# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 8- 19 10

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Ro be rt P au l Do ls

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

And rew Sau l, Co m

m is si on er, So ci al Secu rit y Adm in is tra ti on 1

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l

Defe nd an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta - Mi nn eap ol is

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Apri l 1 9, 2 01 9
Fi le d: Ju ly 26, 2 01 9

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re COLLOTON, GRUEND ER, an d ERI CKSON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

GRUENDER, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

The So c i al Secu rit y Co m m is si on er de ni ed Ro be rt Dol s’s ap pl ic at io n fo r

su pp le m en ta l se cu rit y in co m e. Afte r th e Co m m is si on er is su ed a fin al de ci si on , Dol s

And rew Sau l be cam e th e Co m m is si on er of So ci al Secu rit y on Ju ne 17

, 20 19 1

an d ha s be en au to m at ic al ly su bs ti tu te d as a p a r t y pu rs ua nt to Fed eral Ru le of App el la te Pro ced ur e 4 3( c)(2 ).fil ed a co m

pl ai nt in th e di st ric t co ur t, whi ch gr an te d th e Co m m is si on er’s m ot io n fo r 2

su m m ary jud gm en t. We affir m

.

Dol s ap pl ie d fo r su pp le m en ta l secu rit y in co m e in Sep te m be r 20 13

. Afte r th e

cl ai m was in it ia ll y de ni ed an d de ni ed ag ai n up on reco ns id erat io n, an ad m in is tra ti ve

la w jud ge (“ ALJ”) he ld a he ari ng . Dol s; Dr. Mic ha el Lace, a ps y ch ol og ic al ex pe rt;

Nan cy Kale y , Dol s’s co un se lo r; an d a vo cat io na l ex pe rt te st ifi ed at th e he ari ng

. The

ALJ is su ed a de ci si on on Sep te m be r 2, 20 15 us in g th e fiv e-s te p pr oc es s ou tl in ed by

20 C.F.R. § 41 6.9 20 (a) fo r ev al ua ti ng di sa bi li ty. At st ep tw o , t h e ALJ de te rm in ed

th at Dol s “ ha s th e fo ll owi ng se ve re im pa irments : an xi et y , d ep res si on , Asp erg er’s

di so rd er, cere br al dysfu nc ti on , ob se ss iv e co m pu ls iv e di so rd er an d [a ] h i s t or y of

su bs ta nc e ab us e/ de pe n de nc e.” At st ep th ree, th e ALJ co nc lu de d th at Dol s’s

im pa irments di d no t mee t o r m ed ic al ly eq ua l “ th e se ve rit y of on e of th e li st ed

im pa irments .” The ALJ de ni ed Dol s be n e f i t s , g i vi ng gr eat weig ht to Dr. Lace’s

o p i n i o n a n d no weig ht to Kale y ’s op in io n. The App eal s Co un ci l de ni ed Dol s’ s

req ue st fo r rev ie w, an d th e ALJ’ s de ci sio n be cam e th e Co m m is si on er’s fin al de ci si on

.

In gr an ti ng su m

m ary jud gm en t, th e di st ric t co ur t de te rm in e d t h at su bs ta nt ia l

ev id en ce su pp or te d bo th th e ALJ’s co nc lu si on th at Dol s di d no t m eet or eq ua l a li st ed

im pa irment an d th e ALJ’s de ci si on to gi ve gr eat w e i g h t t o Dr. Lace’s op in io n. On

ap pe al

, Dol s arg ue s th at hi s se ve re im pa irments m eet li st in gs 12 .02

, 12 .04

, 12 .06

, an d

12 .10

. Se e 20 C.F.R. pt

. 40 4

, sb pt

. P, ap p. 1 (2 01 3)

. He al so arg ue s th at th e ALJ

im pr op erl y “ acco rd ed gre at weig ht ” to Dr. Lace’s op in io n and th at Kale y ’s op in io n
sh ou ld ha ve be en gi ve n m or e wei gh t t ha n Dr. Lac e’s.

The Hon or ab le Ton y N. Leu ng , Mag is tra te Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t 2

fo r th e Dis tri ct of Mi nn es ot a, to who m th e cas e was refe rred by co ns en t of th e pa rti es
pu rs ua nt to 28 U.S.C. § 6 36 (c).

-2

-“ W e rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s de te rm in at io n de no vo , affi rm in g th e ALJ’s

de ci si on if it is su pp or te d by su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce on th e reco rd as a who le .” Sc ot t v.

Berr yh il l

, 85 5 F.3 d 85 3, 85 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. W e

m us t co ns id er “ th e ev id en ce th at su pp or ts th e Co m m is si on er’s de ci si on as well as th e

ev id en ce t ha t d et ract s fr om it . Th at we wou ld ha ve co m e to a di ffer en t co nc lu si on , ho wev er, is no t a su ffi ci en t ba si s fo r r ev ers al .” Fin ch v. Ast ru e , 5 47 F.3 d 93 3, 93 5
(8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. “ If, aft er rev ie win g th e reco rd

, th e co ur t fin ds it

i s p o s s ib le to dr aw two in co ns is te nt po si ti on s fro m th e ev id en ce an d on e of t h o s e

po si ti on s rep res en ts t h e ALJ’s fin di ng s, th e co ur t m us t affi rm th e ALJ’s de ci si on .”
Gof f v. Bar nh ar t

, 42 1 F.3 d 78 5, 78 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ). “ In co nd uc ti ng ou r li m it ed an d

de fere nt ia l re vi ew of

th e fi na l ag en cy de te rm in at io n u nd er t he su bs ta nt ia l-e vi de nc e

st an da rd

, we m

us t vi ew th e reco rd in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th at de te rm in at io n.”

Ch is mar ic h v . Berr

yh il l , 88 8 F .3d 97 8, 9 80 (8t h C ir. 2 01 8) (pe r cu ria m ).

At st ep two of

th e fi ve -s te p p ro ces s, t he ALJ co ns id ers “ th e m ed ic al se ve rit y
of [th e cl ai m an t’s] im

pa irment( s) .” 20 C.F.R. § 41 6.9 20 (a)( 4) (ii ). At st ep th ree, “ [i]f

th e im pa irment m eet s or eq ua ls on e o f th e li st ed im pa irments [in 20 C.F.R. p t. 40 4,

su bp t. P, ap p. 1], th e cl ai m an t is co nc lu si ve ly pr es um ed to be di sa b l e d

. ” Bo wen v.

Y uc ker t

, 48 2 U.S. 13 7, 14 1 (1 98 7)

. “ To m eet a li st in g, a cl ai m an t m us t sh ow th at he

or sh e m eet s al l o f th e cri te ria for th e li st ed im pa irment.” Bla ckb ur n v

. Co lv in

, 76 1

F.3 d 8 53 , 85 8 (8 th Cir . 20 14 ).

