UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA

) MELVIN JONES, ) ) P laintif f, )

) v. ) Civil Action No. 08-1591 (RM C) ) MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Com m ission er of S ocial Security , ) ) ) ) Defendan t. ) )
M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION Melvin J ones broug ht this action for judicial re view of a d ecision of the Social Security Commi ssioner, deny

ing his a pplication for suppleme ntal secur ity income. Mr. Jones has
m o v edfo r aj u d gm en to f r ev er s al o r, i nt h e a l t ern at i v e, fo r r em an d fo r an ew ad m i n i s t ra t i v e h ea ri n g. The g overnme nt has moved for a judg ment o f af

fi rmanc e of the denial of be nefits. As explained below, the motion for judg ment of re versa l or rema nd will be denied , and the motion for judg ment of af firmanc e will be g rante d. I. F AC TS

Mr. J ones applied for supplemental secur ity income on May 31, 2005, alleg ing that he had b e e nu n a

b le to w o r

k s in c e F e b r

u ar y 1 , 2 0 0 4 , d

u e to c o n g e s ti v e h e art f a il u r e , lu ng complications, g out, high blood pre ssure, a nd an ea ting disorde r. AR at 72. The Commi ssioner initially denied Mr. Jones’s claim on Nove mber 16, 2005 and ag ain on rec onsideration on May 25, 2 0 0 7
. S u b s eq u en t l y , M r. J o n es re qu es t edre v i ew an d a h ea ri n g b y

an Ad m i n i s t ra t i v e Law J u d geM r. J o n es wa s re p re s en t edb y co u n s el at t h e h ea ri n g. 1 Mr. J ones filed previous applications for disability income in September

of 1990 and Ma

y 2 of 2004. These applications wer e denied on initial revie w and Mr. J ones did not pursue them. AR at 15. -2- (“A L J ”). The reque st was gra nted and a hearing was held. The iss ue before the AL J was whe ther 1 Mr. J ones wa s disabled under the Social Secur ity

Act (“ SSA” or “Ac t”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-434. 2 The SSA d ef

i n es di sability

as an “ inability

to eng ag e in any

substantial ga inful
ac t i v i t y by rea son of any

medically

deter minable phy sical or menta l impairment which ca n be expected to re sult in death or which ha s lasted or c an be e x pecte d to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d) (1 )( A)
. T h e C ommissi oner e mploy s a five- step
se qu e nti a l pro c e ss i n d e te rm ini ngwh e the r a c la ima nt i s d isa ble d und e r t

he Ac t. 2 0 C. F .R. § 416.920. The AL J must first deter mine whether

the claimant is workingor per formingsubstantial g ainful ac tivity
. Id . § 416.920(a) (i) & (b). I f not, the AL J must then deter mine whether

the claimant has a se vere impair m en t, which is “any impairment or combination of impairme nts which signific antly

limit s [t he cla imant’s] phy sical or menta l ability to do basic work a ctivitie s.” Id
. § 4 16 .9 20 (c ); se e als o id . § 416.920(a) (ii). I f the c laimant has a se vere impairment or combination of impairments, the AL J must then determine whe ther the impairme nt meets or is equal to an impairment listed in 20 C.F. R
. P ar t 4 04, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (the “ L istings”)
. Id. §§ 416.920(a) (iii) & ( d), 416.925 & 416.926. I f not, the AL J must determine the c laimant’s re sidual functional c apac ity , and whe ther this cap a c it y p e r mi ts the claimant to per form her past rele vant work. Id. § 4 16 .9 20 (e ) & (f

); se e als o id . § 416.960. I f t he claimant cannot perfor m her pa st releva

nt work, t h e A L J m u s td e t e r

m i n e w h e t h e r

t h e c l a i m an t c an p e r f

o r m an y o t h e r w o r

k i nt h e n a t i o n a l e c o n o m y, t ak i n g into account his re sidual functional ca pacity , ag e, educ ation and wor k experience
. Id
.-3-

§ 416.920(g ) & 416.960(c)
.

