2006 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
8-2-2006 

# M a yes v . S o c i al S ec ur it y Admn
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 . 05-5055

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : 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_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou 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 a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no va U niv e 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 2006 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no va U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t 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 a t ion

" M a y e s v . S oc i al S e c ur it y Admn " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 625. 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_2006/625A s th e p a rties a re f a m ili a r w ith th e p ro c e d u ra l h isto ry , w e f in d it u n n e c e ss a ry to 1 r eci t e i t ful l y her e. NOT PRECEDENTIAL U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E T H IRD C IR C U IT
No. 05-5055
NO RMA N M AY ES, Appellant

v. SOCI AL SECURI TY ADMI

NI STRATI ON On appe al Fr om the United States District Court F or the Ea ste rn

Di str ic t of

Pe nn sylva

nia (E.D. Pa. Civ. No. 04-c v-01517) District J udg e: Honora

ble Clifford Scott Gre en Submit ted Under

Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) AUGUST 1, 2006 Be fore : SL OVI TER, SMI TH AND VAN AN TWERP EN, Circuit J udg es

(F iled: August 2, 2006 )
OPI NI ONOF TH E CO UR T

PER C URIAM No rm an M ay e s c ha lle ng e s th e de nia l of his a pp lic atio n f

or Sup ple me nta l Se c ur ity

Inc ome (“ SSI ” ) u nd e r T itl e XV Iof

the Soc ia l Se c ur ity

Ac t, 4 2 U .S. C. § 13 81 e t se q. Th is c a se ha s a protrac ted history

spanningover nine y ear s and includingthree hearings be fore an Administrative L aw Judge (“A L J ”). Mayes filed the unde rlying a pplication in 1993, claiming that he was 12

unable to wor

k due to pain and a

rthritis stemming from gunshot wounds to his face a nd neck sustained in the ea

rly 1970' s, as well as sinusitis and nasal c ong estion. At that time, May es wa s 44 y ear s old and had a

tenth-grade education. After the most re cent he aring , held on Octobe r 4, 2002, the AL J issued a dec ision finding that Mayes wa s not disabled. Mayes sought reviewof this decision in the District Court. The District Court g rante d summary judgme nt in favor of

the Commi ssioner in an orde r ente red on Septe mber 21, 2005. Mayes appe als from that orde r, proce edingpro se. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) . Although our revie w of the D istrict Court’s gr ant of summary judgme nt is plenary , we may reve rse that jud g me nt o nly

if we fi nd that th e AL J’s f

ind ing s w e re no t su

pp or te d b y “ su bs tanti a l e vid e nc e ” in the re c or d. Se e B ur

ns v. B arnha

rt , 3 12 F .3 d 1 13 , 1 18 (3 d Ci r. 20 02 ). Sub sta nti a l e vid e nc e is l e ss than a pr eponder ance but more than a scintilla; itis “such re levant evide nce a s a re asonable mind might ac cept a s adequate” to support a c onclusion. See id. (interna l citations omit ted). To be e ligible f

or SSIbenef

its, an applicant must show that he or she is “disabled” by de mon str atin gthe e xiste nc e of a se ve re imp a ir

me nt whic h ma

ke s th e a pp lic ant u na ble to d o h is or her past rele vant work or

any substantial ga inful work that exists i n the national ec onomy . See Bur ns, 312 F.3d at 119. An AL J employ s a five- step sequential test in makinga dete rmination as to d isa bil ity . Se e id. at 11 8- 19 ; 20 C.F .R. § 4 16 .9 20 (a ). Our d isc us sio n f oc us e s o n th e fo ur

th and fifth steps. At the f

ourth step, the AL J deter

mines the claimant’s “ residual f unctional capa city ,” which is de fined a s “the most [a claimant] can do despite [his] limit ations.” See 20 C.F .R. § 4 16 .9 45 (a )( 1) . I f t he c la ima nt d e mon str ate s a

n in a bil ity to d o p a st r e le va

nt w or k o r i f no past rele vant work e x ists, st ep five require s the AL J to show that the claimant c an per form “other work” exis ting in the national economy . See B urns, 312 F.3d a t 119. “Other

work”“Li ght w or k” i nvol ves “l i ft i ng no m or e t han 20 pounds at a t i m e” a nd “fr equent 2 li fti n g o r ca rry ing o f o b jects w eigh ing u p to 1 0 p o u n d s. ” S ee 2 0 C
. F
. R
. § 4 0 4
. 1 5 6 7 (b). M a y e s te stif

ied th a t h e liv e d a lo n e , co o k e d , cle a n e d , d id lau n d ry , too k p u b lic 3 tr a n s p o rt a tio n , a n d w a s p u rs u in g a h ig h s c h o o l d ip lo m a th ro u g h a c o rr e s p o n d e n c e c o u rs e . H e fur t her s t at ed t hat he gene r al l y had no t r oubl e w al ki ng, s t andi ng, or s i t t i ng, and t hat he cou l d li ft betw een 2 0 an d 2 5 p ou nd s. consists of jobs that ex ist in si g nificant number s in the national ec onomy that a cla imant can perf orm g iven his ag e, educ ation, past work e x perie nce, a nd residual f

