2005 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 12-16-2005 

# S p ot swo o d 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 . 04-4160

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_2005

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 2005 D e c i sion s b y an author i 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 " S pots wood v

. C omm S oc i al S e c ur ity " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 100. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/1001 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT No. 04-4160 BEVERLY SPOTSW OOD, Appellant v. COMMI SSONER OF SOCIAL SECURI TY

_______________ A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . N o. 03- cv- 05515 ) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J oel A . Pi s ano Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

on J une 28, 2005 B efor e: R O T H , R E N D E L L and B A R R Y , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed D ece m ber16, 2005 )

OPI NI ON RO TH , C i r cui tJ udge: T hi s appea l i s fr om t he j udgm entof the D i s t r i ctC our t , aff i r m i ng t he deni al byt he C o m m iss io n e r o f

th e S o c ial S e c u rityo f

B e v e rlyS p o tsw o o d ’s c laim f o r S o c ial S e c u rity2

I ncome ( SSI) , bas ed on a di s abi l i t y . Spot s w ood cont ends t hatt he deni al i s nots uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . W e have j ur i s di ct i on overt hi s appea l fr om t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s fi nal or der aw ar di ng s um m aryj udgm entt o t he C om m i s s i onerpur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291 and 42 U . S. C . § 405( g) . T he det ai l ed hi s t or yand fa ct s of the ca s e ar e pr es ent ed i n t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s opi ni on and w i l l onl ybe s um m ar i zed he r e. See Spot s w ood v. B arnhar t , N o. 03- 5 5 1 5 (D . N . J. fil ed A u g u st 30 , 2 0 0 4 ). O urr evi ew of the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or deri s pl enary , butw e mayr ever s e the gr antof s um m aryj udgm entt o t he C om m i s s i oneronl yi f w e conc l ude thatt he A dm i ni s t r at i ve Law J udge’ s ( A L J ) fi ndi ngs w er e nots uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . See B ur ns v. B arnhar t , 312 F. 3d 113, 118 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . Subst ant i al evi dence i s t hatevi dence t hat“a re a so n a b le m in d m ig h t ac c e p t as a d e q u a te to su p p o rt a c o n c lu sio n .” H a rtra n f t v . A p f e l, 1 8 1 F . 3 d 3 5 8 , 3 6 0 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) (i n terna l ci tat ion s o m itted). T he di s abi l i t ys t andar d r equi r es evi dence of a medi cal l ydet erm i nabl e i m pai r m ent t hati s s o s ever e as t o pr eventan i ndi vi dual ’ s per form ance of anys ubs t ant i al gai nful act i vi t yw hi ch exi s t s i n t he nat i onal economy . 42 U . S. C . § 423 ( d) ( 1) ( A ) . Spot s w ood cl ai m s that s he suf

fers from m ult i ple ai l m ents , i ncludi ng pain i n h er l ow er back an d legs, a l ack of conce ntr at i on, and depr es s i on, w hi ch cons t i tut e a di s abi l i t yand thus pr ecl ude herfr om w or ki ng. T he A L J det erm i ned att he hea r i ng t hatal t hough t he bac k pai n, l eg pain, and dep res si on qu al i fi ed as severe un der the regu l at i on s, t heydid not quali fyas a3

di s abi l i t ybeca us e theyw er e noti m pai r m ent s l i s t ed i n t he r egul at i ons . I n addi t i on, t he A L J det erm i ned that , al t hough Spot s w ood coul d no l ongerper form w or k s i m i l art o her p ri o r s e d e n ta ry jo b s , s h e d id re ta in th e re s id u a l f u n c tio n a l c a p a c ity to p e rf o rm lig h t w o rk . See 20 C . F. R . § 416. 967( b) . T hus , Spot s w ood w as found notdi s abl ed byt he A L J and s he w as s ubs equent l ydeni ed bene fi t s . T hatdeci s i on byt he A L J beca m e the C o m m issi o n er’s fin al de cisi o n u n d er 4 2 U . S . C . § 4 0 5 (g). F o llo w in g th e d e n ial o f b e n e f its, S p o tsw o o d f

