2003 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 10-6-2003 

# H olid a y v . C omm S o c i al S ec ur it y P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 03-1205

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2003

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd 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 l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2003 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" H o l id a y v . C omm S oc i al S e c ur it y " (2003). 2003 D e cisio n s . P ape r 220. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2003/220NOT PRECEDE NTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT

__________ No. 03-1205

__________ MICHAE L HOLI DAY,

Appellant
v. JO ANNE BARNH ART, Co mm issione r of S ocial S ecurity

__________ On A ppeal from the Un ited States District Co urt for the We stern D istrict of P enns ylvania Civil Action No. 02-cv- 00980 District J udge: Honorable D onetta W. Am brose

__________ Submitte d Under Third Circ uit L. A.R. 34.1( a)

October 3, 2003

___________ Be for e: R EN DE LL , W EIS , and GA RT H, Circu it Judges

(Opinion Fi led: Oct ober 6, 2003)

__________ OPI NION

__________1 Holidayprevious ly applie d for soci al security benefit s in 1995, but that applic ation was deni ed by an ALJ in 1996. When he filed hi s second appl ication in 1998, Holidayasked that

his pri or rul ing be reope ned because “CFS was in i ts i nfancy” when he filed his f irst ap plica tion and ther e w ere n o so cial s ecu rity pub licatio ns o n th e m atter . (Ap pellan t’s Brie f at 35 .) Bec ause of o ur disp osition , wh ich af firms the D istrict Co urt, we do n ot fin d it n ece ssar y to ad dre ss th e issu e of Ho liday’s 199 6 ru ling
. -2- Ga rth, Circu it Judge : M ichae l Ho liday app eals fro m the Distric t Cou rt’s gran t of su mm ary judgm ent in favor of the Com missioner of Social Sec urity. The Com missioner ha d denied Holiday’s app li cat io n fo r d is abi li tyin sur anc e be nef it s. We wil l a ffi rm. I. Because we write s olely for the be nefit

of the parties , we recount the fact s and the procedu ral history of the case only as they are relevan t to the followin g discussion . In 199 8, H oliday ap plied f or disa bility insuran ce be nefits o n the b asis tha t he ha d alleg edly suffered from Chronic Fati gue Syndr ome (“CFS”) since J uly 1994 and from an An xiety/Pan ic Dis orde r since July 199 8. Th e So cial Se curity Ad minis tration d enied his applic ation. 1 An A dministrative La w Jud ge (“A LJ”) thereaf ter held a hearing on H oliday’s ap pl ica tio n a t w hi ch he he ar d t es tim on y fr om H ol id ay, H ol id ay’ s w ife , an d T an ya W illiam s, a v oca tion al ex per t. Th e A LJ i ssu ed a dec ision adv erse to H olid ay. Having exhauste d his admini strative remedies, Holidayfile d an acti on against the Commissioner i n the Dist rict Court for t

he Western Dist

rict of Pennsy lvania . Foll owing-3-

cross- mo tions f or sum mary jud gm ent, the D istrict Co urt gra nted s um mary jud gm ent to the Commissione r. Holi day’ s ti mely appeal fol lowed. II. We have juris dicti on to hear t his appealpursuant

to 42 U.S.C. Section 405( g) and 28 U.S.C. Section 1291. We have previ ouslyset forth our st andard of revi ew in cases involving an appeal from the denial of disabili ty benefit s as follows: The role of this C ourt is id entica l to that o f the D istrict Co urt, nam ely to determi ne whether there is substant ial e vidence t o support t he Commissioner’ s decis ion. The Court is bound bythe ALJ’s fi ndings of fact if the y ar e support ed by s ubstantial e vidence i n the rec ord. Subst antia l evidence has been defined as “more than a mere scintill a. It means such relevant evide nce as a re asonable mi nd might accept as adequat e.” Plummer v. Apfel , 186 F.3d 422, 427 (3d Cir. 1999) (quoting Ven tura v . Shala la , 55 F.3d 900, 901 (3d Cir. 199 5) (certain citations om itted). To establ ish an entitl ement to benef its , a cl aimant must