At th e ti m e of th e ALJ’s de ci si on , li st in gs 12 .02

, 12 .04

, an d 12 .06 req ui red th at

a cl ai m an t m eet th e pa rag rap h A an d B cri te ria or th e pa rag rap h A an d C cri te ria

. 20

C.F.R. pt

. 40 4, sb pt

. P, ap p. 1, § 12 .00 (2 01 3)

. Lis ti ng 12 .10 req ui red th at a cl ai m an t

m eet bo th th e pa rag rap h A an d pa rag rap h B cri te ria

. Id

. § 12 .10

. W e as su m e, wit ho ut

de ci di ng , th at th e pa rag rap h A cri te ria ha ve be en sa ti sf ie d fo r al l th e li st in gs at is su e.
Thu s, Dol s m ay m eet on e of th e li st in gs by sa ti sf y in g th e pa rag rap h B or th e

pa rag rap h C cri te ria . W e co ns id er p arag rap h B fir st

.

-3

-All fo ur li st i n g s h a v e th e sa m e pa rag rap h B, whi ch is sa ti sf ie d whe n th e
cl ai m an t pr ov es two of fo ur cri te ria

. Se e Id

. §§ 12 .02 (B), 1 2

. 04 (B), 12 .06 (B),

12 .10 (B) (2 01 3)

. The ALJ de te rm in ed t h a t D ol s di d no t pr ov e an y of th e fo ur

. Bec au se Dol s app eal s th e ALJ’s de te rm in at io n as to on ly th e fir st two cri te ria

, Dol s

m us t su ccee d on bo th a r g u men t s

. Thu s, Dol s m us t fir st sh ow th at su bs ta nt ia l

ev id en ce do es no t su pp or t th e ALJ’s de te rm in at io n th at Dol s fai le d to pr ov e th e fir st

cri te ria be cau se he ha s a m od erat e rat he r th a n a mar k e d res tri ct io n on hi s act iv it ie s

of da il y li vi ng (“ ADLs”). Id

.

ADLs “ in cl ud e ad ap ti ve act iv it ie s su ch as cl ean in g, sh op pi ng , co ok in g, ta ki ng

pu bl ic tra ns po rta ti on , pa y in g bi ll s, m ai nt ai ni ng a res id en ce, cari ng ap pr op ria te ly fo r

. . . gr oo m in g an d hygi en e, us in g te le ph on es an d di rect or ie s, an d us in g a po st of fic e.”

Id . § 12 .00 (C)( 1) (2 01 3)

. The Co de of Fed eral Reg ul at io ns req ui res an as se ss m en t

of “ th e qu al it y o f th es e act iv it ie s by th ei r in de pe nd en ce, ap pr op ria te ne ss , effe ct iv en es s an d su st a in ab il it y ” an d a de te rm in at io n of “ th e ex te nt to whi ch [th e

c l a im an t is ] cap ab le of in it ia ti ng an d pa rti ci pa ti ng in act iv it ie s in de pe nd e n t o f

su pe rv is io n o r di rect io n.” Id

.

In su pp or t of it s de te rm in at io n, th e ALJ no te d th at th e te st ifyin g ps y ch ol og ic al

ex pe rt, Dr. Lace, “ op in ed m od erat e li m it s.” It al so no te d th at Dol s “ in di cat ed in hi s

Nov em be r 20 13 fun ct io n re po rt t ha t h e h ad no pro bl em s perf or m in g p ers on al care s

su ch as ba th in g or dr es si ng hi m se lf” ; th at “ [h ]e pe rfo rm s y ard wor k aro un d th e so be r
ho us e he res id es at ”; “ pr ep ares m eal s an d cl ean s hi s ho us e”; rak es an d m ows th e

la wn; was he s la un dr y ; “ sh op s fo r gr oc eri es an d so m e pe rs on al it em s” ; t h a t h e “ can

co un t ch an ge , pa y bi ll s, us e a ch eck bo ok or m on ey or de rs an d a s a v i ng s acco un t” ;

an d t ha t h e was work in g p art -ti m e.

Dol s arg ue s th a t th e ALJ sh ou ld no t ha ve rel ie d on Dol s’s st at em en ts in hi s

fu nc ti on rep or t be cau se acce pt in g th e “ st at e men t s a t face va lu e in th e pa rag rap h B

an al y si s was at od ds wit h th e ALJ’s own cred i b i l i t y de te rm in at io n.” Dur in g th e

-4

-A LJ ’s st ep th ree an al y si s, it was req ui red to de te rm in e Dol s’s res id ua l fu nc ti on a l

cap aci ty (“ RFC” ). 20 C.F.R. § 41 6.9 20 (e)

. I n d oi ng so , th e ALJ m us t as se ss th e
cl ai m an t’s “ ab il it y to m eet th e ph y si cal , m en ta l, se ns or y , and ot he r req ui rem en ts of

wor k.” Id

. § 41 6.9 45 (a)( 4)

. Th e A LJ n o te d th at Dol s’s an d Kale y ’s st at em en ts

“con cern in g th e in te ns it y , pe rs is te nc e an d li m it in g effe ct s of [Do ls ’s] symp t o ms [were ] no t cred ib le to th e ex te nt th ey [were ] no t co ns is te nt wit h th e ob jecti ve m ed ic al

ev id en ce an d ot he r ev id en ce.” Dol s cl ai m s th at th e ALJ can no t “ ha ve it bo th way s.”

He arg ue s th at th e ALJ co ul d no t ba se it s pa rag rap h B fin di ng s on Dol s’s st at em en ts

whi le si m ul ta ne ou sl y

fin di ng hi s s ta te m en ts no t cr ed ib le for th e RFC ass es sm en t.

Bu t th e RFC as se ss m en t req ui res co ns id erat io n of “ al l of th e rel ev an t m ed ic al

an d ot he r ev id en ce.” Id

. § 41 6.9 45 (a)( 3)

. In co nt ras t, th e ALJ lo ok ed to th e fu nc ti on

rep or t fo r a n a c c o u nt of Dol s’s da il y li fe. The ALJ fo un d Dol s’s st at em en ts no t

cred ib le fo r th e RFC as se ss m en t on ly to th e ex te nt th at th ey co nf li ct ed wit h m ed ic al

ev id en ce an d ot he r ev id en ce. It was reas on ab le fo r th e ALJ to co nc l u d e th at Dol s

co ul d rel ia bl y de sc rib e hi s d a i l y l i f e bu t th at Dol s’s op in io n ab ou t “ ph y si cal an d

m en ta l li m it at io ns ” th at wou ld affe ct wha t wor k he co ul d do in a wor k se tt in g was no t

cred ib le

. Id . § 4 16 .94 5( a)(1 ).

In ad di ti on , Dol s arg ue s th at th e ALJ’s fin di ng is no t su pp or te d by su bs ta nt ia l

ev id en ce be cau se Kale y ’s te st im on y de m on st rat es th at he “ ha s se rio us di ffi cu lt ie s in

pe rfo rm in g hi s ADLs wit ho ut th e si gn ifi can t su pe r v i si on an d ov ers ig ht of th e Fi ve

St ars res id en ti al faci li ty whe re he li ve s.” Kale y te st ifi ed be fo re t h e A LJ t ha t Dol s

co ul d dr iv e an d gr oc ery sh op bu t th at he “wo u l d ne ed he lp wit h hi s m on ey .” Sh e

ex pl ai ne d th at st aff at th e res id en ti al faci li ty rev ie w hi s gr oc ery li st ev ery two week s

an d m ak e su re th at he do es no t ru n ou t of hi s m ed ic at io ns

. Dol s al so po in ts to th e fact

th at th e st aff a t t he res id en ti al faci li ty m eet wit h h im th ree t im es a week

.