I n a dec isi o n d at ed M ar ch 3, 2008, the AL J found that Mr. Jones was not disabled
w i t h i n t h e m e an i n g o f

t h e S S A an d

d e n i e d h i s a p p l i c a t i o nf

o r b e n e f i t s . A R a t1 5
- 2 6
. T h e A LJ considere d Mr. J ones’s c o m p l et e medical history
. Id . at 15. The c ritical portion of that medic al his tor y be g an w he n M r. Jone s w as a dmi tte d into P ro vid e nc e Ho sp ita l on Marc h 2 5, 20 04 , d

ue to shortness of bre ath. Id
. at 285. The medic al re cord indicates that he ha d normal motor ac tivity and rang e of motion. Id . at 286. He wa lked ea sily with a normal g ait and g ood balanc e. The doctor administered Albuter ol and a ne buliz er tre atment, and prescr ibed P rednisone; Mr. J ones’s bre athing improved. Id
. Then, on May 20, 2004, Mr. J ones re turned to Providence with shortness of breath. Id
. at 157. Ag ain, he had norma l ga it and motor activity
. Id
. at 158. The phy sician re commended
car diac monit oring , but Mr. J ones left a g ainst medical a dvice. Id
. at 154. Five day s later, on Ma y 25, 2004, Mr. J ones reported to the hospital with swollen and painful fe et. Id . at 27 5. Ye t a g a in, his motor activity and g ait wer e norma l. Id . at 276. He w as diag nosed with g out, give n medication, and discharg ed. Id
. at 278. On J une 7, 2004, Mr. J ones saw his own doc tor, Dr. Ashw ini Sardana who confirme d the g out dia g nosis a nd also diag nosed cong estive hea rt failure and hy

perte nsion. Id . at 325. On August 5, 2004, D r. M.V. Kumar , a consulting phy sician, re viewed Mr . J ones’s medical recor ds to deter

mine Mr. J ones’s functional abilities. Id
. at 183-84. Dr. K umar found that Mr. J ones’s gout and emphy sema were not sever e, but his cong estive hea rt failure and hy

perte nsion
wer e seve re. Eve n so, Dr. Kumar found that these c onditions di d not meet the L istings. Id. On M ay 27, 2005, Mr. J ones had another a ppointment with Dr. Sardana . Dr. Sarda na-4-

re fi lle d c e rt a in p re sc ri pti on s and no te d th a t Mr . Jon e s’ s c on g e sti ve he art fa ilure wa s st a

ble wi th medication. Id
. at 322. Another consulting phy sician, Dr. J erome Putnam, ex amined Mr. Jones on J uly 27, 2005. Dr. Putnam diagnosed cong estive car diomy opathy with a history of cong estive hea

rt fa i l u re; howe ver, he noted no evidenc e of a ctive ca rdiopulmonary

disease a

nd no signific ant evidenc e of obstruc tive airwa y s disease. Id . at 211. On Fe bruar

y 20, 2006, Mr. J ones we nt to W ashing ton Hospital Center for low back pain and unde rwe nt an M RI
. The results showed deg ener ative dis c cha ng es. Id . at 234. On Mar ch 31, 2006, Mr. J ones saw Dr. Sarda na, re porting a re cent a ccide nt and lower back pa in. Dr. Sarda

na
rene wed Mr. Jones’s pre scriptions. Id . at 311-12.

On Au g us t 5, 20 06 , M r. Jone s r e po rt e d to Prov ide nc e Ho sp ita l af te r a ca r a c c ide nt, complaining of pain in the ne ck and left shoulder. Id . at 26 5- 67 . H is g a it a nd po sture we re no rm a l. He wa s diag nosed with left shoulder a nd back stra in and dischar g ed. Id . Dr. Peter Moskovitz saw Mr . Jon e s o n Augus t 15 , 20 06
. He ha d pe rf or me d surg e ry on Mr
. Jone s wh e n Mr
. Jone s w a s a c hil d to t r e a t kn e e d e f

o r m i t i e s . D r . M o s k o v i t z n o t e d a s y m m e t r i c a l l u mb ar p o s tu r e an d m i l d l e g le ng th discrepa ncy . Id
. at 244. His impressio n wa s s p i n al s t enosi s, id ., but a MRIdid not revea l any signific ant stenosis. Id
. at 367. The MRI showed a narr owing of the L 1-2 and L 4-5 disc space s and dehydration, and mild bulg ing of the discs. Id
. On Marc h 1 , 2 00 7, Dr . K

uma r c omp le te d a

re sid ua l f un c tio na l c a

pa c ity a sse ssm e nt,
an d d e t e r m i n e d t h a tM r . J o n e s c o u l d

s t an d t w o h o u r s an d

s i ts i x h o u r s i n a n e i g h th o u r w o r k d ay. Id
. at 329. On Marc h 22, 2007, Dr. Raf ael L opez, a consulting phy sician, examined Mr. Jones. Dr. L op e z no te d th a t Mr . Jon e s w a s a ble to s tand

