Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except under the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 40094 Su m m ar y Cal endar

R O YA

. B R O WN Pl ai nt i f f

- Appe l l ant

v. M I CH AEL J

. ASTRUE , COM M I SS I ON ER O F S OC I AL SECU RI TY D efen da n t

- A pp el l ee
A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e E aster n D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 6: 07- C V

- 262

B ef ore JO N E S , C h i ef

Ju dg e, an d S T E W A R T an d O W E N , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * Thi s i s a n a ppe alf

r o m a de ni alo f

s o ci al s e c ur i t y be ne f i t s . Fi ndi ng no rev ersible erro r, w e A F F IR M the j u d gm en t of the distri ct cou rt. BA CK GRO UND O n Sep t em ber 21, 200 0, pri or t o t h e current case, t h e app el l an t , R oy B row n ( “B row n ”) , fi l ed a n a p p l i ca ti on for D i sa b i l i ty In su ra n ce B en efi ts ( “D IB ”) unde r Ti t l e I I o f t h e S o c i a l S e c u r i t y Ac t ( “ t h e Ac t ” )

. Hi s a p p l i c a t i o n a l l e g e d a di sa bi l i t y o nse tdat e o f O c t obe r2, 1999. The appl i c at i on w as deni ed o n A pri l12, United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D September

2, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 09- 40094

Brown’sapp licationan d testi monyin dicate thath e h as most consi stently bee n 1 emp lo yed inth e pa st as an auto mechanic. However , during a hearin g hel d onMarch 31, 200 6, he testifi ed that he last worked, in 199 9, on an offshore drilling ri g. He also testifi ed at that ti me th at he was not lookin g for worka ndlive s off his wife’s di sabilityincome. Sh e suffere d a stroke in 199 4. 2 200 1. Si n ce B row n did n o t seek rec on si derati on of t h at denial , t h e deci si on b e c a m e FI N AL. B r ow n f i l ed ano t herappl i c at i on f orD I B under t he A c t , her e c urr ent l y at i ssue, t h at w as d e n i ed on Jan u ary 20, 200 4. I tw as aga i n den i ed u pon
r e c o ns i de r ati on on M ay 1 4, 2 00 4. Br o w n t he n f i l e d ar e que s tf

o ra he ar i ng bef ore an A dm i n i st rat i ve L aw Ju dg e ( “A L J ”). T h e A L J h el d the h eari n g on M arch 31 , 200 6. O n Sep t em be r 2 5 , 200 6, t h e A L J deci ded t h at B row n di d n ot q u a l i f yf o rDI B b e c a u s e h e wa s n o t di s a b l e d a s d e f i n e d b yt h e A c t
. B r o wn
r e q u e s t e d r e v ie w b y t h e A p p e a ls C o u n c il

. T h e A p p e a ls C o u n c ild e n ie d B r o w n ’s requ eston A pri l28, 200 7. W i t h t h at den i al , t h e A L J’ s deci si on becam e t h at of t he Co m m i s s i o n e r . On J u n e 8 , 2 0 0 7 , Br o wn s o u g h t r e v i e w o f t he C om m i ssi on er’ s deci si on by the federaldi st ri ctcour t
. The c o u rtref erred t h e case t o am agi st r at e j udge and t hen ac c ept ed t he m agi st r at e j udge’ s N ove m ber7, 2 0 0 8 r e p o r t a n dr e c o mm e n d a t i o n a n d d i s mi s s e d t h e c a s e wi t h p r ej u d i c e . B r o wn no w a ppe al s t hatde c i s i o n. DI S CU S S I ON In the D IB ap p l i ca ti on con sider ed h ere , B row n cl a i m s th a t his ab i l i ty to
w o r k ha s b e e n l i m i t e d, s i nc e at l e as t O c t o be r 1, 20 01 , bym aj o rde pr e s s i o n a nd