W hi le Dol s ha s so m e he lp wit h m an ag in g m on ey an d gr oc ery sh op pi ng , he al so

ap pe ars to ha ve do ne th os e ta sk s on hi s own at ti m es

. Fu rth er, Dol s te st ifi ed th at he

-5

-cl ean s di sh es an d ba th ro om s, swe ep s an d va cu um s th e ho us e, an d read s th e

ne wsp ap er an d m ag azi ne s. A li cen se d p sycho lo gi st who ex am in ed Dol s no te d th at

he arri ve d earl y fo r th ei r m eet in g an d th at he ha d “ arra ng ed a rid e.” Sh e a l so
ob se rv ed th at he was “ cas ua ll y dr es se d an d ad eq ua te ly gr oo m ed .” At th e ti m e of th e
he ari ng be fo re t he ALJ, Dol s h ad rece nt ly w or ke d a s a jan it or . And Kale y tes ti fie d

th at Dol s h ad bi ke d t o a m ov ie

.

G iv en th at Dol s be ars th e bu rd en of pr ov in g a di sa bi li ty at st ep th re e , w e

co nc lu de t h a t s u bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce su pp or ts th e ALJ’s de te rm in at io n th at Dol s ha s

on ly a m od erat e res tri ct io n on hi s ADLs. Se e Bla ckb ur n , 76 1 F.3 d at 85 8 (ex pl ai ni ng

th at th e cl ai m an t “ be ars th e bu rd en of es ta bl is hi ng th at he m eet s al l th e cri te ria ”). “ It

is no t th e ro le of th is co ur t to rewei gh th e ev id en ce pr es en te d to th e ALJ or to try th e
is su e in th is cas e de no vo .” Co x v. Ast ru e , 49 5 F.3 d 61 4, 61 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ). Thu s,

su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce su pp or ts th e ALJ’s d e c is io n th at Dol s do es no t m eet th e

pa rag rap h B r e q u i r e m en ts

, an d he th eref or e do es no t m eet li st in g 12 .10

, whi ch

req ui res cl ai m an ts to sa ti sf y bo th th e pa rag rap h A an d th e pa r ag rap h B cri te ria

, or

li st in gs 12 .02

, 12 .04

, or 12 .06 on th e ba si s of para gr ap h B. 20 C.F.R. p t. 4 04 , sb pt

. P, ap p. 1 , §§ 12 .02 , 12 .04 , 12 .06 , 12 .10 (20 13 ).

W hi le Dol s ha s no t sh own th at he m eet s pa rag rap h B, he m ay st il l m eet li st in gs

12 .02 an d 12 .04 i f h e s h ows th at he m eet s pa rag rap h C. Id

. § 12 .00 (2 01 3)

. He 3

arg ue s th at he sa ti sf

ie s pa rag rap h C’s th ird cri te rio n, whi ch req ui res hi m to sh ow th at

a “ ch ro ni c or ga ni c m en ta l d is or de r” (§ 12 .02 ) or a “ ch ro ni c affe ct iv e di so rd er”
(§ 12 .04 ) cau se d a “ [c]urr en t hi st or y of 1 or m or e y ears ’ in ab il it y to fu nc ti on ou ts id e

a hi gh ly su pp or ti ve li vi ng arra ng em en t, wit h an in di cat io n of co nt in ue d ne ed fo r su ch

an arra ng em en t.” Id

. §§ 12 .02 (C), 12 .04 (C) (2 01 3)

. “ The reg ul at io ns de fin e hi gh ly

W hi le Dol s argu es on ap pe al th at he sat is fie s t he 12 .02 an d 1 2.0 4 p arag rap h 3

C req ui rem en ts

, he co nc ed es th at he do es no t m eet li st in g 12 .06 ’s di ffer en t pa rag rap h
C cri te ria

.

-6

-su pp or ti ve se tt in gs to in cl ud e ho sp it al s, ha lfwa y ho us es , care faci li ti es , an d pe rs on al

ho m e se tt in gs th at gr eat ly red uc e th e m en ta l de m an ds pl aced o n [ th e cl ai m an t].”
Myer s v. Co lv in

, 72 1 F.3 d 52 1, 52 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ) (al te rat io n in or ig in al an d in te rn al

qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

.

The A LJ c o n c l u d ed th at Dol s fai le d to m eet th e pa rag rap h C cri te ria

. It

ack no wled ge d t h at Dol s “ cu rren tl y res id es in so be r ho us in g” an d th at he ha d

pr ev io us ly “ res id ed wit h hi s pa ren ts .” Bu t th e ALJ po in te d ou t th at th e reco rd “ sh ows

th at [Do ls ] was th e pr i mar y c a r e ta ke r fo r hi s m ot he r aft er hi s fat he r pa ss ed away. ”

It de te rm in ed th at th e “ reco rd do es no t su pp or t a fin di ng th at [Do ls ] is req ui red to li ve

in res id en ti al ho us in g d ue to hi s m en ta l im pa irments whe n no t u si ng m oo d- al te rin g

su bs ta nc es .”

At th e he ari ng , Kale y te st ifi ed th at Dol s ha d be en li vi ng at Fi ve St ars fo r th ree

y ears

. Dol s arg ue s th at he ha s m et th e pa rag rap h C cri t e r i a be cau se th e su pp or t he

rece iv es at Fi ve St ars “ in cl ud es gr ou p an d in di vi du al th erap y se ss io ns , faci li ta te d

at t e n d a nc e at Alco ho li cs Ano nym ou s m eet in gs , ov ers ig ht of [h is ] bu dg et

,

m ed ic at io ns , an d gr oc ery de li ve ry or de r, an d ge ne ral ov ers ig ht of [h is ] da il y affa irs .”

The di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d t h a t th e ev id en ce in di cat es Dol s m ay ne ed a

su pp or ti ve li vi ng arra ng em en t, b ut it em ph as iz ed th at pa rag rap h C req ui res Dol s t o
de m on st rat e hi s ne ed fo r a hi gh ly su pp or ti ve li vi ng arra ng em en t. W e ag ree wit h th e
di st ric t co ur t th at su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce su pp or te d th e ALJ’s co nc lu si on th at Dol s ha s

no t m ad e su ch a sh owi ng he re. Tho ug h on e ps y ch ol og is t st at ed th at Dol s “ co ul d be

co ns id ered fo r fu tu re pl acement in a se m i-i nd ep en de nt or sh ared -li vi ng faci li ty wit h

on -s it e su pp or ts ,” hi s reco m m en da ti on di d no t in di cat e th at D o l s n eed s a hi gh ly

su pp or ti ve li vi ng arra ng em en t. In de ed

, as ou tl in ed ab ov e, Dol s ha s w or ke d pa rt- ti m e,

co m pl et e s a n um

be r of ch or es aro un d Fi ve St ars , pr ep ares fo od fo r hi m se lf, an d

so m et im es sh op s fo r hi s own gr oc eri es

. The reco rd al so in di cat es th at Dol s li ve d on

hi s o wn af

te r m ov in g o ut of h is pa ren ts ’ ho m e be fo re h e b eg an li vi ng at F iv e St ars

.