e re c t and wa lk w itha

no rm a l g a it and

he wa s a ble to heel- and-toe walk without difficulty
. Id . at 337. He did not need a n assistive device for ambulation.Mr. J ones testified that h e i s 5 fe et 9 i n ches tall and weig hs 220 pounds. AR at 21. An 3 evaluating phy sician, Dr. Putnam, noted that in Jul y of 2005, Mr. Jones was 5 fee t 8 inches tall and 264 pounds. Id
. -5- Id . Furt he r, he did

no t ha ve any lim itatio n o f r ang e of

mot ion of his sp ine , h e ha d n or

ma l stre ng th in his arms and leg s, and he ha d full use of his hand a nd fing ers. Id . at 338-39. On May 4, 2007, Dr. L o u i s De cker, Ph.D., conducte d a psy cholog ical exam. He found that Mr. J ones di splay ed int act cog nitive functions and log ical thoug ht proce sses. Id . at 345. Dr. De cker

conducte d I Q tests and found that Mr. J ones wa s within the averag e rang e of intellec tual functioning
. Id . M r. Jone s r epo rt ed to Dr. De c ke r t hat he pr e pa

re d me a ls f

or him se lf and his g randf ather and that he pe rfor

med household chor es and took c are of his own per sonal nee ds. Id
. On J anuar

y 8, 2008, Dr. Sarda

na eva luated Mr. Jones’s functional a biliti es. He op ine d th a t Mr
. Jone s c ou ld sta nd or wa lk fo r tw o ho ur s in a n e ig ht h our w or

k d ay , b ut t

hat he c ou ld only sit for

four hour s. Id . at 363 -6 4. He c on c lud e d that Mr. Jone s’ s emp hy se ma “ c on tr ibute s to his fre quent episodes of

shortness of bre ath and that sig nificantly hamper s him in perfo rm i n g work related ac tiviti es. He also has chr onic bac k pain and g out which pre vent hi m to go [sic] back to [a] full time job.” Id . at 365.

I n light of the rec ord and the testimony at the administrative hea

ring , the AL J made the following finding s: Mr. J ones has not enga g ed in any substantial ga inful activity since May

31, 2 0 0 5 , when he applied for disability benef its. Id . at 17. He w as 41 at that time. Id
. a t 2 5
. I n the past, he wor

ked as a n i n staller of of

fice cubicles, a

mover, a nd a truc k driver. Id . at 405. He ha s de g e ne rativ e dis c dis e a se , lumba r s pin a l st e no sis , c on g e sti ve he art fa ilure , c ard iomy op a thy , c hr on ic obstructive pul m onary

disease, e mphy sema, g out, obesity , and a le arningdisorder. Id . at 17-18. 3 These impairments do not meet or e x cee d the L istings. Id
. at 18-19. Mr. Jones does not require the-6-

use of an as s i s t i v e d ev ice f or ambulation. Id . at 18. He ha s not attended phy sical thera py and no do c tor ha s re fe rr e d him fo r pa in mana g e me nt du e to his mus c ulo sk e le ta l c omp la int s. F ur the r, his emphy sema a

nd chronic ob s tructive pulmonary disease a

re ma nag eable with medication. “Pulmonary

function studies reve aled a marke d restric tive ventilatory defe ct, but n o ev i d ence of obstructive air

way s disease of conseque nce. The c laimant had norma l post bronchodilator value s for F VC and F EV1. . . . In 2004, an EKGdid not show any ac u te my ocar dial infarc tion and the claimant wa s treate d with diuretics.” Id
. Also, Mr. J ones’s lea rning disability

is insufficiently

sever e to satisfy the L istings. Id . at 19. He has an I Q i n the averag e rang e of intelligenc e, and he ca n rea d but not write. He is a high s chool gra duate a nd has bee n employ ed in the past de spite his learning disability
. Id
. The AL J conclude d that Mr. J ones could perf orm sedenta

ry work, that he could stand f o r t w o h o u r s an d

s i tf o r s i x h o u r s d

u r i n g ane i g h th o u r

w o r k d ay: [T] he cla imant has the re sidual func t i o nal ca pacity to perfor

m sedenta ry work, e x cept that the c laimant can only lift five pounds fr e quent ly

and te n p ound s o c c a sio na lly , c an w a lk a nd sta nd a t le a st tw o h o u r s d

u r in g ane igh t h o u r

d ay , c ans it

f o r a t l e a s t s ix h o u rs during an eig ht hour day , pushi n g an d p u l ling is limited in the left lower e x tremity , can oc casiona lly cli m b stairs or ra