1 bi

- po l ardi s o r de r . H e a s s e r t s t hatw he n he i s m ani c , he ha s di f f i c ul t y c o m pl e t i ng proj ect s and com pl yi n g w i t h di rect i on s. W h en he i s depressed, h e sl eeps m ost
o f t he t i m e a nd h as di f f i c ul t y f o l l o w i ng hi s w o r k s c he dul e . M e di c alr e c o r ds dat i ng bac k t o Bro w n’ s 1992 hos pi t al i zat i on atU ni ver si t y Park H os pi t al doc um enthi s hi st or y o f m ent ali l l nes s. Begi nni ng att hatt i m e, B r ow n has
r e c e ive d av ar i e t y o f p h arm ac e ut i c al , t al k t he r ap y, a nd g r o up t he r ap y t r e at m e nt s t o a ddr e s s hi s m ani c - de pr e s s ive s ym pt o m s . Bro w n be ga n r e c e i vi ngN o. 09- 40094

3 t r eat m ent at Sabi ne V al l ey C l i ni c on M ay 20, 1996. H i s t r eat m entat that faci l i t y conti n u es t h rough t h e present, al t h ou gh he h as been un der t h e care of severaldi f

ferent phy si ci an s du ri n g t h at t i m e. S ect i on 205 ( g) of t h e A ct , 42 U

. S

. C

. § 406 ( g) , l i m i t s t h e j u di ci alrevi ew of th e d e n ia l o f d is a b ility b e n e fits to “d e te r m in in gw h e th e rth e d e c is io n is
su p p ort ed bys ubst ant i alev i denc e i n t he r ec or d and w het hert he pr ope rl egal stan d a rd s w ere u sed i n ev a l u a ti n g t h e evide n ce.” B o w lingv. S h a la la , 36 F. 3d 431, 435 ( 5 C i r . 1994) ( quot i ng Vi l la v . Sul l i v an , 8 95 F

. 2d 1 019 , 102 1 ( 5 C i r.

th th 1 9 9 0 )); Mus ev . Sul l i v an , 9 2 5 F .2d 7 8 5 , 7 8 9 (5 C ir. 1 9 9 1 ) ( pe rc ur i am ). A th f i n di ng o f no s ubs t ant i al e vi de nc e i s ap pr o pr i at e o nl y w he r e t he r e i s a cons p i cuou s absence of cr edi bl e choi ces or no contr ary m edi calevi den ce. Joh n son v. B ow en , 864 F

. 2d 340, 343- 44 ( 5 C i r . 1988) (c i t i ng Ham es v. Heckler , th 7 0 7 F .2 d 1 6 2 , 1 6 4 (5 C ir

. 1 9 8 3 )). T h e co u r t m a yn o t r e -w e ig h th e e v id e n c e in th t h e rec ord, nor t ry t h e i ssues de no vo , no r s ubs t i t ut e t he c o ur t ’ s j udg m e ntf o rt he C o m m is s io n e r ’s , e v e n i f t h e e v id e n c e p r e p o n d e r a t e s a g a in s tth e C o m m is s io n e r ’s d e c is io n . Harrel lv. B ow en , 8 6 2 F .2d 4 7 1 , 4 7 5 (5 C ir. 1 9 8 8 ). th

“ Subs t ant i ale vi de nc e i s m o r e t han a s c i nt i l l a butles s t han a pr e po nde r anc e –t hati s , e no ugh t hata r e as o nab l e m i nd w o ul d j udg e i ts uf f i c i e nt to su p p ort th e d ecisi on . ” Pe na v . As t r ue , 271 Fed. A ppx. 382, 383 ( 5 C i r . 2003) th ( citingF

a lco v. S h a la la , 2 7 F

. 3 d 16 0 , 16 2 ( 5 C i r. 19 9 4 ))

