hel ves . She has al s o w or ked as an a ss ista n t m e rc h a n d ise c o o rd in a to r a n d a t a w a re h o u se a s a n e x p e d iter. S h e las t w o rk e d in N ovember2002. W i l s on al l eges di s abi l i tybegi nni ng J anuary1, 2004 beca us e of aback c ondi t i on,3

arthr i t i s , di abet es , s l eep apnea, hi gh bl ood pr es s ur e, obes i ty , and as thm a. She t es t i fi ed at herhear i ng befor e the A L J on M ar ch 13, 2007 thats he w as exper i enci ng i nt ens e bac k p a in su c h th a t sh e c o u ld b a re lyg e t o u t o f b e d . S h e a lso sa id th a t sh e h a d d if f icu lty b rea thing , in ad d it ion to h er b ac k p ain, th at m ad e itd ifficu ltto w alk e v en fo r a sh o rt d ista n c e . P h y sic a l th e ra p yh a d p ro v e n u n su c c e ss f u l an d a n o rth o p e d ist a d v ise d a g a in st a b a c k o p e ra tio n . W ils o n ’s m e d ic a l r e c o rd s w e re e x te n s iv e ly re v ie w e d b yth e A L J , s ee A . R . 18- 21; the medi cal evi dence es t abl i s hes a hi s t oryof as thm a, s l eep apnea, hypert ens i on, obes i ty , di abet es , back pa i n as a r es ul tof arthr i t i s , and che s tpai n. T h e A L J, ap p ly ing the a n alyti c f ram ew o rk se t ou t by2 0 C . F . R . § 4 1 6 . 9 2 0 (a), found that( 1) W i l s on had notengage d i n s ubs t ant i al gai nful act i vi tys i nce the al l eged o n s e to f h e rd i s a b i l i ty; ( 2 ) W i l s o n ’ s i m p a i r m e n t s , i n c l u d i n g h e ra s th m a , o b e s i ty, hypert ens i on, di abet es , and l ow back pa i n, w er e s ever e; ( 3) heri m pai r m ent s , though sev ere , d id n o t m ee t or eq u al a li sted im p airm en t i n 2 0 C . F . R . P art 40 4 , S u b p art P , A p p ’x 1; ( 4) W i l s on r et ai ned the r es i dual funct i onal capa ci tyt o per form herpas tw or k as a dat ae n tr yc le rk . A t th is f o u rth ste p , the A L J f

o u n d th a t W ilso n ’s m e d ica llyd e ter m in a b le im p a irm e n ts c o u ld re a so n a b lyb e e x p e c ted to p ro d u c e th e p ro b lem s s h e tes tifie d to exper i enci ng, butthatW i l s on’ s t es t i m onyconce rni ng the i nt ens i ty , per s i s t ence , and l i m i t i ng eff

ect s of hers ym pt om s w as notent i r el ycr edi bl e. H e conc l uded thats he r et ai ned the r es i dual funct i onal capa ci tyt o “per form w or k i nvol vi ng l i ft i ng and ca rry i ngT he D i s tr i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on under42 U . S. C . §§ 405( g) , 1383( c) ( 3) . W e have 1 j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291. 4 o b jec ts w e ig h in g u p to 2 0 p o u n d s; f re q u e n tlyliftin g a n d c a rry in g o b jec ts w e ig h in g u p to 1 0 p o u n d s ; s t a n d i n g , w a l k i n g , a n d s i t t i n g u p t o s i x h o u r s i n a n e i g h t - h o u rw o r k d a y; pus hi ng and pul l i ng arm and l eg contr ol s ; i nvol vi ng no gr eat erthan s i m pl e t as ks ; i n an e n v iro n m e n t f

re e o f e x c e ss iv e p u lm o n a ryirritan ts.” A .R . at 1 6 . In a c c o rd a n c e w ith th is r es i dual funct i onal capa ci tydet erm i nat i on, the A L J found thatW i l s on coul d per form her pastrel evan tw ork as a data- entrycl erk. T he A pp eal s C ou ncil den i ed W i l son’s r equ est fo r rev iew o f th e A L J’s d ec isi o n , an d the D istri ct C o u rtaf firm ed the C o m m issi o n er’s d e c is io n to d e n yb e n e f