show that t

here is a: “medicall y determinabl e basis for an impai rment that prevent s him from enga ging in any ‘su bstan tial gainf ul activ ity’ for a statu tory twelv e-mo nth period. ” A claimant i s conside red unable to engage i n any s ubstantial acti vity “onlyif his physi cal or ment al impai rment or i mpairments are of such seve rity that he is n ot on ly unable to do his pre viou s wo rk bu t cann ot, considering his age, educat ion, a nd work experienc e, engage i n any ot her kin d of sub stan tial g ainf ul w ork wh ich e xists in th e na tion al ec ono my.” Id . at 42 7-2 8 (c itatio n om itted ). In ev alu ati ng an ap pl ica tio n f or be ne fit s, t he A LJ an d C om m iss io ne r e m pl oy a five-step evaluati on to make the disability determination. I n short, the fi ve-step process operates as follows:-4-

At S tep O ne, the Co mm issione r mu st determ ine w hethe r the cla iman t is currently engaging i n a “subst antia l gainf ul activit y. ” If so, she is not eligible. At Step Two, the Commissi oner must determine whether the claimant ha s a “severe im pairmen t.” If the claimant do es not hav e a severe impairment , the n she is not eligible. At Step Three, if a cl aimant does not suffer fro m an im pairmen t on the list of impa irments presu med to b e severe eno ugh to p reclu de g ainf ul w ork , the C om mis sion er m ove s to S tep F our . Step Four re quires the Commissione r to deci de whether the clai mant ret ains the res idual f

unctional capaci ty to perform her past relevant work. The claimant bears the burden of demonstrating an inabili ty to return to her past relevant work. I f the cl aimant i s unable to resume her former occupati on, the eval uation moves to Step Five. At Step Five, the Commissione r has the burden of demonstr ating t hat the clai mant is capable of performing othe r jo bs ex ist in g i n s ig ni fic an t n um be rs i n t he na tio na l ec on om y. Tho ma s v. Co mm issione r of So cial Se curity , 294 F.3d 568, 571 (3d Cir. 2002) (en banc) (cita tion s om itted ), cert. granted , 123 S. C t. 12 51 ( 200 3). See also, e.g. , Burns v. Barnhart , 312 F .3d 11 3, 118 -19 (3 d C ir. 2002 ); Fargnoli v. Massanari , 247 F.3d 34, 39 (3d Cir. 200 1). III. We agree with the Distri ct Court t hat the ALJ’s decisi on was supported by substantialevidence in the record. In accordance with the five-step evaluation process outli ned above, t

he ALJ at Step One found that Holidayhad not engaged i n substant ial gainful acti vity

since November 20, 1996. (ALJ Decisi on at 3. ) Next, t he ALJ found at St ep Two th atHol id ay suf fered f ro m CFS, a bo wel pr obl em, a s to machpr obl em, fibromy algia , Epste in Barr Sy ndrome, anxi ety , and depre ssion, and that those condi tions
w er e “ se ve re .” T he A LJ fo un d t ha t a h os t o f o th er co nd itio ns co m pl ain ed of by H ol id ay,
suc h as mig rain e he ada che s, a v ision pro blem , and aller gies , we re n ot se ver e. ( Id. at 3-4.)-5-

The ALJ at Step Three determined that Holiday’ s impairments did not meet or equalany of thecri teria fo r a l isted impa irme nt co ntai ned i n 20 C.F. R. Section 40 4, Subp art P, Appendix 1. The ALJ at Step Four found that

Holiday“retains the resi dual functional capa city to perf orm the ex ertiona l dem ands of se denta ry work , with c ertain modifications, ” but “cannot perform the duties associ ated with his past relevant job of welder.” ( Id. at 9, 12.) Lastly, at Step Five the A LJ con cluded tha t Holiday’s impa irmen ts do n ot prec lude h im fro m en gagin g in o ther oc cupa tions w hich e xist in sign ifica nt n um ber s in th e na tion al ec ono my. ( Id. at 13 .) Am ong other th ings, H oliday arg ues o n app eal tha t the A LJ d id no t correc tly
assess Ho liday’s CF S im pairm ent be caus e the A LJ d id no t men tion S ocial S ecurity Ru ling 99 -2p. T hat pa rticular ru ling: (i) ex plains th at CF S can , in certain cases , cons titute a “disabi lit