. F ou r fa ctors con sti tu te th sub st an t i alevi den ce: ( 1) obj e c t ivem e di calfact s orcl i n i calf i n di n gs; ( 2) di agn oses o f e xa m i ni ng phy s i c i ans ; ( 3) s ubj e c t ive e vi de nc e o f pa i n a nd d i s ab i l i t y; a nd (4 ) th e p la in tiff

’ s a g e , e d u c a tio n , a n d w o r k h is to r y . Fraga v. B ow en , 810 F

. 2d at 1 3 0 2 , n .4 (5 C ir. 1 9 8 7 ).

th Acla im a n t h a s th e b u r d e n o f p r o v in gd is a b ility

. Wr e n v . S u l l i v an , 9 2 5 F

. 2 d 12 3 , 1 2 5 (5 C i r. 1 9 9 1 ). T h e A ct d efi n es “disab i l i ty” a s an “i n a b i l i ty to th
e n g a g e in a n y su b stan ti a lga i n ful activity by rea son of a n y m ed i ca lly d e te r m in a b le p h y s ic a l o rm e n ta l im p a ir m e n t w h ic h c a n b e e x p e c te d to re s u lt in deat h or w hi c h c an be expe c t ed t o l as t f or a c ont i nuous per i od o f notl es s t han 12N o. 09- 40094

4 m on t h s. ” 42 U

. S

. C

. § 416 ( I) ( 1) (A) ; 42 U

. S

. C

. § 423(d) ( 1) (A)

. A“ ph y si calor
m ent ali m pai r m ent” i s an anat om i c al , physi ol ogi c al , orps yc hol og i c al abn orm al i t y w h i ch i s dem on st rabl e by acceptabl e cl i n i cala n d l aboratory d ia g n o stic tec h n iq u e s. 42 U .S .C

. § 4 2 3 (d )(2)(A); 4 2 U .S .C

. § 1 3 8 2 c(a )(3)(B ). Afiv e -ste p a n a lys is g u id e s th e C o m m iss ion e r’s d e t e r m in a tion of a
c l ai m ant ’ s di s ab i l i t y: ( 1) I s t he c l ai m antc ur r e nt l y e n g a g e di n s u b s t ant i alg ai nf ul
ac t ivi t y? ( 2 ) I s t he al l ege d i m pai r m ents eve r e? ( 3) D oe s t he c l ai m anthave an im p a ir m e n t fo r c o m b in a tio n o f im p a ir m e n ts th a t m e e t o re q u a l th o s e lis te d in A p p e n d ix1 ? (4 ) D o e s th e im p a ir m e n t p r e v e n t t h e cla im a n t fr o m p e r fo r m in gh is pa st r e l evan tw ork? ( 5) D oes t h e i m pa i rm en tpreven tt h e cl ai m an tf rom per f or m i ng any oth er w or k? 20 C. F. R

. § 404. 1520(b)

- (f ) ; 20 C. F. R

. § 416. 920. F u rt h erm ore, a cl ai m an tm u stshow t h at he w as di sabl ed on or bef ore t h e l ast d a yo f h is in s u r e d s ta tu s . W are v. S chw ei ker , 6 5 1 F .2d 4 0 8 , 4 1 1 (5 C ir. 1 9 8 1 ). th The c l ai m antbe ar s t he b ur de n o f pr o o f f o rs t e ps ( 1) t hr o ugh ( 4)

. I f t he c l ai m ant show s t h at he cann otperf orm h i s p ast rel evan tw ork, the C om m i ssi on er bears th a t b u r d e n a t s te p (5 ). V illa , 8 9 5 F. 2 d 1 0 1 9 , 1 0 2 2 ( 5 Ci r . 1 9 9 0 )

. THE ALJ th f ou n d that al t h ou gh B row n ha s m en t alp robl em s, h e d i d n otf i tt h e def

i n i t i on of

“ d i s a b l e d ” d u r i n gt h e p e r i o d c o v e r e d b yh i s b e n e f i t s c l a i m. A pp el l an tB row n argu es that the A L J’ s f i n di n g of

