2008 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 5-21-2008 

# R i ve r a v . C omm S o c i al S ec urity 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 . 07-2680

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 a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

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 l l a nova 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 2008 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 nova 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 l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " R ive r a v . C omm S oc i al S e c ur ity " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1166. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1166NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL I N TH E 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 N O . 07- 2680 L YDI A R I VE RA , A ppel l ant

v . M I CH AEL J . ASTRU E, CO M M I SS I ON ER O F S OC I AL SECU RI TY

O n A pp eal F rom t he U nit ed S t at es

D istri ct C o u rt Fort he M i ddl e D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a ( D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 06- cv- 01742) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n . W ill iam W . C a ld w e ll Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay8, 2008 B E F O R E : B A R R Y a n d S T A P L E T O N , C i r cui tJudges ,

and R E ST A N I , * Judge ( Fi l ed: M ay21, 2008 )

*H on. J ane A . R es t ani , C hi ef J udge, U ni t ed St at es C our tof I nt ernat i onal T r ade, s i t t i ng by des i gnat i on.2 OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

ST A PL E T O N , C i r cui tJ udge: A ppel l antL y di a R i ver a appe al s t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on aff i r m i ng t he C o m m iss io n e r’s d e n ial o f h e r re q u e st f

o r b e n e f its. F o r th e re a so n s s tate d b e lo w , w e w ill a f f i r m. I. B eca us e w e w r i t e onl yfort he part i es w ho ar e fa m i l i arw i t h t he fa ctual cont extand proced ural his t oryof the case, w e setforth o nlyt ho se fact s necessaryt o o ur anal y si s. O n N ovember12, 2002, appel l antL y di a R i ver a fi l ed forD i s abi l i t yI ns ur ance B enef i t s and Suppl ement al Secur i t yI ncome paym ent s , cl ai m i ng t hathernum er ous ai l m ent s l eftherunabl e t o w or k. A ft era hea r i ng, t he A L J found thatR i ver a s uffe r ed fr om t he fol l ow i ng s ever e i m pai r m ent s : os t eoart hr i t i s , cervi cal di s c di s eas e, chr ondr om al aci a l eftknee, s l eep a pnea, carpal tunnel s yndr om e, fi br om y al gi a, depr es s i on, and anxi ety . H e al s o found thats he s uffe r ed fr om a s ei zur e di s or der , t hough he di d not c o n sid e r it se v e re b e c a u se th e se izu re s o c c u rre d v e ryin f re q u e n tlya n d d id n o t re su lt i n a n yc o n tin u in g lim ita tio n s o r t re a tm e n t. N e v e rth e les s, th e A L J f o u n d “ n o t en tirelyc re d ib le” R iv e ra ’s “ sta tem e n ts3

conce r ni ng t he i nt ens i t y , dur at i on, and l i m i t i ng eff ect s ” of he rai l m ent s , i n par tbeca us e of a m ed ical rep o rtinco n sist en t w ith R ivera ’s claim s tha t she w as u n ab le t o li ft an d ca rry obj ect s – cl ai m s t hatw er e furt hercontr adi ct ed byR i ver a’ s ow n t es t i m onyt hats he oft en w e n t g ro c e rysh o p p in g o n h e r o w n . (A p p . 2 7 .) A s f u rth e r ju stif

ica tio n f o r h is c re d ib ili ty det erm i nat i on, t he A L J poi nt ed t o an adve r s e i nfer ence he had dr aw n bas ed on a pa i rof r eques t s t hatR i ver a had made t o hert r eat i ng phy s i ci an, fi r s tdemandi ng a new as s es s m ent of hercondi t i on – a r eques ts he expl ai ned w as comi ng fr om herl aw y erw ho had “s enther back w i t h a new form beca us e theyw er e s eeki ng perm anentdi s abi l i t y ” – and then, aft er t he doct orr efus ed t o cooper at e, R i ver a’ s demand t hatal l hi s pr i oras s es s m ent s of her condi t i on be des t r oy ed. ( A pp. 28. ) Fi nal l y , t he A L J s ugges t ed thatR i ver a’ s oft en i n c o n s i s t e n tt e s t i mo n ywa s a n a d d i t i o n a l r e a s o n t o d o u b tt h e s e v e r i t yo f h e ra i l me n t s . As a r es ul t , t he A L J concl uded thathert es t i m onyon t hi s t opi c w as “notent i r el ycr edi bl e. ” (A p p . 2 7 .) Th i s a d v e r s e c r e d i b i l i t yf i n d i n g l e f

tth e ALJ u n wi l l i n g t o c r e d i tRi v e r a ’ s c l a i ms t hats he w as unabl e t o l i ftand ca r r yanyt hi ng atal l . I ns t ead, he found, bas ed i n par ton th e re p o rt o f