mps, can ne ver climb ladders, c an occa sionally balanc e, bend, stoop, kne el, cr ouch, squat, and

c ra wl , mu st a

vo id m od e ra

te e xpos ur e to e xtre me s in te mpe ratur e s, bo th ho t and c old , mus t avo id c on c e ntr a te d e xpos ur e to we tne ss, mus t avo id m od e ra te e xpos ur e to h ig h humi dit y , mu st a vo id all exposure to fum es, odors, dust, g ases, poor ventilation, and hazards such as m oving ma chiner y and unprote cted he ights, a nd has mod e rate lim itatio ns in t he a bil ity to c on c e ntr a te and

ma int a in attention for e x tended pe ri ods, and kee p up a pac e due to pa in, fatigue , th e e ff

e c ts o f m e dic a tio n, and

e mot ion a l f

a c tor s. Id . at 19-20. A voc ational expert testified that someone w ith t h e s am e l i m i tations as Mr. J ones
wo uld be a ble to p e rfo rm a sed entar y job , s uc h a s c le ri c a l so rt e r ( of wh ic h 7 0, 00 0 jo bs e xist-7-

nationally ) and infor

mation clerk ( of which 61,000 jobs exist nationally). Id . at 25-26. Mr. J ones filed a

n administrative appe al, and the Appea ls Council denied the appe al on J uly 23, 2008. Id . at 6. Mr. Jones now seeks a judg ment of re versa l or an orde r re manding for
a ne w a dmi nis tr a tiv e he ari ng . T he g ov e rnme nt mov e s f or an o rd e r a ff

ir min g the de nia l of

be ne fi ts. II. STA ND AR

D O F RE VI EW I n revie wing a ca se under

the SSA, the district court must defe r to the dec ision of the AL J if it is supported by substantial e vidence and it is in a ccor d with applicable la w. 42 U.S.C. § 40 5( g ); se e als o Smith v. Bowen , 82 6 F .2 d 11 20 , 11 21 (D .C. Cir . 1 98 7) . “ Sub sta nti a l e vid e nc e ” is evidenc e that a re asonable mind might acc ept as a dequate to support a conc lusion. Richardson v. Perales , 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971). This test “re quires more than a scintilla, but can be satisfied by something le ss than a pre pondera nce of the evidenc e.” Fla. Mun. Power Agenc y v. F ERC , 315 F.3d 36 2, 36 5- 66 (D .C. Cir
. 20 03 ). Ev e n tho ug h the Court mus t c are fu lly sc rutin ize the e nti re re c or d, it
m u s tn o ts u

b s t i tu t e i t s o w n j u d g m e n t f o r t h a to f t h e A L J. Se e Che v ali e r v . S ha lal a , 874 F. Supp. 2, 3 (D.D.C. 1995). III . A NA LY SIS

Mr. Jo n e s ar g u e s th a t th e A L J e r r e d b y d e c li n in g to g iv e c o n tr o ll in g w e igh t to the J anuar y 8, 2008 repor

t of his treatingphy sician, Dr. Sar dana. Under the treating phy sician rule, the AL J must give substantial we ight to the opinion of a claimant’s tre ating phy sician. Poulin v. Bowen , 817 F.2d 865, 873 ( D.C. Cir. 1987). That is, the medica l opinion of a treating phy sician is entitled to c on tr oll ingwe ig ht i f i t is “ no t in c on sis te nt w ithoth e r s ub sta nti a l r e c or d e vid e nc e and

[it is ] we llsupported by

medically

acc eptable c linical and labor atory diag nostic techniques.” Butler v. Ba rnha rt , 3 5 3 F
. 3 d

9 9 2 , 1 0 0 3 ( D
. C. Ci r . 2 0 0 4 )
. “ [A ]nA L J w h o r e je c ts a tr e a ti n g p h y s ic ian’s-8-

opinion must explain his rea sons for doingso.” Smith v. Astrue , 5 34 F . Supp . 2d 121 , 1 31 (D .D .C. 2008). Inf

i n d i n g t h a tM r . J o n e s h a d

t h e r e s i d u a l c a p ac i t y t o p er fo r ms e d e n t ar

y w o r k , t h e A LJ did not gr ant controlling weig ht to the opinion of Dr. Sarda na. Dr . Sardana opined that Mr. J ones
c ou ld s tand