iled su it i n th e U .S . D istric t C o u rt, s eeki ng t o over tur n t he A L J ’ s deci s i on. Spot s w ood ar gued thatt he A L J ’ s deci s i on w as notbas ed on s ubs t ant i al evi dence , and s peci fi cal l yt hatt he A L J comm i t t ed err or s ats t eps tw o th ro u g h f

iv e o f th e e v a lu a tio n . T h e D istric t C o u rt a d d re ss e d S p o tsw o o d ’s a rg u m e n ts and found thats ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t ed the A L J ’ s det erm i nat i on. Spot s w ood t hen f ile d a tim e ly ap p e a l. W e c on c l ud e t ha tt he A LJ ’ s de c i s i on t ha tSpo t s w oo d was no te nt i t l e d t o SSI b e n e f i t s i s s u p p o rt e d b ys u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e . I n ma k i n g h i s d e t e r mi n a t i o n , t h e ALJ re v iew e d a ll o f

th e m e d ica l ev id e n c e . T h e A L J n o ted th a t m u c h o f th e e v id e n c e d a tes to w el l befor e the al l eged ons etof the di s abi l i t y . A l s o, an M R I of the l ow erback r evea l ed n o e v id e n c e o f

h e rn ia te d d is c s , w h ic h d ir e c tly c o n tr a d ic te d S p o ts w o o d ’s te s tim o n y . A ddi t i onal l y , t he A L J found no obj ect i ve evi dence t o s uppor tSpot s w ood’ s cl ai m s t hat s h e c a n n o twal k b yh e r s e l f o rs t a n d f

o rmor e t h a n f

i f t e e n mi n u t e s . Fi n a l l y , t h e ALJ r efe r r ed t o t he ps y chother api s t ’ s not es , w hi ch i ndi cat ed thatSpot s w ood had s uffe r ed fr om4

sin g le e p iso d e d e p re ss io n a n d th a t h e r re c o v e ryf ro m th a t ep iso d e w a s e n o u g h f o r h e r to r etur n t o w or k. Spot s w ood s t opped att endi ng t he ther apys es s i ons aft ers he i ndi cat ed that s he w as r etur ni ng t o w or k on a partt i m e bas i s . I d. T he A L J ’ s fi ndi ng t hatSpot s w ood r et ai ned the r es i dual funct i onal capa ci t yfor lig h t w o rk is a lso su p p o rte d b ysu b sta n tial e v id e n c e a n d w a s th u s p ro p e r. In a d d iti o n to th e e v id e n c e n o ted a b o v e , the A L J c o n sid e re d S p o tsw o o d ’s o w n a c c o u n t o f h e r d a ily abi l i t i es and ac t i vi t i es , and the fi ndi ngs of the s t at e age ncyphy s i ci ans w ho r evi ew ed the m edi cal r ecor ds . T he A L J t hen conc l uded thatSpot s w ood w as capa bl e of pe r form i ng s i m pl e, r out i ne t as ks , w hi l e avoi di ng m os tcont actw i t h pol l ut ant s , co- w or ker s , and the publ i c. O nce the A L J m ade thi s det erm i nat i on, he pr oper l yques t i oned the voca t i onal expertw ho confi r m ed that90, 000 of thos e j obs exi s t ed r egi onal l y , and over360, 000 j obs e x i s t e d n a t i o n a l l y. B eca us e the A L J pr oper l ycons i der ed al l t he evi dence and bec aus e s ubs t ant i al evi dence exi s t s t o s uppor tt he A L J ’ s deci s i on, w e w i l l aff i r m t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s gr antof su m m aryjud g m en t i n fa v o r of the C o m m issi o n er.