“ n otdi sabl ed” i s based
o n s i g n i f

i c a n tl e g a le r r o ra n d l a c k s t h e s u p p o r to f s u b s t a n t i a le v i d e n c e . B r o wn c o nt e nds t hatt he ALJ e r r e d i n e va l uat i ng t he m e di c al e vi de nc e i n w e i ghi ng t he
m edi cal source opi n i on s of rec ord. I n t h i s app eal , B row n f ocuses on al l eged err or byt he ALJ i n t w o w ays: (1) hi s m i s t ak e nl y w e i ghi ng t he t e s t i m o ny o f a no nexa m i ni ng ps yc hi at r i s t , D r . Shar i f i an, i n c o m pa r i s o n t o t he t e s t i m o ny of D r . H ar ol d, on w hos e ass es sm entB r ow n heavi l y re l i es forproo f of h i s di sa bi l i t y; and ( 2) m i sc harac t er i zi ng D r . H ar ol d’ s expe r tt es t i m ony as of “ l i t t l e pr obat i ve val ue. ” Brow n f

urt herc ont ends t ha t the AL J e r r ed by( 3) f i ndi ng t hat subs t ant i alev i denc e s up p ort ed a l ac k of c r edibi l i t y o f

B r ow n’ s subj ec t i ve c o m p la in ts
.N o. 09- 40094

Dr. Mah di S harifian is th e St ate Agencyreviewin g m e dic al psychi atri st who conclude d 2 th at Brown h a d no more th an mo derate li mitation s inselect edare a s of functio nin g . Brown also points out that Dr. Sharifian has a specialty in child psychiatry, sugge sting that shemay not be adequat ely qualifi ed to assess his condition

. However , Dr. Sharifian’s secon dary sp ecialty is gene ral ps ychiatry. 5 Th e Com m i ss i onerc ont ends t hatt he A LJ pro per l y eval uat ed t he m edi c al
e vi de nc e a nd p r o pe r l y rej ect ed t he c r e dibi l i t y o f Br o w n’ s c o m pl ai nt s . The Com m i s s i o ne rc o nt e nds t hatt he a ppl i c at i o n o f t h e pr o pe rl e ga ls t and ar d a nd t he
s uf f i c i e nc y o f

t he e vi de nc e i n t hi s c as e s upp o r t t he de c i s i o ns o f t he ALJ andt he fede ra ldistri ct cou rt. In order t o prove h i s d i sabi l i t y, B row n rel i es h eavil y on the t est i m on y of D r . H a r o ld a t t h e S a b in e V a l l e y C l in ic

. B r o w n co n te n d s th a t D r . H a r o ld is pr o pe r l y c l as s i f

i e d a s a “ t r e at i ng phy s i c i an” a nd “ e xa m i ni ng s o ur ce. ” A s s uc h, hi s t es t i m ony re gar di ng B r ow n’ s c ondi t i on w oul d be w ei ghed m or e he avi l y t han t hatof D r . Sha r i f

i an , a no n- e xa m i ni ng s o ur c e . W he n a no n- e xa m i ni ng 2 phy s i c i an’ s c o nc l us i o ns e i t he rc o nt r ad i c to ra r e uns upp ort ed bya n e xa m i ni ng phy s i c i an’ s f

i ndi ngs , t he no n- e xa m i ni ng phy s i c i an’ s r e po r tdo e s no tpr o vi de
s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . 2 0 C .F .R

. § 4 0 4 .1 5 2 7 (f)(2 )(iii). New t on v. A pfe l , 209 F. 3d at4 48 , 4 58 ( 5 Ci r . 2 00 0)

. A t r e at i ng s o ur c e “ m e an s your o w n ph ys i c i an, th psy c hol ogi st , orot herac c ept abl e m edi c als our c e w ho pr ovi des yo u, orhas pro vi ded yo u, w i t h m edi c alt r eat m entor eval uat i on an d w ho has , orhas had, an on goi n g t reat m en trel ati on shi p w i t h you . ” 20 C