fo r t wo ho ur s and

sit fo r o nly

fo ur ho ur s in an e ig ht h our w or

k d ay , th us makin g him
un a ble to p e rf

or m a fu ll t ime job . A R at 36 4. Th e AL J f ound that Mr . Jon e s w a s a

ble to s it f

or six hours in an eig ht hour work day , based on the obj ective medical evidence in the r ecor d. AR at 19- 20 . T he re is n oth ingin D r. Sard ana ’s re po rt or e lse wh e re in t

he me dic a l r e c or d th a t su pp or ts h is opinion that Mr. J ones could only sit for four hours in a n eig ht hour

work da y . Id
. at 23. Fur

ther, the AL J found that while the medica l rec ord supports Mr. Jones’s testimony that he suff

ere d from various sy mp t o m s , M r. J o n es wa s n o tcr ed i b l e r ega rd i n g t h e a l l ege d i n t en s i t y , p er s i s t en ce, or limit ing eff ects of the sy

mptoms. Id . at 21
. M r. J ones testified that he could only walk one- half a

block, stand for two-three minutes, and si t for 15-20 minutes. Id .; se e als o id . at 408. Mr. Jones, however , is i nd e pe nd e nt i n h is d a ily lif e — he too k care of

his ow n n e e ds and

his g ra nd fathe r’ s n e e ds , c oo ks , perf o rm s h ousehold chore s, shops, and attends chur ch ser vices. Id . at 345, 400, 414-17. He continued to drive a

bout once pe r we ek. Id . at 400. Mr. Jones also repor ted t hat he g ot up around 5:00 a.m. and we nt to bed betwee n 9:00 and 11:00 p.m. ; h e l i k es wa tching movies, rea ding, a nd fishing. Id . at 34 5. As the AL J note d, “ the se a c tiv iti e s are no t ind ic a tiv e of a pe rs on wh o is tot a lly disabled, and show that he is a ble to f unction quite well doing the things he wants to do.” Id . at 24. I t sh ou ld a lso be no te d th a t Mr. J on e s’ s me dic a l c on dit ion s w e re c on tr oll e d w ith medication. “I f a sy

mptom can be r easona

bly controlled by

medicatio n o r t re atm ent, it is not disabling.” G r o s s v . H

e cke r , 785 F.2d 1163, 1166 ( 4th Cir. 1986). Dr. Sarda na noted that Mr.-9-

J ones’s he art proble ms w ere stable with me dication. AR at 322. Dr. Kuma r wrote that Mr. J ones’s g out was “unde r control a ft er ap p ropriate thera py .” Id. at 336. And Dr . Kumar note d that the
re c or ds of Mr . J on e s’ s hosp ita l tre a tme nt fo r br e a thi ng tr ou ble in Marc h 200 4 a

nd May 20 05 ind ic a te that he wa s g iven bronc hodilator nebulizer thera py and discha

rg ed, witho u t an y

intubation or hospitaliz ation for e mphy sema. Id . at 183.

Mr. J ones ar g ues that it was improper for the A L J to cre dit the opi nion of eva luating phy sician Dr. L opez beca

use Dr. L opez err oneously stated t hat M r. J ones had no le g defor mities and that Mr. J ones could wa lk on his tiptoes. Dr. Moskovitz, t he phy sician who pe rfor med surg ery

on Mr. J ones for

a knee defor

mity when Mr. J ones was a child, noted m ild legleng th discrepa ncy . See id
. at 244. Dr. Kumar note d surg ical sca rs and “ defor

mities.” Id . at 185-92. But see id
. at 183 (Dr
. Kumar note d that Mr. J ones had no perma nent j oint defor

mity or impaired move ment of any joints). The a ppear ance of Mr. Jones’s leg was not at issue h er e. W h at was c ritical wa s his mobil ity and functional c apac ity . The re cord is re plete with not ations that Mr. J ones had a normal g ait and wa lked without any

assistive device s. S

e e, e .g. , AR at 158, 265-67, 276, 286 & 338-39. F urther, D r. L opez’s repor

t did not indicate that Mr. J ones was a ble to walk on his tiptoes. The re port stated that Mr. J ones wa s able to per form a he el-a nd-toe wa lk. Id . at 337. Mr. J ones also conte nds that the AL J failed to de velop the re cord w ith respec t to the treatment from Dr. Moskovitz, point ing to a Marc h 19, 2009 repor

t from Dr. Moskovitz. SeePl.’s Mot. for Rever sal [Dkt. # 26], Ex
. A (Mar. 19, 2009 repor t). Howeve r, Dr. Moskovitz did not offer
a me dic a l op ini on ; in ste a d, he sim ply c on c lud e d th a t “ Mr . Jon e s re po rt s h is e xpe ri e nc e of dis a bil ity honestly ” and that beca