its . II. W e r evi ew the C om m i s s i oner ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs t o det erm i ne i f theyw er e bas ed on su b sta n tial e v id e n c e . 4 2 U .S .C . § 4 0 5 (g ); Knepp v. Apf el , 2 0 4 F . 3 d 7 8 , 8 3 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). 1 III . W i l s on ar gues t o t hi s courtthatthe A L J fai l ed t o pr oper l ycons i deran M R I t aken on M ay24, 2006. A n ear l i erM R I ( t aken J une 28, 2005) s how ed dege ner at i ve cha nges and dis c bu l ge w i th m i l d spinal st eno si s atthe L 4-L 5 level and sm al l centr al dis c herni at i on atthe L5-S1 l evel w i th degene r at i ve cha nges . A pp’ x at24A . T he M ay24, 2 0 0 6 M R I sho w ed that d isc d essica ti o n at th e L 4 -L 5 leve l w as c au sing ex terna l pressu re5

overthe theca l s ac a nd r i ghtl at er al nerve r ootand dege ner at i on atthe L2 l evel . T hi s l at er M R I w as notavai l abl e t o t he St at e age ncyphy s i ci ans w ho exami ned W i l s on as partof her a p p lica tio n f

o r b e n e f its, as th o se re p o rts w e re p ro d u c e d in 2 0 0 5 . W ilso n a rg u e s th a t th is late r M R I sh o w s th e sig n if ica n t w o rse n in g o f

h e r sp in a l p ro b lem s o v e r tim e , an d th a t it w a s e rr o r f

o r t h is m e d ic a l e v id e n c e to n o t b e re v ie w e d b ya m e d ic a l e x p e rt . G ener al l y , an A L J i s r equi r ed t o cons i derthe r eport s of St at e age ncym edi cal cons ul t ant s ; how ever , ther e i s no r equi r ementthatan A L J m us tal w ay s r ece i ve an upda t ed r eportfr om the St at e medi cal expert s w heneve rnew m edi cal evi dence i s avai l abl e. 20 C . F . R . § 4 0 4 . 1 5 2 7 (f)(2)(i) . Instea d , an A L J is r eq u ir ed to o b tai n an u p d ated rep o rt w heneve r“addi t i onal m edi cal evi dence i s r ece i ved thati n the opi ni on of the ad m inistrati v e law jud g e . . . m aych an g e the S tat e a g en cym ed ical . . . co n su lt an t’ s fi ndi ng thatthe i m pai r m ent ( s ) i s notequi val enti n s ever i tyt o anyi m pai r m enti n the Li s t i n g o f

I mp a i r me n t s . ” S S R 9 6 - 6 p . W i l s o n d o e s n o tc o n t e n d th a tth i s a d d i t i o n a l M RI pr ovi des evi dence thatherback i m pai r m ent s m eetanyi m pai r m enti n the Li s t i ng of I m pai r m ent s ; s he ca n onl ypoi ntt o a gene r al i zed c oncern thatthe medi cal expert s di d not

“ h a v e a c o mpl e t e e v i d e n t i a r yr e c o r d . ” App e l l a n t ’ s Br . a t1 4 . I n th i s s i tu a t i o n , th e ALJ w a s n o t r e q u ir e d to s e e k a n u p d a te d re p o rt f ro m th e S ta te c o n s u lta n ts . M or eover , the A L J di d cons i derthe M ay24, 2006 M R I , w hi ch i s di s cus s ed i n t he s ect i on of the A L J ’ s opi ni on r evi ew i ng the medi cal evi dence fr om W i l s on’ s tr eat i ng phy s i ci ans . A . R . at20- 21. I n part i cul ar , the A L J di s cus s ed the medi cal evi dence fr om6