-7

-F u r t h e r , D ol s be ga n li vi ng at Fi ve St ars to pa rti ci pa te in a rel ap se reco ve ry

pr og ram f

o r h i s dr ug an d al co ho l ad di ct io ns

. He ha s m ai nt ai ne d hi s so br ie ty si nc e

20 12

. Fi ve St ars w a s no t in te nd ed to ha ve pe rm an en t res id en ts

, bu t Fi ve St ars

al lo wed Dol s to st ay be cau se he d i d n o t “ ha ve an y whe re el se to go an d he can ’t

wor k.” Bu t pa rag rap h C req ui res th at a ch ro ni c or ga ni c m en ta l di so rd er or a ch ro ni c

affe ct iv e di so rd er cau se d th e “ in ab il it y to fu nc ti on ou ts id e a hi gh ly su pp or ti ve li vi ng

arra ng em en t.” 20 C.F.R. p t

. 4 0 4

, sb pt

. P, ap p. 1, §§ 12 .02 (C), 12 .04 (C) (2 01 3)

. Dol s’s al co ho l an d dr ug a d d i c t i o n s cau se d hi s in it ia l res id en ce at Fi ve St ars

. And

whi le Dol s at te nd s th ree m eet in gs a week at Fi v e S t a r s , th e m eet in gs are fo r hi s

al co ho l ad di ct io n, no t fo r m en ta l he al th tre at m en t. Kale y te st ifi ed th at no bo dy at Fi ve

St ars is tra in ed “ to de al wit h po pu la ti on s th at ha ve th e pr ob le m s th at [Do ls ] ha s.”

Eve n were we to as su m e th at Fi ve St ars is a hi gh l y s u p p o rti ve li vi ng en vi ro nm en t,

su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce su pp or ts a co nc lu si on th at Dol s ha s n o t s h o w n th at a ch ro ni c

or ga ni c m en ta l di so rd er or a ch ro ni c affe ct iv e di so rd er cau se d hi s al le ge d ne ed to st ay

at Fi ve St ars

. Thu s, su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce su pp or ts th e ALJ’s de te rm in at io n th at Dol s
do es no t s at is fy

th e p arag rap h C cri te ria

.

Fi na ll y , Dol s co nt es ts th e weig ht th e ALJ ga ve to Kale y ’s a nd Dr. Lace’s

op in io ns

. He arg ue s th at it was un r e a s o n a b le fo r th e ALJ to gi ve no weig ht to

Kale y ’s op in io n, th at Dr. Lace’s op in io n sh ou ld no t ha ve be en gi ve n “ gr eat weig ht ,”

an d th at Kale y ’s op in io n sh ou ld ou twei gh Dr. Lace’s gi ve n he r gr eat er fam il ia rit y an d

rel at io ns hi p wit h Dol s. As an in it ia l m at te r , i t i s n o t cl ear th at Dol s ch al le ng ed th e

ALJ’s de ci si on to gi ve no weig ht to Kale y ’s op in io n in th e di st ric t co ur t. Se e Na ss er

v. Ast ru e , 24 8 F. App ’x 76 6, 76 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (p er cu ria m ) (d ecl in in g to co ns id er

arg um en ts rai se d fo r th e fir st ti m e on ap pe al ). Bu t ev en if we as su m e th at Dol s rai se d

th is arg um en t, s ub st an ti al ev id en ce s up po rts th e ALJ’s d eci si on

.

Acco rd in g to th e So ci al Secu rit y Adm in is tra ti on (“ SSA”) reg ul at io ns , Kale y
is a no n- m ed ic al

, “ ot he r” so ur ce. Se e 20 C.F.R. § 41 6.9 13 (d ) (2 01 3) ; Sl oa n v. Ast ru e , 49 9 F.3 d 88 3, 88 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th a t n o n -m ed ic al

, “ ot he r so ur ces ”

-8

-in cl ud e reh ab il it at io n co un se lo rs ). The reg ul at io ns cl as si fy Dr. Lace, a ps y ch ol og ic al

ex pe rt, as a m ed ic al so ur ce. The SSA pr o v i d e s s im il ar fact or s fo r weig hi ng bo th

Kale y ’s an d Dr. Lace’s op in io ns , in cludi ng the ex am ini ng an d tr ea tm en t rel at io ns hi ps , th e le ng th of th e tre at m en t, the na tu re an d e xt en t o f th e rel at io ns hi p, su pp or ta bi li ty,

co ns is te nc y wit h th e reco rd

, sp eci al iz at io n, an d ot he r fact or s th at su pp or t or refu te th e

op in io n. Se e SSR 06 -3 p, 20 06 W L 23 29 93 9, at *5 (Au g. 9, 20 0 6 ) ( e x p l a i ni ng th e

fact or s fo r no n- m ed ic al

, ot he r so ur ces ); 20 C.F.R. § 41 6.9 27 (c) (2 01 3) (ex pl ai ni ng

th e fac to rs for m ed ic al so ur ces ).

Kale y be ga n co un se li ng Dol s in Mar ch 20 12 an d te st ifi ed ab ou t Dol s’s li fe at

Fi ve St ars

. Sh e ex pl ai ne d t h a t D o ls ha s Asp erg er’s, th at he “ ap pe ars an gr y ” whe n

rel at in g to ot he rs , do es no t m ak e ey e co n t a c t

, “ gr un ts whe n he ge ts te ns e,” an d “ at

ti m es ” ge ts Tou ret te ’s. Sh e was “ afra id ” th at hi s sy m pt om s “ wou ld ha pp en at a job

si te .” It is n o t s u r p r i si ng th at th ere is so m e ev id en ce in a le ng th y ad m in is tra ti ve

reco rd “ whi ch de tra ct s from th e Co m m is si on er’s de te rm in at io n” ab ou t wha t weig ht

to gi ve Kale y ’s op in io n. Se e Fen tr es s v. Berr yh il l

, 85 4 F.3 d 10 16

, 10 21 (8 th Ci r.

20 17 ). Fo r ex am

pl e, Kale y kn ew an d co un se le d Dol s f o r a nu m be r of y ears , an d

ot he rs who in te ract ed wit h Dol s su pp or t e d h e r ob se rv at io n th at Dol s ha s tro ub le

co m m un ic at in g.

Bu t we co ns id er o nl y

whet he r th e ALJ’s d eci si on is su pp or te d by sub st an ti al

ev id en ce, no t whe th er we wou ld ha ve m ad e th e sa m e de ci si on

. Se e Tr av is v. Ast ru e , 47 7 F.3 d 10 37

, 10 42 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ). And so m e of Kale y ’s te st im on y is co nt rad ic te d

or no t su pp or te d by t he reco rd

. W hi le Kale y sa id Dol s “ go t Tou ret te ’s,” Dol s d oe s

no t ci te an y th in g in th e reco rd in di cat in g th at he was di ag no se d wit h su ch a co nd it io n.

Fu rth er, whi le Kale y te st ifi ed th at Dol s co ul d no t ho ld a job

, he ha d rece nt ly wor ke d

as a jani to r wit h no pe rfo rm an ce pr ob le m s. In ge ne ral

, K a l e y p r e se nt ed li tt le to no

ev id en ce ot he r th an he r pe rs on al ob se rv at io ns

. In st ead

, sh e ba se d he r op in io n ab ou t

Dol s’s ab il it y to wor k on he r ob se rv at io ns as a li cen se d al co ho l an d dr ug co un se lo r,

no t as an ex pe rt wit h ex pe rie nc e in m ak in g d i s a b i l i t y de te rm in at io ns

. “ [W] e m us t

-9

-vi ew th e reco rd in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to [th e A LJ ’s] de te rm in at io n.”