. F

. R

. § 404
. 150 2. B row n bases hi s a r gum e nto n t he fac tt hatD r . H ar o l d t r e at e d Br o w n o nc e e ve r y t hr e e m o nt hs bet w ee n January 2 004 and M ay 200 5. H e al so poi nt s outt hatD r . H ar ol d had t he o ppo r t uni t y t o r e vi e w Br o w n’ s r e c o r ds f r o m t he Sa bi ne V al l e y Cl i ni c , da t i ng b a c k to 1 9 9 6
. A s t h e A L J f

ou n d, h ow ever, B row n ’ s vi si t s w i t h D r. H arol d took pl ace af t er t h e rel evan tt i m e peri od u n der revi ew i n t h i s c ase. Th e rel evan tperi od d ates f r o m O c t o be r1 , 20 01 t o Se pt e m be r 30 , 20 02
. Thi s i s t he o nl y r e l e va ntpe r i o d t he l aw requi red t h e A L J to consi der, gi ven t h e expi rat i on of B row n ’ s i n sured stat u s,N o. 09- 40094

Dr. Harolddidnotse e Browndurin g th e period for which Brown nowse ek s b enef it s, 3 norc anhisr eview of Brown’sp a sttre atm ent rec ord s revive analrea dy -d enie d cl aim

. If a clai mant fail s to timelyapp ealth e deni al of a disab ility clai m, thecl aim beco mes fin al and res judi ca tabars th e cl aimant from seekingdisabilityfor that sameperiod in a subsequentlyfil ed app lication . Bro wn v. Apfel , 19 2 F .3d 4 92, 495(5 C ir. 1 999). 2 0 C .F.R . § 404 .957 (c)(1). We th concludeth at resjudica tabars con siderationof that prior p erio d h ere. 6 andt he fac tt hatBr ow n fi l e d a n e ar l i e rD I B app l i c at i o n t hatw as de ni e d a nd
ne ve ra ppe al e d. 3 B row n al so di scoun t s t h e a u t h ori t y of D r. S h ari f

i an . H ow ever, f

i n di n gs of fac tm ad e b y St at e Age nc y c o ns ul t ant s c o nc e r ni ng t he na t ur e a nd s e ve r i t y o f t he
c l ai m ant ’ s i m p a i r m e n t s mus tb e t r e at e d a s e xp e r tt e s t i m o ny bya no n- e xa m i ni ng
s o u r c e a t th e A L J a n d A p p e a ls C o u n c il a d m in is tr a tiv e re v ie w le v e ls

. SSR 9 6- 6p , Pol i cy I nt e r pre t at i on R ul i ng Ti t l e s I I and XV I :Cons i der at i on of

Ad m i ni s t r at i ve Fi ndi ngs of

Fac tBy St at eAge ncy Me di c alandPsy c ho logi c alCons ul t ant s att he A d mi n i s t r a t i v e L a w Ju dg e a n d A pp e a ls Co u n c i l L e v e l of Re v i e w, 1 9 9 6 W L. 37 41 80 ( SSA)

. Dr. Sha r i f i a n’ s a s s e s s m e nto f

Br o w n was pr o pe r l y c o ns i de r e d a nd
w as t i ed to t h e rel evan tperi od at i ssue h ere. O n t h e cl osel y rel ated qu est i on w h et h er D r. H arol d’ s t est i m on y w as of