use of “ injury , defor

mity , and instability

of his lumbar spine” Mr. J ones wa s disabled. See id . The AL J is not required to a cce pt a doctor’ s statement that a c laimant is disabled,-10-

a s th e is s u e o f w h e th e r a c la im an t is d is a b le d is r e s e r

v e d to th e Co mm is sioner. S ee20 C.F .R. § 4 16 .9 27 (e )( 1) . M or e ov e r, eve n if the AL J had

thi s r e po rt

be fo re him

a t th e tim e he ma de his decision, it would not chang e the fac t that there is substantial evidenc e in the record to support the ALJ ’s co nclusion of no disability . As explained above, Mr . J ones’s medic al conditions were controlled with medication, and Mr. J ones wa s able to d o t h o s e thi ng s he wa nts to do, including taking car e of himself a

nd his gr andfather. Mr . Jon e s a lso a lle g e s th a t th e AL J er re d b y fa ili ngto c on sid e r h is d ay tim e dr ow sin e ss d

ue to me dic a tio n. B ut the AL J d id c on sid e r M r. Jone s’ s d ro ws ine ss. Th e AL J expr e ssl y asked the vocational e x pert to consider whether an individual with moder ate leve ls of attention and
conce ntration for e x tended pe riods due to the side e ffe ct of m ed i ca t i o n would be able to perfor m sedenta ry work. AR at 425. The vocational expert identified ce rtain sede ntary jobs that Mr. J ones could per form. Id . at 425-26.

Mr. J o n es al s o co n t en d s t h at t h e A L J i mp ro p er l y d i s re gar d edt h e e ff

ec t s o f h i s “e at i ng difficulties.” Pl.’s Reply at 5. B ut there is nothing in the m ed i ca l rec ord to support Mr. Jones’s
c l a i mt h a th i s “ e at i n g d i f

f i c u l t i e s ” i mp i n g e d

h i s a b i l i t y t o p e r f

o r man y s u b s t an t i a l g a i n f

u l a c t i v i t y. F ina lly , M r. Jone s argue s th a t the AL J er re d b y fi nd ingthat he wa s c a

pa ble of on ly unskilled w ork and that the se dentar y jobs available in the national economy that wer e identified by the vocational expert wer e semi-skil led j obs. This argument is based on the false pr emise that the ALJ fo u n d

M r. J o n es wa s o n l y

cap ab l e o f u n s k i l l edwo rk
. T h e ALJ d i d n o tm ak e s u ch a f

i n d i n g. He f ound that Mr. J o n es wa s moderate ly limit ed in his ability

to maintain attention for extended periods and to ke ep up a pa ce. A R at 20. Unskilled work is work that ne eds little or no judgme nt to p e rf or m si mpl e ta sk s th a t c an b e le arn e d o n th e job in a sh or t pe ri od of tim e . 2 0 C.F.R.-11-

§ 416.968(a) . A “mar

ked” restric tion on conce ntration and ability to keep pa ce mig ht be consistent with unskill ed wor

k. See 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appx . 1, Section 12.00C(3). The r ecor d do e s n ot s up po rt

an a lle g a tio n th a t Mr . Jon e s h a d s uc h a mark e d r e str ic tio n o n h is a bil iti e s. The Court has c are fully scru t i n i z ed the e ntire re cord, a nd is preclude d from
s u b s t i tu t i n g i t s o w nj u d g m e n tf o r t h a to f t h e A L J. See Che valier , 874 F. Supp. at 3. I n sum, there is s ub sta nti a l e vid e nc e in t

he re c or d th a t su

pp or ts the AL J’s d e c isi on

in thi s case , e vid e nc e that a
rea sonable mind might a cce pt as ade quate to support the AL J ’s conclusion that Mr. J ones wa s not disabled under

the SSA, 42 U.S.C . § 423(d)( 1)(A)
. See R ichardson , 402 U.S. at 401.

IV . C ON CL USI ON The Commissioner’s motion for judg ment of af firmanc e [ Dkt. # 29] will be g rante d, and Mr. Jones’s motion for judgme nt of reve rsal o r re mand [Dkt. # 26] will be denied. A memorializing Orde r ac companies this Memora ndum Opinion.

Date: Septembe r 17, 2009 ___________/s/________________ ROSEMARY M. COL L YER United States District J udg e