Ch is mar ic h , 88 8 F .3d at 9 80

.

By co nt ras t, Dr. Lace te st ifi ed as an ex pe rt in m en ta l he al th

, was fam il ia r wit h

t h e di sa bi li ty rev ie w pr oc es s, an d rev ie wed al l of th e ev id en ce in th e cas e. H e

te st ifi ed th at Dol s’s m en ta l he al th pr ob le m s di d no t m eet or eq ua l an y of th e li st in gs

. He sa id th at cert ai n wor k res tri ct io ns , li ke “ no pu bl ic co nt act at al l,” sh ou ld ap pl y to

Dol s. He ex pl ai ne d th at Dol s sh ou ld be “ li m it ed to ve ry si m pl e,” ro ut in e, rep et it iv e

ta sk s an d th at he was be st su it ed to lo w-st res s wor k th at do es no t in cl ud e hi gh -s pe ed

pr od uc ti on tas ks

.

A rev ie w of th e reco rd as a who le su pp or ts Dr. Lace’s te st im on y

. Af t e r a ph on e in te rv ie w wit h Dol s i n O c t ob er 20 13

, an SSA em pl oyee in di cat ed th at Dol s

ha d no di ffi cu lt y wit h un de rs ta nd in g, co he ren cy , co nc en tra ti ng , ta lk in g, or an swe rin g

qu es ti on s. Tho ug h on e ps y ch ol og is t ob se rv ed “ po or co m m un ic at io n sk il ls

, [a] la ck

of so c i a l r e l a ti on sh ip s, po or ey e co nt act

, an d [a] vo cal ti c” in Feb ru ary 20 14

, a

di ffer en t ps y ch ol og is t no te d th at Dol s w a s “ rel ax ed

, cas ua l, co op erat iv e, [an d]

ap pr op ria te ,” an d th at Dol s was “ no t de pr es se d” an d “ no t a n x i o u s ” aft er fo ur

m eet in gs fro m Ju ly 20 14 to Apr il 20 15

. The ps y ch ol og is t ad di ti on al ly ob se rv ed th at

Dol s’s sp eech was co he ren t wit h a no rm al rat e an d to ne an d th at Dol s’s jud gm en t an d

in si gh t were in ta ct

. The ps y ch ol og is t m ad e th e sa m e ob se rv at io ns fo ll owi ng Ju ly an d

Octo be r 20 15 m eet in gs wit h Do ls

.

Thi s ev id e n c e su pp or ts Dr. Lace’s op in io n an d co nt rad ic ts Kale y ’s op in io n.

Se e SSR 06 -3 p, 20 06 W L 23 29 93 9, at * 6 (ex pl ai ni ng th at ev id en ce fro m a no nm ed ic al

, ot he r so ur ce co ul d ou twei gh ev id en ce fro m a m ed ic al so ur ce whe n th e no nm ed ic al so ur ce “ ha s se en th e in di vi du al m or e of te n an d ha s gr eat er kn owl ed ge of th e

in di vi du al ’s fu nc t i o n i n g ov er ti m e” an d if th e op in io n “ ha s be tt er su pp or ti ng

evi de nc e an d is mor e co ns is te nt wi th t h e e v id en ce as a wh ol e ” (em

ph as is ad de d) ).

To t he ex te nt th at th e Vin el an d II tes t m eas ur in g a da pt iv e sk il ls an d o th er ev id en ce

-1 0-in th e rec or d c on fli ct s wi th Dr. Lace’s o pi ni on , we agr ee wi th th e d is tri ct co ur t t ha t

th e ALJ’s de ci si on was wit hi n th e “ zo ne of ch oi ce.” Se e Tr av is v. Ast ru e , 47 7 F.3 d 4

at 10 42

.

In su m , whi le th e ALJ co ul d ha ve weig he d th e ev id en ce di ffer en tl y , su bs ta nt ia l

ev id en ce su pp or ts th e ALJ’s de te rm in at io n th at Dr. Lace’s rev ie w of al l th e ev id en ce
sh ou ld be cred it ed ov er Kal ey ’s ob se rv at io ns as a no n- m ed ic al , o th er so ur ce. “ It is

th e fu nc ti on of th e ALJ to weig h co nf li ct in g ev i d e n c e

. ” Ki rb

y v. Ast ru e , 50 0 F.3 d

70 5, 70 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ). W e “ wil l no t rev ers e m erel y be cau se ev id en ce al so po in ts

to an alt ern at e o ut co m e.” Tr av is , 47 7 F .3d at 1 04 2.

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we af fir m

.

ERICKSON, Ci rcu it Ju dg e, di ss en ti ng

.

The pa ren t of a di sa bl ed ch il d who go es to an y le ng th to su pp or t an d as si st th e
ch il d in way s th at al lo w th e ch il d to be as fu ll y i n t e g r a t e d in so ci et y as po ss ib le
rejo ic es in th e ch il d’s su cces s. Tha t sam e pa ren t worri es ab ou t what wil l hap pe n to

th e ch il d a fte r he or sh e is go ne , f earf ul th at th e syste m wil l fai l th e ch il d an d l eav e

hi m or he r m os tl y de fen se le ss in a wor ld th at li tt le reco gn iz es m en ta l il ln es s an d th e
hu rd le s it la y s be fo re th os e who su ffer

. Th i s c a s e is a cas e in whi ch th os e pa ren ta l

fear s h av e b een real iz ed . And I res pe ct fu ll y di ss en t.

Dol s fu rth er arg ue s th at th e ALJ sh ou ld no t ha ve gi ve n Dr. Lace’s op in io n 4

gr eat weig ht be cau se Dr. Lace te st ifi ed th at hi s op in io n was ba se d on th e reco rd an d
th at he di d no t co ns id er Kale y ’s te st im on y

. Dol s cl ai m s th at th e SSA’s Hea r i n g s, A pp eal s, an d Lit ig at io n Law Man ua l (“ HALLEX ”) req ui red Dr. Lace to h a v e

co ns id ered Kale y ’s te st im on y

. Eve n if HA LLEX did im po se su ch a req ui rem en t, i t “i s n o t a reg ul at io n. It ha s no le ga l fo rce, an d it do es no t bi nd th e SSA.” Se e Sc hw ei ker

v. Han se n , 45 0 U.S. 7 85 , 78 9 (1 98 1) (pe r cu ria m ).Ro be rt Do ls face s m an y si gn ifi can t m en ta l h eal th ch al le ng es . He is 62 y ears

ol d and su ffer s fr om , am on g o th er t hi ng s, d ep res si on , anx ie ty, al co ho l d ep en de nc e,

an d a ut is m -s pe ct ru m di so rd er. His in te ll ect ua l fun ct io ni ng fal ls in th e lo w-av erag e

ran ge , bu t hi s m em or y is no t as go od as o n e w o u l d e x p ect of a pe rs on wit h hi s IQ.