“ l i t t l e p r obat i ve val ue, ” B r ow n ar gues D r . H ar ol d’ s t es t i m ony i s r el evant , t hough i ti s r et r os pec t i ve. H e c ont ends t hatr et r os pec t ive m edical d i agnos es m ay consti t u t e rel evan tevi den ce of pre- exp i rat i on di sabi l i t y. Th e t w o cases he ci t es i n sup port of

hi s posi t i on , how ever, app l y speci f i cal l y t o d i sabi l i t y cl ai m s r el ated to p o s t t r a u m a tic s tr e s s d is o r d e r . Li ke s v . Cal laha n , 1 1 2 F .3d 1 8 9 , 1 9 0 -9 1 (5 th C ir

. 1 9 9 7 ). L oza v. A pfe l , 2 1 9 F .3 d 3 7 8 , 3 9 6 ( 5 C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). M o r e s ig n ific a n t, is th t hatt he s e c as e s , a nd Br o w n’ s a c c o m pa n yi n g ar gum e nt , do no ta ddr e s s t he im p a ct o f re s ju d ica ta on t h e peri od p ri or t o O ct ober 1, 200 1, gi ven B row n ’ s pri or d e n i a lo f

DI B. Fur t he r , e ve n i f

D r . H ar o l d’ s t e s t i m o ny w as de e m e d t hatof a “ t r e at i ng ph ysi ci an , ” i tw ou l d on l y be gi ven “ control l i n g w ei gh t ” i f i tw as w el lsup ported by m edi c al l y acc ept abl e cl i ni c alan d l abor at or y di agnos t i c t ec hni ques , and w asN o. 09- 40094

Th e record als o indic ates that Brown fail ed toapp ear for his two scheduled 4 appointments onMay25 , 20 02 and July 17, 200 2. Neitherparty dispute s thi s fact . However, the ap pellant ar guesthat themis se d app oint me ntssugges t the s everity of Brow n’sincapa city, wherea s theapp ell ee insi sts that th eyin dicate a failure to pursue treatment. Given the other issues under c onsi derationh ere, this particul ar disputeis not determinative. 7 n o t in co n sis te n t w ith oth e r s u b sta n tia l ev id e n ce . 2 0 C .F .R

. § 4 0 4 .15 2 7 (d )(2). D r. H arol d com pl et ed a rest ri ct ive f i l l

- i n - t h e- bl an k an d c h e ck

- t h e- bl ock

“ p s y c hi a t r i c/p s y c ho l ogi c ali m pai r m entques t i onnai r e” on M ay 16, 20 0 5
. Th e ALJ
con cl u d ed tha t t h i s as ses sm en t he l d l i ttl e v a l u e n ot o n l y b eca u se of th e late d a te t hati to c c ur r e d, b utal s o be c aus e D r . H ar o l d di d nothave a l e gi t i m at e t r e at i ng relati on sh i p w i th B row n at th a t t i m e. D r. H a rold sa w B row n f ive tim es p ri or to t hatas se ss m ent , w i t h m os tof t he vi si t s l as t i ng s i gni f i c ant l y l es s t han 20
m in u te s . A s th e co u r t b e lo w co n c lu d e d , a n o p in io n b a s e d o n s u c h a re la tiv e ly flee tin gre la tion sh ip sh o u ldn o t b e a cc o rd e d t h e “co n tro ll in gw e igh t” o f a

“ t r e at i ng phy s i c i an” t e s t i m o ny unde rt he l aw. The r e f o r e , D r . H ar o l d’ s t e s t i m o ny
w as of l i m i t ed p robative value here. Reg ar di ng t he i s s ue o f Br o w n’ s c r e dibi l i t y, w e e m pha s i z e a ga i n t hatt he rel evan tone-year t i m e peri od run s f rom B row n ’ s al leg e d o n setof di sabi l i t y on O ct ober 1, 200 1 to t h e date he l ast m ett h e i n sure d stat u s r equ i rem en t s on Se pt e m be r3 0, 2 00 2. W hil e Br o w n’ s m e di cal l y determ i n able i m pa i rm en t s d ur i ng th a t t im e co u ld re a s o n a b lyb e e x p e c te d to p r o d u c e th e s y m p to m s h e a lle g e d in h i s t est i m on y bef

ore t h e A L J, t h e A L J f ou n d that t h e obj ect ive m edi calevi den ce do e s no ts upp o r thi s a l l e ga t i o ns c o nc e r ni ng t he i nt e ns i t y, dur at i o n, a nd l i m i t i ng effects of h i s sy m p tom s d u ri n g th e relev a n t pe ri od