a n e x a m in in g p h y sic ian , tha t R iv e ra “ h a s th e re sid u a l f u n c tio n a l ca p a c ityto l i ft10 pounds fr equent l yand 20 pounds occa s i onal l y ; s t and and/ orw al k for6 hour s [and] sitfo r 6 h o u rs. ” (A p p . 2 6 . ) T h e A L J the n reli ed o n the testi m o n yo f th e v o ca ti o n al ex p ert t o fi nd t hat“ther e ar e j obs t hatexi s ti n s i gni fi cantnum ber s i n t he nat i onal economyt hat t he cl ai m antcan pe r form ” i n s pi t e of thes e l i m i t at i ons . ( A pp. 29. ) A s a cons equenc e, t he2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 p rov ides juri sd ict ion , an d in ev alua ti n g thes e c lai m s, this C o u rt 1 e x e rc ise s p len a ryre v iew o v e r a n ya n d a ll l e g a l co n c lu sio n s a n d re v iew s a n ya n d a ll f a c tu a l c o n c lu s io n s f

o r s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . E . g. , A l l en v. B arnh art , 417 F. 3d 396, 398 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ); N

e w e ll v. C om m ’ rof

Soc. Sec. , 3 4 7 F .3 d 5 4 1 , 5 4 5 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 3 ); Seave y v. B arnh art , 2 7 6 F . 3 d 1 (1st C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). 4 A L J concl uded thatR i ver a “ha s notbeen unde ra ‘ di s abi l i t y ’ . . . fr om N ovember6, 2002 thro u g h the d ate o f th is de cisi o n . ” (A p p . 3 0 . ) R i ver a’ s r eques tforr evi ew w as deni ed byt he SSA ’ s A ppeal s C ounci l . She t hen s oughtr evi ew i n t he D i s t r i ctC our t , w hi ch r efe r r ed the ca s e t o a magi s t r at e j udge. A ft er r evi ew i ng t he r ecor d, t he magi s t r at e j udge conc l uded thatt he A L J ’ s det erm i nat i on w as su p p o rt ed b ysu b stan ti al ev iden ce , an d the D istri ct C o u rtad o p ted h is r ep o rto v er R ivera ’s obj ect i on. T hi s appea l fol l ow ed. 1 II. R i ver a fi r s tar gues t hatt he A L J s houl d nothave dr aw n an adve r s e i nfer ence bas ed on herr eques tfora new r epor tfr om hert r eat i ng phy s i ci an, and hers ubs equentdemand th a t th e p h y sic ian d e stro ya ll h is p re v io u s re p o rts o n h e r c o n d iti o n . T h is a rg u m e n t is contr aryt o t he w el l - s et t l ed pr opos i t i on t hata tr i erof fa ctm aydr aw an adve r s e i nfer ence w h e n e v e r a lit ig a n t in ten tio n a llyd e stro y s re lev a n t ev id e n c e , w h ich th e se re p o rts u n d o u b te d ly w e re . H

odge v. W

al - Mar tSt or es , I

nc. , 3 6 0 F . 3 d 4 4 6 , 4 5 0 (4th . C ir . 2 0 0 4 ); accord Sparkm an v. C o m m ’r , 5 0 9 F .3 d 1 1 4 9 , 1 1 5 6 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 7 ); U nd erw ri t ers Lab s. I nc. v. NLRB , 1 4 7 F .3 d 1 0 4 8 , 1 0 5 4 (9 th C ir. 1 9 9 8 ); Si m on v . C o m m ’r , 830 F. 2d 499, 506 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 7 ); W

i chi ta Ter m i nalE l evatorC o. v. C o m m ’r , 6 T .C . 1 1 5 8 , 1 1 6 5 (1 9 4 6 ); 95

W I GMORE , E VI DEN C E § 2524 ( 3d ed. 1940) . A ccor di ngl y , beca us e R i ver a s aw t o i tt hat r el evantevi dence i n t he form of the pr i orr eport s of hert r eat i ng phy s i ci an w as des t r oy ed, w e c o n c lu d e th a t it w a s e n tir e ly p ro p e r f o r t h e A L J to d ra w s u c h a n in f e re n c e . N ext , R i ver a ar gues t hatt he A L J us ed the w r ong s t andar d t o as s es s t he s ever i t yof di s abi l i t yocca s i oned byherl i m i t ed upperbodym obi l i t ybeca us e he purpor t edl yr equi r ed hert o s how t hatheract i vi t i es of dai l yl i vi ng w er e “c om pl et el yobl i t er at ed. ” A r evi ew of t he r ecor d r evea l s t hatA L J neverus ed “c om pl et e obl i t er at i on” as t he s t andar d, butr ather used the ph ras e as a shorthan d sum m aryof R i vera’ s ow n d escr i pti on of the i m pact these ai l m ent s had on herdai l yact i vi t i es . ( R ec. 18. ) T he s t andar d t he A L J di d appl yw as w hether“the cl ai m anti s abl e t o do any. . . w or k cons i der i ng herr es i dual funct i onal capa ci t y , age, educa t i on, and w or k exper i ence . ” ( A pp. 25. ) T hi s i s a corr ects t at ementof the law . 2 0 C . F . R . § 4 0 4 . 1 5 2 0 (a)(4). R ivera fu rth er insist s tha t th e A L J erred in as sess ing the s ev erityo f h er se izure d iso rd e r a t ste p tw o o f