As a res ul t of hi s m en ta l he al th is su es , Ro be rt st ru gg le s to in te ract ap pr op ria te ly wit h

ot he rs

. He is eas il y fru st rat ed an d en ga ge s in co nd uc t th at is ge ne ral ly co ns id ered by

ot he rs to be un us ua l an d av oi da nt

. He la ck s su ffi ci en t in si gh t to se e m os t, if an y , of

th es e li m it at io ns i n hi m se lf. The reco rd refl ect s th at

, whi le in co nv ers at io n wit h

ot he rs , Ro be rt sc owl s, gr un ts

, sq ue al s, av oi ds ey e co n t a c t

, i s un ab le to tra ck th e

co nv ers at io n, a n d is un ab le to ap pr op ria te ly an swe r qu es ti on s pu t to hi m

. Ro be rt

so m et im es sh ou ts ou t v u l ga rit ie s or m ak es od d gu tt ur al no is es whe n an xi ou s,

pa rti cu la rly i n gr ou p se tt in gs

. Ro be rt rep or t s t h a t h e is so m et im es as ke d to le av e a jo b a f te r a si ng le da y

. No on e ha s be en ab le to id en ti fy th at Ro be rt ha s ev er ha d a
cl os e fri en d. Ro be rt li ve d wit h hi s pa ren ts un ti l he was ne arl y fif ty y ears ol d— on ly

be co m in g i nd ep en de nt when hi s m ot he r was pl aced in a nu rs in g h om e.

W hi le li vi ng at ho m e wit h bo th of hi s pa ren ts

, Ro b e rt was ab le to m ai nt ai n

su st ai ne d fu ll -ti m e em

pl oym en t wit h th e as si st an ce an d su pp or t of hi s pa ren ts

. W he n

hi s fat he r di ed in 20 04

, Ro be rt qu it hi s job to as si s t h i s mo t h er. In 20 06

, Ro be rt’s

m ot he r was pl aced in a nu rs in g ho m e, an d he m ov ed in to an ap art m en t. Si nc e th en , Ro be rt ha s be en un ab le to ho ld a job

, ha s su ffer ed fro m al co ho li sm , an d was ho m el es s

fo r a ti m e. He no w li ve s in an al co ho l-r el at ed gr ou p ho m e, ev en th ou gh he no lo ng er

m eet s t he req ui rem en ts to res id e th ere.

I reco gn iz e th at so m e co nf li ct ex is ts in t h e r e c o r d as to th e na tu re an d ex te nt

of Ro be rt’s so ci al li m it at io ns

. Bu t, be cau se th e ALJ fai le d to pr ov id e “ go od reas on s”

fo r reject in g Ro be rt’s pr im ary co un se lo r’s op in io n, I wou ld rev ers e an d rem an d to th e
di st ric t co ur t wit h in st ru ct io ns to rem an d to th e ALJ for recon si de rat io n of Ro be rt’s

ap pl ic at io n a fte r gi vi ng th e co un se lo r’s op in io n p ro pe r wei gh t.

-1 2-Th e ALJ as si gn ed “ gr eat weig ht ” to th e op in io n of Dr. Lace, who co nd u c t e d

a rev i e w o f t he reco rd an d te st ifi ed as a co ns ul ti ng ph y si ci an

. The ALJ, ho wev er,

ga ve “ no weig ht ” to th e op in io n of Ro be rt’s “ pr im ary c o u ns el or ” in th e in te ns iv e

ou tp at ie nt pr og ram , Nan c y K a l e y. The ALJ fo un d Kale y ’s te st im on y ab ou t th e

“ in te ns it y , pe rs is t e n c e an d li m it in g effe ct s of [Ro be rt’s] sym pt om s” to be “ no t

cred ib le ” be cau se of th e in co ns is te nc y wit h (1 ) Dr. Lace’s op in io n, (2 ) “ ob se rv at io ns by m ed ic al pr ov id ers ,” an d (3 ) Ro be rt’s act iv it ie s of da il y li vi ng (ADLs). The reco rd

do es no t s up po rt t he ALJ’s cred ib il it y ass es sm en t.

In as se ss in g whe th er a cl ai m an t is di sa bl ed fo r th e pu rp os es of So ci al Secu rit y
be ne fit s el ig ib il it y , an ALJ m us t co ns id er ev id en ce pr ov id ed by “ ot he r so ur ces ” li ke

Kale y

. Lawso n v. Co lv in

, 80 7 F.3 d 96 2, 96 7 (8 th Ci r

. 2 0 1 5 )

. Wh en an ALJ

di sc ou nt s ev id en ce ba se d on a pe rcei ve d la ck of cred ib il it y , “ [w]e ‘do no t rewei gh th e

ev id en ce pr es en te d to th e ALJ ’” b u t r at he r de fer to th e ALJ’s cred ib il it y
de te rm in at io ns “ as lo ng as t ho se de te rm in at io ns are s up po rte d by go od reas on s an d

su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce.” Mi dg y et t v. Co m m ’r, So c. Sec. Adm in

., 72 7 F. App ’x 22 8,

22 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 18 ) (q uo ti ng Jo hn so n v. Co lv in

, 78 8 F.3 d 87 0, 87 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 )).

Kale y’s o p i n io n is ne it he r in co ns is te nt wit h m ed ic al pr ov id er ob se rv at io ns no r

Ro be rt’s ADLs

.

Kale y t es ti fie d th at Ro be rt do es no t kn ow ho w to in te ract wit h or rel at e to

ot he rs an d ne ed s he lp to co m m un ic at e wit h ot he rs

. Sh e te st ifi ed th at he ge ts “ ag it at ed

an d ne rv ou s” whe n req ui red to in te ract wit h ot he rs , “ do es no t res po nd ap pr op ria te ly

to co nv ers at io n,” an d “ do es ev erythi ng by hi m se lf.” Sh e de sc rib ed “ hi s pa tt e r n of

re l a t i n g to ot he rs ” to in cl ud e an gr y faci al ex pr es si on s, av oi da nc e of ey e co nt act

,

su dd en pr of

an e ou tb ur st s, ti cs , gr

un ts an d ro ars , an d an in ab il it y to un de rs ta nd hu m or

. K a l ey id en ti fie d th es e be ha vi or s as th e pr im ary ob st acl e to Ro be rt’s em pl oym e n t

. Sh e fo u n d n ot ab le “ de fic it s in te rm s of fen di ng fo r hi m se lf.” Kale y op in ed th at

Ro be rt “ wou ld n’ t m ak e it [li vi ng by hi m se lf]” be cau se “ he do es n’t kn ow ho w to

-1 3-in te ract wit h pe op le

. He can ’t h ol d a job , h e can ’t.” Sh e te st ifi ed th at he wou ld be

ho m el es s i f he di d n ot res id e in a su pp or ti ve en vi ro nm en t.