. B row n ’ s su b j ective a ccou n ts
o f h is illn e s s ca n n o t o u tw e ig h th e co u n te r v a ilin gfa c ts
. I n fa c t , t h e o n l y d o c u me n t a r ye v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d f r o m t h e r e l e v a n tt i me pe r i o d i s c l i ni c no t e s f r o m t w o m e di c ala ppo i nt m e nt s , o ne o n M ar c h 4 , 2 00 2, a nd t he o t heron Sept em ber 1 6, 2002. The f i r stof t hos e no t es , c r eat ed by 4 D r . M urphy, r epo r t ed t hatB r ow n w as g en era l l y o r i ent ed, hi s m oo d w as eut hym i c , hi s af

fec tw as appr opr i at e, and he di d n othave sui c i dalorhom i c i dalN o. 09- 40094

8 i dea t i on s. Th e sec on d n ot e report ed that B row n di d n otha ve sui ci da lor hom i c i dali deat i ons and t hathe had an appr opr i at e a f fec t
. Based on a M ent al Re s i d ua lFu nc t i o na lCa p a c i t yAs s e s s m e ntc o m p l e t e d o n M a y1 3 , 2 0 0 4 , t he ALJ f o und t hatb e t w e e n Oct o be r1 , 2 00 1 andSe pt e m be r3 0, 2 00 2, Br o w n r e t ai ne d t he resid u a lf

u n cti on a lcap a ci ty n ece ssa ryfor a ran ge of w ork activi ty, su b j ect to
som e li m i tati on s. T h ose l i m i tati on s, de em ed “m od era te, ” aff ected : h i s ab i l i ty to
u n d e r s ta n d , r e m e m b e r , a n d ca r r yo u t d e ta ile d in s tr u c tio n s ; to m a in ta in at t ent i on and c onc ent r at i on f orex t ended pe r i ods ; t o c om pl et e anor m alw or k day
a n d w ork w ee k w i th ou t i n terru p ti on s f rom p sy ch ologicall y b a sed s ym p tom s; to perf orm at a consi st en tpace w i t h ou tan un reasona bl e n u m ber a n d l en gth of res t peri ods; t o accepti n struct i on s and res pon d ap propri atel y t o cr i t i ci sm f rom sup ervi sors ; an d to setreal i st i c goal s and m ak e pl an s in d e p e n d en tof ot h ers. B as ed upon f

urt hert es t i m ony o f

a voc at i onalex per t , t he A LJ co ncl uded t hat Bro w n c o ul d pe r f

o r m hi s pa s t r e l e va ntw o r k a s a n a ut o m o bi l e m e c hani c dur i ng t h e rel evan tone- ye arpe r i o d. Ac c o r di n gl y, B row n coul d n otbe properl y cl assi f i ed
a s “disab l ed ” un d er th e A ct. T h e A L J evaluated B row n ’ s credibi l i t y u n der ap propri ate l egal st an da rds, andhi s c o nc l us i o n i s s uf f i c i e nt l y s upp o r t e d. For t hes e r eas ons , w e c onc l ude t hatt he A LJ appl i ed t he pr ope rl egal
s t and ar d i n ev al uat i ng t he c as e , a nd s ubs t ant i ale vi de nc e s upp o r t s t he
c o n c l u s i o n b e l o w t h a t Br o wn ’ s a p p l i c a t i o n f o r DI B s h o u l d b e d e ni e d. The j u dg em en tof

t h e di st ri ctcourti s AF FI RM ED

.