unctional ca

pacity . See id. Af te r r e vie wi ngthe me dic a l e vid e nc e in t he re c or d a

nd Ma y e s’ te sti mony

a bo ut h is impairments, the AL J conclude d that Mayes had a residual f unctional ca

pacity to perfor m light work as longas he w as not exposed to damp or cold environme nts, or require d to turn his head 2 fre quently

from side to side or r eac h above shoulde r leve l. Mayes argues that the AL J did not adequately

acc ount for all of his sy

mptoms, i ncludingthe fa ct that his sinus condition and neck pa in a re tr ig g e re d b y

we t or c old we athe r. We d isa g re e . A lth ou g h th e AL J con sid e re d M ay e s’ testimony about his pain and other

impairments, she found Ma y es’ c laim that his pain prevente d him from workingnot cre dible, as it conflicted both with his testimony about his daily

activities and with his treatment r ecor ds, which showed that he was be ing tr eate d conser vatively
. The

3 AL J also noted that Mayes’ pr actice of not g oing out into bad we ather was a self-limiting reg imen rathe r than one presc ribed by doctors or suppor

ted by objective medic al evidenc e. Although c onsideration must be g iven to a cla imant’s complaints of pain, see Smit h v. Califano , 637 F.2d 968, 972 ( 3d Cir.1981), such complaints ar e not conc lusive evidenc e of disability . See 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(5)( A). See also Chambliss v. Massanari, 269 F .3d 520, 522 (5 Cir. 2001) th (per curiam) (conside rable defe renc e is g rante d to an AL J ’s assessment of the disablingnature of a cla imant’s pain). After findingthat Mayes had no r eleva nt past work, the AL J proce eded to the f ifth, and final, step of the disability deter mination process. B ased on te stimony from a voc ational expert4

(“V E”) that a per son with May es’ impairme nts could perf orm assembler , inspector, a nd office
c l e r k j o b s , w h i c he x i s t e d

i nth e th o u s an d s i nb o thth e r e g i o n a l an d n at i o n a l e c o n o m i e s , th e A LJ fo un d th at Ma

y e s w a s n ot “ dis a

ble d” a s d e fi ne d b y

the Soc ia l Se c ur ity

Ac t. Mayes ar gues that he w as denie d due proc ess by virtue of his lac k of counse l at the hear ing. An SSIclaimant has a due proc ess right to a hearing that is fundamentally fair. See Richardson v. Pera les, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971). A c laimant also has a statutory rig ht to be repr esente d by

counsel at the hear ing. See 42 U.S.C. § 406(a). We disagree with Appellee that M aye s ’ f a i l ur e t o o b t a i nc o un s e l c o n s t i tut e d an“ e f f e c t i v e w a i v e r ” o f

th i s r i g h t . T o th e c o n tr ar y, May e s’ re qu e st f

or a se c on d c ontin

ua nc e in o rd e r t o f

ind c ouns e l si g na ls h is i nte nt t o invo ke thi s rig ht. Nonetheless, Ma

y es’ lac k of counse l, on its own, is nota suff icient ground for

a re mand, which is only

appropr iate if Mayes ca

n show that he wa s prejudice d. See Domozik v. Cohen, 413 F.2d 5, 9 ( 3d Cir. 1969). We agree with Appellee that Mayes ca nnot make this showing. An AL J has a he ighte ned duty to develop the r ecor d when a claimant is pro se. See , e.g ., Do b ro wo l s ky

v . C al i fan o , 6 0 6 F. 2 d

4 0 3 , 4 0 7 (3 d

C i r. 1 9 7 9 ). T h e A L J fu l fi l l edth i s d uty , thro u gh
s o m e t i m e s H e r c u l e ane f

f o rt s . O v e r

th e c o ur s e o f

thr e e h e ar i n g s an d

a s m any s u b p o e n a s , th e A LJ
secur ed the tre atment notes of Ma y es’ tre atingphy sician, Dr. H ankins. The AL J also obtained the medica l opinions of two consulting phy sicians and e licited extensive testimony from Mayes
re g ard inghis c la ims . F ur the r, the AL J com

pe ns ate d f

or the a bs e nc e of a c ouns e le d c ha lle ng e to the VE ’s te sti mony

by a sk ingMay e s whe the r t

he re wa s a

ny re a so n h e wo uld

no t be a ble to pe rf or m any of the su g g e ste d jo bs . Se e Tr n. 50 0. In r e sp on se , M ay e s me re ly re ite ra te d h is pr e vio us state me nts to t

he e ff e c t th at ba d w e athe r c ou ld i nte rf e re wi th h is a

bil ity to a rr ive at any job on time. See id. In view of the complete r ecor d, including te stimony and medica l evidence from thre e hea

ring s, we c onclude that Ma y es’ he aringwas funda

mentally fair de spite his lack of5

c ouns e l. May e s’ fi na l argume nt, that he wa s e nti tle d to a pr e sumpt ion

that he wa s d isa

ble d b e c a us e he had r ece ived bene fits prior to beingincar cer ated, is without merit. Mayes’ nine year s of imprisonment acted to suspend, then te rminate, his bene fits. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.1325, 1335. Be cause we c onclude that the A L J ’s dec ision is s upported by substantial evidence , we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.