h is a n a ly sis . W h ile it is tru e , as R iv e ra stre ss e s, th a t th e a p p lica b le sta n d a rd o f

se v e ritya t th is s tag e d o e s n o t im p o se a su b sta n tial b u rd e n , the iss u e p o se d is notw hethert he di s abi l i t ycaus es anyi m pai r m entatal l . A s t he A L J r ecogni zed, t he sev erityinq u iryat st ep tw o ask s w h ethe r an im p airm en t si g n ifi ca n tl yli m it s a c lai m an t’ s phy s i cal orm ent al abi l i t yt o do “bas i c w or k act i vi t i es , ” i . e. , phy s i cal “abi l i t i es and apt i tudes nece s s aryt o do m os tj obs , i ncl udi ng, forexampl e, w al ki ng, s t andi ng, s i t t i ng, l i ft i ng, pus hi ng, pul l i ng, r eac hi ng, carr y i ng orhandl i ng, ” orm ent al act i vi t i es s uch as6

“ u n d e rsta n d in g , ca rry in g o u t, an d re m e m b e rin g sim p le in stru c tio n s; u se o f ju d g m e n t; r es pondi ng appr opr i at el yt o s upervi s i on, co- w or ker s and us ual w or k s i tuat i ons ; and d e a lin g w ith c h a n g e s in a ro u tin e w o rk se tti n g .” 2 0 C .F .R . § 4 0 4 .1 5 2 1 (b ). T h is is p rec isel ythe s tand ard that the A L J ap p li ed , an d g iven the in fre q u en cyo f R ivera ’s se izu re s a n d th e a b se n c e o f a n ylas tin g e f

f e c ts, th e re is s u b sta n tial e v id e n c e to su p p o rt h is u ltim a te c o n c lu s io n s . F inally , w e h av e n o d o u b t th at th ere w as su b stan ti al ev iden ce su p p o rt ing the A L J’s ult i m at e determ i nati on t hat R i vera w as not ent i t l ed to ben efi t s. C on t raryt o h er as ser t i on s, t he A L J di d notdi s countt he hypot het i cal s ever i t yof anyof R i ver a’ s condi t i ons . I ns t ead, h e w e n t so f

a r a s to c re d it h e r d iag n o se s a n d a c k n o w led g e th a t “th e c laim a n t’s m e d ica lly det erm i nabl e i m pai r m ent s coul d r eas onabl ybe expe ct ed t o pr oduce the al l eged s ym pt om s . ” ( A pp. 27. ) T hats ai d, fort he r eas ons m ent i oned above – namel yt he medi cal r e p o r ti n d i c a t i n g t h a ts h e h a d s u b s t a n t i a l r e s i d u a l c a p a c i t y , h e ra b i l i t yt o c a r r yi t e ms ar ound t he gr ocerys t or e, herat t empt t o obt ai n a more favor abl e r epor tfr om hert r eat i ng phy s i ci an, and heri ncons i s t entt es t i m ony– t he A L J di d notbel i eve thatR i ver a w as su f f e rin g f ro m a ll th e se sy m p to m s to th e d e g re e sh e c laim e d to b e . In o th e r w o rd s, w h ile t he A L J had no pr obl em bel i evi ng t hats om eone w i t h fi br om y al gi a ( oranyot herdi s or der R i ver a s uffe r s fr om ) coul d fee l as R i ver a t es t i fi ed thats he di d, he di d nott hi nk t hat R i ver a her s el f ac tual l yfel tt hatw ay , w hi ch i s a conc l us i on t hatw e bel i eve i s j us t i fi ed by t he r ecor d. Fur t her , hi s s ubs equentdet erm i nat i ons t hatR i ver a coul d l i ft , carr y , and l ook7

about , and hi s concl us i on t hatt her e w er e j obs R i ver a coul d per for m w er e al s o s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence , namel yt he medi cal r epor tand the t es t i m onyof the voca t i on expertappea r i ng att he hea r i ng. A s a r es ul t , t he A L J ’ s ul t i m at e det erm i nat i on t o deny R iv e ra b e n e f

its 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 . III . F o r th e re a so n s s e t f

o rth a b o v e , w e w ill a f

f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.