W i l s o n ’ s v i s i ti n M a y2 0 0 6 t o S a i n tM i c h a e l ’ s M e d i c a l Ce n t e r , wh i c h g e n e r a t e d th e M RI i n ques t i on. A . R . 20- 22. H e s peci fi cal l yquot ed fr om the di s char ge s um m ary( A . R . at 138) and r efe r r ed t o t he M R I . T he A L J pr oper l yt ook thi s m edi cal evi dence i nt o acc ount w hen maki ng hi s deci s i on. W ilso n a lso a rg u e s th a t th e A L J’s f in d in g th a t sh e w a s n o t cr e d ib le w a s in a d e q u a te and gave “l i p s ervi ce t o t he r equi r ementthatthe A L J cons i derthe t es t i m ony . ” A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at18. T he A L J found thatW i l s on’ s “s t at ement s conce rni ng her i m pai rm ent s and thei ri m pacton herabi l i tyt o w or k ar e notent i r el ycr edi bl e i n l i ghtot d iscrep an cies b etw ee n [h er] asse rt ion s an d inf o rm ati o n co n tai n ed in the d o cu m en tary r eport s , the r eport s of the tr eat i ng and exa m i ni ng pr act i t i oner s , the medi cal hi s t ory , and the fi ndi ngs m ade on e xami nat i on. ” A . R . at21. T he A L J , havi ng pr evi ous l ydi s cus s ed W i l son’s s ubj ect i ve co m plai nts , then i den t i fi ed spec i fi c dis crepancies betw een those compl ai nt s and the medi cal evi dence . H e not ed thatthough s he cl ai m ed bac k pai n s i nce 20 00 , she con t i nu ed w orki ng t i l l N ov em ber 200 2, w hen her com pan ym erged an d she lost herj ob. H e al s o not ed thatthe r ecor d es t abl i s hed thats he w al ked w i th a norm al u n a s s is te d g a it, in c o n tr a s t w ith h e r c o m p la in ts a b o u t h e r p ro b le m s w a lk in g . A ddi t i onal l y , he i ndi cat ed thatthe r ecor d s how ed s he had ne verbeen hos pi t al i zed f orany or thopedi c r eas on and had ne vert aken a nypot entpai n m edi cat i on, though s he cl ai m ed se v e re lyd e b ili tatin g p a in . T h e A L J’s c re d ib ili tyf in d in g w a s f

u llye x p lain e d a n d is s u p p o rt e d b ys u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . See, e. g. , H ar tr anf tv. Apf el , 181 F. 3d 358, 362 ( 3d7

C ir. 1 9 9 9 ) (h o ld in g th a t A L J p ro p e rlye v a lu a ted c re d ib ili tyw h e re h e “ c ited sp e c if ic instan ce s w h ere [c lai m an t’ s] co m p lai n ts ab o u t pain an d o ther su b jecti v e sy m p tom s w ere inco n sist en t w ith ” the o b jecti v e m ed ical ev iden ce o f re co rd). W ilso n a lso c o n ten d s, g iv e n h e r in a b ili tyto b e n d , tha t th e A L J e rre d in h is co n clus ion that sh e c o u ld p erf o rm h er p ast relev an t w o rk a s a d ata-en tryclerk ; ho w ev er, as di s cus s ed above , the A L J pr oper l yeval uat ed heri m pai r m ent s and s ubj ect i ve c o m p lain ts in lig h t o f

th e o b jec tiv e m e d ica l ev id e n c e a n d h e r sta ted a c tiv iti e s o f d a ily l i vi ng. H i s concl us i on thats he r et ai ned the r es i dual funct i onal capa ci tyt o per form the j ob r equi r ement s of a da t a- entr ycl erk i s s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . T he mat er i al s W i l s on s eeks t o add t o the r ecor d conce rn an addi t i onal appl i cat i on f o r d isa b ili tyb e n e f

its f iled o n A u g u st 2 9 , 2 0 0 8 . W ilso n a sk s th e c o u rt to tak e in to acc ountthe fa ctthateven i f the new appl i cat i on i s r es ol ved i n herfavor , the ave r age amount of t i m e fr om the dat e a c l ai m i s fi l ed i n the N ew ark offi ce unt i l the dat e of a hear i ng i s 490 day s . She ur ges the courtt o pr ovi de herr el i ef i n l i ghtof thi s l engthydel ay and the pr ogr es s i ve w or s eni ng of heri m pai r m ent s . T hough w e ar e s ym pathet i c t o the p lig h t o f c laim a n ts e n d u rin g len g th yd e lays in v o lv e d in th e p ro c e ss in g o f c laim s, th is second app l i cat i on has no beari ng on w hetherthe A L J’ s det erm i nati on on the fir st a p p lica tio n w a s s u p p o rte d b ysu b sta n tial e v id e n c e in th e re c o rd , an d th e m o tio n to s uppl ementthe r ecor d w i l l be deni ed.8 I V. F o r th e a b o v e-stated rea so n s, w e w il l den ythe m o ti o n to su p p lem en t th e re co rd and w i l l aff

i r m the C om m i s s i oner ’ s deci s i on.