Co ns is te nt wit h Kale y ’s te st im on y , Dr. Lace te st ifi ed th at Ro be rt’s “ an xi et y

an d Asp erg er’s sym

pt om s” wou ld al lo w on ly “ v e r y br ie f an d ve ry su pe rfi ci al an d

ve ry in freq ue nt co nt act wit h su pe rv is or s an d co wor ke rs ” an d z e r o co nt act wit h th e

pu bl ic . “ [H]e wou ld work be st on hi s own wit h

. . . v ery li m it ed co nt act wit h ot he r

pe op le ex cep t fo r su pe rv is or s.” Dr. Lace fu rth er te st ifi ed th at an ad ap ti ve sk il ls te st

m eas ur ed Ro be rt’s so ci al iz at io n to be “ ve ry lo w” an d wor se th an a ran do m sa m pl in g

of 10 0,0 00 pe op le

, hi s ad ap ti ve be ha vi or to be un ex pe ct ed fo r so m eo ne of av erag e

in te ll ig en ce, an d hi s co m m un ic at io n to be on ly be tt er th an on e ou t of 10 ,00 0

ran do m ly sele ct ed pe op le

.

“ [T]he op in io ns of

no n- ex am in in g, co ns ul ti ng ph y si ci an s” by th em se lv es are

no t “ su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce.” Harv ey v. Barn ha rt, 36 8 F.3 d 10 13

, 10 16 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ).

In st ead , t he So ci al Secu rit y Adm in is tra ti on di rect s an ALJ to co ns id er th e sa m e se t

of fact or s fo r weig hi ng a no n- m ed ic al op in io n li ke th at of Kale y as a m ed ic al op in io n

li ke th at of Dr. Lace. See 20 C.F.R. § 40 4.1 52 7( c), (f)(1 ). An ALJ is to co ns id er: (1 )

th e type of rel at io ns hi p be twee n th e so ur ce an d th e cl ai m an t, (2 ) th e le ng th of

r e l a t i on sh ip

, (3 ) th e freq ue nc y of ex am in at io n, (4 ) th e na tu re an d ex te nt of th e
rel at io ns hi p, (5 ) th e op in io n’s su pp or ta bi li ty wit h ob jecti ve m ed ic al ev id en ce, (6 ) th e

op in io n’s co ns is te nc y wit h th e reco rd

, (7 ) th e so ur ce’s area of s pe ci al ty, an d (8 )
“any fact or s

. . . whi ch te nd to su pp or t or co nt rad ic t th e m ed ic al op in i o n

. ” I d

. §

40 4.1 52 7( c). An ALJ m us t co ns id er “ al l” of th es e fact or s. S e e i d

. The

Adm in is tra ti on ack no wled ge s th at fact or s su ch as se ei ng th e cl ai m an t m or e of te n or

pr ov id in g be tt er su pp or ti ng ev id en ce o r a be tt er ex pl an at io n m ay le ad to th e

co nc lu si on th at a no n- m ed ic al op in io n ou twei gh s a m ed ic al o p i n i on —an d ev en an

op in io n fr om

a tr eat in g s ou rce. Se e id . § 4 04 .15 27 (f)(1 ).

-1 4-The ALJ rel ie d on two of th es e fact or s to weig h th e op in io ns of Kale y an d Dr.

Lace— co ns is te nc y wit h th e reco rd an d th ei r res pe ct iv e area s of sp eci al it y

. Of co ur se ,

on e op in io n m ay be cred it ed ov er an ot he r whe n su pp or te d by be tt er or m or e th or ou gh

ev id en ce. See W ag ne r v. Ast ru e, 49 9 F.3 d 84 2, 84 9 ( 8 t h C ir. 20 07 ). Bu t, th e

e v i d en ce ci te d in su pp or t of Dr. Lace’s op in io n— hi s “ ex pe rti se in m en ta l h e a l t h

, fam il ia r i t y wit h th e di sa bi li ty rev ie w pr oc es s an d hi s ab il it y to rev ie w al l of th e

ev id en ce”— is no t be tt er. Oth er fact or s su ch as th e le ng th

, na tu re, a n d ex te nt of

Ro be rt’s rel at io ns hi p wit h Kaley are par ti cu la rly rel ev an t he re— no ne of whi ch was
ad dr es se d in th e ALJ’s de ci si on

. Kale y wor ke d wit h Ro be rt as hi s pr im ary co un se lo r

f o r th ree an d a ha lf y ears

. Her te st im on y rev eal s a hi gh de gr ee of fam il ia ri t y w i t h

Ro be rt. Sh e kn ows hi s da il y ha bi ts

, ro ut in es , an d qu irk s. Sh e kn ows ho w he in te ract s
wit h ot he rs be cau se sh e ro ut in el y o b se rv es hi m in so ci al se tt in gs li ke th e co m m on

area an d gr ou p th erap y se ss io ns

. Sh e de sc rib ed hi s s p e c i f ic be ha vi or an d it s

co ns eq ue nc es in a va rie ty of so ci al set ti ng s.

The ALJ ack no wled ge d th at Dr. Lace co ul d no t pr ov id e “ th e ki nd s of

c o n c l u s i o ns th at y ou co ul d reac h on ly if y ou were a tre at in g so ur ce” an d th at t h e

sc op e o f D r

. La ce’s te st im on y was li m it ed be cau se he ne ve r ex am in ed or tre at ed

Ro be rt. Eve n so , th e ALJ ga ve Kale y ’s te st i mo n y n o weig ht

. The Adm in is tra ti on

reco gn iz es th e im

po rta nc e of op in io ns fro m th os e m os t fam il ia r wit h th e cl ai m an t— a

reas on co nt ro ll in g weig ht is ge ne ral ly gi ve n to m e d i cal op in io ns fro m tre at in g

so ur ces

. The y te nd to be th e on es “ m os t a b le to pr ov id e a de ta il ed

, lo ng it ud in al
pi ct ur e of [a cl ai m an t’s] m ed ic al im pa irment( s) ” an d to pr ov id e a “ un iq ue

pe rs pe ct iv e” of th e reco rd ot he rwis e un av ai la bl e fro m “ ob jecti ve m ed ic al fin di ng s

al on e or fro m rep or ts of in di vi du al ex am in at io ns , su ch as co ns ul ta ti ve ex am in at io ns .”

20 C.F.R. § 40 4.1 52 7( c)(2 ). Alt ho ug h Kale y m ay no t be a m ed ic al so ur ce, he r un iq ue
rel at io ns hi p wi th Ro be rt pro vi de s a de ta il ed

, lo ng it ud in al pi ct ur e of hi s dai ly soc ia l

fu nc ti on in g t ha t i s u na va il ab le fro m th e rec or d e vi de nc e.

-1 5-The ALJ po in te d to “ [c]li ni cal ob se rv at io ns ” as su pp or t fo r Ro be rt’s ab il it y to

“ pe rfo rm fu ll -ti m e wor k wit hi n th e m en ta l pa ram et ers of th e [ R F C ]. ” Bu t, th os e
ob se rv at io ns are in co ns is te nt

. Dur in g a ph on e cal l wit h an ad m in is tra ti on em pl oyee,

Ro be rt de m on st rat ed an ab il it y to un de rs ta nd

, co nc en tra te

, sp ea k c o h eren tl y , an d

an swe r qu es ti on s. At an in -p ers on ap po in tm en t, ho wev er, he de m on st ra t ed po or

co m m un ic at io n an d ey e co nt act

, la c k o f so ci al rel at io ns hi ps , an d a vo cal ti c whi le

m eet in g wit h a ps y ch ol og is t. Alt ho ug h th e res ol ut io n of “ co nf li ct in g ev id en ce is

wit hi n th e pr ov in ce of th e ALJ,” Brac ht el v. Apf el

, 13 2 F.3 d 41 7, 42 0 (8 th Ci r. 19 97 ),

an ALJ m ay no t di sc ou nt op in io ns fro m “ ot he r so ur ces ” li ke Kale y jus t b ecau se th e

ev id en ce i s m ix ed , see 20 C.F.R. § 40 4.1 52 7( f)(1 ).