y” under the Socia l Securi ty regulat ions; and (ii ) “provi des guidance for the evaluation of cl aims invol ving CFS.” S.S. R. 99-2p, 1999 WL 271569, at *1 (April 30, 199 9). W hile it is true that the AL J’s w ritten op inion d oes n ot cite to S ocial S ecurity Ruling 99-2p, we are not aware of any duty which requires ALJs to speci fical ly mention relevant SocialSecurity Ruli ngs when renderi ng a decisi on on an indivi dual’s clai m for Social Sec urity benefi ts. More importantly , the ALJ’s analy sis by and large comported with the approach set

forth i n Social Sec urity Ruli ng 99-2p. The Ruli ng explai ns that cl ai ms bas ed on CFS sho uldbe ev al uat ed us ing thesame fiv e-s te p pr oces s that the ALJ
use d in evaluating Holi day ’s impa irment s. As to st ep fi ve - - the s te p at whic h an ALJ2 The ALJ found that Holiday’ s clai ms of “tota lly disabl ing exert

ional and nonexertio nal lim itations a nd p ain, an d their im pact o n his a bility to wo rk, . . . are no t entirely credib le, and are inc onsiste nt w ith the c linical an d ob jective f inding s, his ov erall te st imon y, his sel f-reporte d act ivi ti es o f dai lyli vin g, and otherevi denc e of record.” (ALJ Decision at

14.) The ALJ simi larl y found t hat Holiday’ s wife’s testi mony concerning Ho liday’s imp airm ents we re n ot en tirely cr edib le. ( Id. ) -6- must make a findi ng about the applic ant’s abili tyto perform other work -- Ruling 99-2p explai ns that

“[t]he usualvocati onal consi derati ons must be appl ied. ” Id. at *5 (e mp hasis add ed) . He re, th e A LJ d id ju st tha t. Holidayalso complains that the ALJ improperly assess ed the cr edibil ity of Holiday and his wife. 2 Here, the A LJ gav e specific reaso ns for his cred ibilityfindings w hich w ere supporte d by the record. Because "[t] he credi bili ty of witness es is qui ntesse ntial ly the prov ince o f the tria l court, n ot the a ppella te cou rt,” we defe r to an A LJ’s c redibility dete rmin ation s. Dardovitch v. Haltzman, 190 F.3 d 12 5, 14 0 (3 d C ir. 19 99)
. Holidayalso ar gues that the ALJ did not gi ve suffici ent weight to the opi nions of Holiday ’s treati ng physi cians. While it is t rue that a rule a dopted bythe Commissione r prov ides tha t specia l weig ht sho uld b e acc orde d to trea ting ph ysicians’ o pinion s, that rule also pr ovides t

hat opini ons from tr eati ng physi cians on t he nature and severi ty of an impairme nt will be given more w eight than othe r physicians’ opinions o nly if they are “well-s upported bymedicall y acc eptabl e cli nical and laboratorydiagnostic te chniques. ” 20 C.F.R. § 404. 1527(d)(2) . Here, the ALJ acknowledged that he must normallygive special we ight to treating physicians’ opinion s, but he con cluded tha t Holiday’s doctorsseemed to base their opinions concerning the severity of his i mpairments almost

exclusi velyon Holiday ’s subj ecti ve complaint s and, as such, were not well-s upported by clinical findings or so me othe r acceptable m edical basis. (AL J Decision at 11.) Moreover, as t

he District Court

held, the ALJ was entitled to relyon medical evi dence wh ich c ont rad icted the o pin ion s of Ho liday’s treat ing physi cian s. See 20 C .F.R . § 404 .152 7(d ). We are sati sfied t

hat the ALJ undertook a comprehens ive examinat ion of the evidentiary record an d that substantial evide nce sup ports both h is and the C omm issioner’s decisi on. For th e f or eg oi ng rea so ns , t

he ju dgm en t o f the Dis tric t C our t wi llbe AFFI RMED.
TO THE C LERK: Please fi le the foregoing opi nion.
/s/ Leonard I. Garth Circuit Judge

-7-