A rev ie w of th e reco rd rev eal s th at Kale y ’s op in io n is no t in co ns is te nt wit h th e
ob s erv at io ns as a who le

. Sh e te st ifi ed th at pa rt of wha t im pe de s Ro be rt’s fu ll -ti m e

em pl oym en t is th e vo la ti li ty of hi s so ci al reac ti on s. Sh e te st ifi ed th at hi s tri gg ers are

ha rd to pr ed ic t. Sh e de sc rib ed in st an c e s w h e n hi s be ha vi or ha s “ es cal at ed ” in

res po ns e to “ cert ai n p ers on al it [ie s],” ne w en vi ro nm en ts or pe op le

, or di sr up ti on s in

hi s rou ti ne

. Dur in g ti m es whe n he is agi ta te d and ne rv ou s, Rob ert sh ou ts m or e an d

ro ll s h is fin ge rs m or e.

By fo cu si ng on ob se rv at io ns of Ro be rt’s affe ct

, th e ALJ di sc ou nt ed ob jecti ve

m ed ic al ev id en ce pro du ced du rin g th e vi si ts . For e xa m pl e, th e ALJ n ot ed Ro be rt’s

“ co op erat iv e an d po li te ” affe c t a t a 20 13 ev al ua ti on , b ut th e ev al ua ti on op in ed th at

Ro be rt’s em

pl oym en t pro sp ect s were, at be st

, “ m arg in al

. . . in po si ti on s th at do no t pl ace m uc h e m ph as is on so ci al m at ur it y an d s us ta in ed in te ract io ns wit h o th ers .”

W it h reg ard to Ro be rt’s ADLs , we hav e “ rep eat ed ly ob se rv ed th at th e ab il it y

to do act iv it ie s su ch as li gh t ho us ewo rk an d vi si ti ng wit h fri en ds pr ov id es li tt le or no

su pp or t f o r th e fin di ng th at a cl ai m an t can pe rfo rm fu ll -ti m e co m pe ti ti ve wor k.”

Halv ers on v. Ast ru e , 6 0 0 F .3d 92 2, 93 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s

om it te d) (q uo ti ng Ree d v. Barn ha rt, 39 9 F.3 d 91 7, 92 3- 24 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 )). And ev en

-1 6-if co nf

li ct in g ADLs are so m et im es a go od reas o n to di sc ou nt te st im on y , Ro be rt’s

ADLs do no t co nf

li ct wit h Kale y ’s op in io n. The ALJ in di cat ed th at

, de sp it e Ro be rt’s

rep or te d “ pr ob le m s wit h so ci al in te ract io ns ,” he ta k e s b a t h s, ge ts dr es se d, do es
ch or es , read s m ag azi ne s, pr ep ares m eal s, rid es hi s b i k e , g o e s to m ov ie s, go es
sh op pi ng , at te nd s m an da to ry week ly m eet in gs , an d arra ng ed a rid e to a m ed ic al

ap po i nt m en t on at le as t on e oc cas io n. Kale y te st ifi ed th at th es e act iv it ie s are

in freq ue nt

. Ro be rt at te nd ed on e m ov ie by hi m se lf ov er th e co ur se of ap pr ox im at el y

two y ears

. Tha t Ro be rt oc cas io na ll y en ga ge s i n so li ta ry act iv it ie s— or ev en a

on e-t i me c o n v e rs at io n to arra ng e a rid e—d oe s no t es ta bl is h th at he ha s th e so ci al

sk il ls ne ces sa ry to m ai nt ai n fu ll -ti m e em pl oym en t. In fact

, th ere is su bs ta nt ia l

ev id en ce i n t he reco rd to th e co nt rary.

Si m il ar to th e cl in ic al ob se rv at io ns , Ro be rt’s ADLs al so pa in t a m ix ed pi ct ur e

of hi s ab il it ie s. Fo r ex am pl e, aft er Ro be rt arra ng ed th e rid e, he ex hi bi te d be ha vi or at

th e ap po in tm en t th at al ig ns wit h Kale y ’s te st im on y

. “ He was fro wni ng /s co wli ng th e

en ti re ap po in tm en t” an d “ rel at ed in a rat he r od d m an ne r.” He ta lk ed “ to hi m se lf

un de r hi s br eat h, he ha d a gr un ti ng type vo cal t i c a n d h e pr es en te d as if he was

ag it at ed .”

Fi na ll y , th e ALJ’s co nc lu si on th at Kale y ’s op in io n was no t s u b st an ti at ed by

“ ot he r ev id en ce” is no t su pp or te d by th e reco rd

. Ro be rt’s em pl oym en t hi st or y cl earl y
sh ows hi s in ab il it y t o m ai nt ai n fu ll -ti m e wor k wit ho ut su pp or t. He ha s he ld two

fu ll -ti m e job s in hi s 62 y ears of li fe— on e fo r ei g h t years an d on e fo r se ve n— bo th

ex cl us iv el y whi le he li ve d at ho m e wit h hi s pa ren ts

. Eve n th ou gh Ro be rt vo lu nt ari ly

qu it a pa rt- ti m e jani to ria l job so m et im e sh or tl y be fo re th e he ari ng , th at job is ha rd ly

ev id en ce of Ro be rt’s ab il it y to m ai nt ai n fu ll -t i me e mp lo y m en t in a co m pe ti ti ve

en vi ro nm en t. He wor ke d “ m ay be twi ce a m on th

, on ce ev ery two week s, an d on a pa rt

ti m e ba si s m ak in g $8 an h ou r.” W it ho ut th e su pp or t an d as si st an ce of hi s pa ren ts

, Ro be rt h as be en un ab le to m ai nt ai n a ful l-t im e job

.

-1 7-In cl os in g, I fear th e m ajor it y ’s de ci si on refl ect s an in crea si ng te nd en cy to

“ ru bb er st am

p” an ALJ’s act io n in co nt rav en ti on of th e “ sc ru ti ni zi ng an al y si s” ou r

pr eced en t req ui res

. See Cl in e v. Co lv in

, 77 1 F.3 d 10 98

, 11 06 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (Bri gh t,
J., di ss en ti ng ); Co op er v. Sec’y of Heal th & Hum an Serv s., 91 9 F.2 d 13 17

, 13 20 (8 th

Ci r. 19 90 ). The ALJ’s reject io n of Kale y ’s te st im on y was erro r whe n vi ewed in li gh t

of th e reco rd as a who le

. I be li ev e th e ALJ fai le d to pr ov i d e “g o o d r eas on s” fo r reject in g Kale y ’s te st im on y , an d th at erro r is no t ha rm le ss

. I wou l d r e v e r s e a nd

rem an d to th e di st ric t co ur t wit h in st ru ct io ns to rem an d to th e ALJ fo r reco ns id erat io n

of Ro be rt’s c la im

aft er g iv in g Kal ey ’s op in io n p ro pe r wei gh t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 8-