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 Third C ircuit 12-11-2008 

# S cude ri v . C omm S o ci al S ecurity P re c e de nt i al or Non-P re c e de nt i al : Non-P re c e de nt i al D ocke t No . 07-2871

F o llow thi s and a ddit ion al works at : http://digit alc ommon s .l a w . vill anova . e du/thirdc ircuit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s brou ght t o you for f re e and ope n a c c e s s by 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 Third C ircuit at V ill anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Digit 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 by an authori z e d a dmini s trat or of V ill anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Digit al Reposit ory

. F or more inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vill anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " S cude ri v . C omm S oc i al S e curity " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 127. http://digit alc ommon s .l a

w . vill anova . e du/thirdc ircuit_2008/127H o n o rab le M au ri ce B . C o h il l, Jr. , S en ior U n it ed S tat es D istri ct Ju d g e f o r th e W estern * D is tr ic t o f

P e n n s y lv a n ia , s ittin g b yd e s ig n a tio n . 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 N o. 07- 2871 G U Y S C U D E R I, A ppel l ant

v. CO M M I SS I ON ER O F S OC I AL SECU RI TY APP EAL F ROM THE UNI TE D ST ATE S DI S TRI CT C OURT

FOR TH E DI STRI CT O F NEW J ERSEY ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 06- cv- 02213) D i s tr i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e J os eph A . G r eena w ay Subm i tt ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

N ovember18, 2008 B efor e: B A R R Y , C H A G A R E S, C i r cui tJ udges , and C O H I L L , D i s tr i ctJ udge * ( O pi ni on Fi l ed: D ece m ber11, 2008)

OP I NI ON2

B A R R Y , C i r cui tJ udge G uyScuder i appea l s the D i s tr i ctC ourt ’ s deci s i on uphol di ng the C om m i s s i onerof S o c ia l S e c u ri ty’s d e n ia l o f h is a p p lic a tio n f

o r d is a b ility in s u ra n c e b e n e f its (“ D IB ” ). W e wi l l a f f i rm. I. B e c a u se w e w rite o n lyf o r th e p a rties , w e re c ite o n lyth o se f a c ts th a t ar e re lev a n t to o u r a n a ly sis . S c u d e ri a p p lied f o r D IB o n S e p tem b e r 1 3 , 2 0 0 2 , w h e n h e w a s f o rty -six y e a rs o ld , alle g in g d isa b ili tyd u e to syrin g o m y e lia. S c u d e ri’s a p p lica tio n w a s in iti a lly deni ed, and a he ar i ng w as hel d befor e an A dm i ni s tr at i ve Law J udge ( “A L J ”) . O n J ul y29, 2004, the A L J i s s ued a de ci s i on eval uat i ng Scuder i ’ s cl ai m pur s uantt o the fi ve- s t ep se q u e n tial a n a ly sis in 2 0 C .F .R . § 4 0 4 .1 5 2 0 a n d d e n y in g b e n e f its. T h e A p p e a ls C o u n c il rever sed, ho w ever, fi nd i ng that the A L J should hav e ob t ai ned up dated m edical recor ds, or der ed a pos t - hear i ng cons ul t at i ve exa m i nat i on i n the abs ence of curr entr ecor ds , and cons ul t ed a voc at i onal expertatthe hea r i ng. A s e c o n d h e a r i n g wa s h e l d b e f o r e th e AL J , a n d a v o c a t i o n a l e x p e rtt e s t i f i e d . On F e b ru a ry1 , 2 0 0 6 , the A L J a g a in d e n ied b e n e f its, an d , o n M a rc h 1 7 , 2 0 0 6 , the A p p e a ls C o u n cil d en ied S cu d eri’s r eq u est fo r rev iew . S cu d eri ap p ea led to the D istri ct C o u rt pur s uantt o 42 U . S. C . § 405( g) . I n a det ai l ed opi ni on exami ni ng al l of Scuder i ’ s m edi cal rec o rds a n d an aly zing all o f th e testi m o n y , the C o u rtfo u n d that the C o m m issi o n er’s deci s i on w as s upport ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence and uphel d the C om m i s s i oner ’ s fi nal3

det erm i nat i on. Scuder i now ar gues thatthe A L J err ed w hen s he: ( 1) fai l ed t o adequa t el ycons i der w hetherScuder i m etL i s t i ng 11. 19B , ( 2) fai l ed t o expl ai n and i dent i fyw hi ch evi dence s upport ed and di d nots upportherr es i dual funct i onal capa ci ty( “R FC ”) fi ndi ng and fa i l ed t o cons i derthe ef

fec tof Scuder i ’ s pai n i n herR FC eval uat i on, and ( 3) r el i ed on t es t i m ony f ro m a v o c a tio n a l e x p e rtin re s p o n s e to in a c c u ra te a n d in a p p lic a b le h yp o th e tic a ls . II. T he D i s tr i ctC ourthad j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 42 U . S. C . § 405( g) , and w e have juri sd ict ion p u rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 . A s d id the D istri ct C o u rt , w e re v iew the A L J’s appl i cat i on of l aw de novo, and w e r evi ew the A L J ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs fors ubs t ant i al evi dence . Poul os v. C om m ’ rof Soc. Sec. , 474 F. 3d 88, 91 ( 3d C i r . 2007) . Subst ant i al e v id e n c e is “ su c h re lev a n t ev id e n c e a s 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 s upporta conc l us i on. ” N ew el l v. C om m ’ rof Soc. Sec. , 347 F. 3d 541, 545 ( 3d C i r . 2003) (q u o tin g R ic h a rd s o n v . P e ra le s , 4 0 2 U .S . 3 8 9 , 4 0 1 (1 9 7 1 )) . III . A . St e p Thre e : W he t he r C l ai m antM e e t s a Li s t i ng o f I m pai r m e nt Scuder i ar gues thatthe A L J err ed ats t ep thr ee of the 20 C . F. R . § 404. 1520 anal y s i s becaus e s he di d nots peci fi cal l yi dent i fyw hi ch Li s t i ng s he w as cons i der i ng and di d notadequa t el yexpl ai n w hyScuder i , des pi t e hi s s ever e i m pai rm ent , di d notm eetanyS c u d e ri ra ise d th is iss u e b e f o re th e A p p e a ls C o u n c il af terth e A L J’s d e c isio n o f Ju ly 2 29, 2004, and ar gues thatthe A ppeal s C ounci l r emanded i n partbecaus e of i t . ( See A p p e llan t’s B r a t 2 9 .) W e d isa g re e . T h e A p p e a ls C o u n c il fo u n d th a t “[ i]t se e m s f a irly clea r th at th e p rese n t r ec o rd d o es n o t est ab li sh that the list ing is m et or e q u aled . ” (A -40 . ) Itdid not hol d thatthe A L J erred atst ep thr ee and did not r em and on that basi s. 4 L i s t i n g . I n Bu rn e ttv . Co mm ’ ro f S o c . S e c . , 2 2 0 F . 3 d 1 1 2 , 1 1 9 - 2 0 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 0 ) , we 2 hel d thatan A L J m us tpr ovi de an e xpl anat i on of hi s orherr eas oni ng ats t ep thr ee i n or der t o al l ow us t o engage i n m eani ngful j udi ci al r evi ew . A s the D i s tr i ctC ourtr ecogni zed, h o wev e r , we a l s o h e l d i n J o n e s v . Ba rn h a rt , 3 6 4 F. 3 d 5 0 2 , 5 0 5 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 4 ) , th a ta n ALJ n e e d n o t “u se p a rticu larlan g u a g e o r a d h e re to a p a rticu larf o rm a t in c o n d u c tin g h is a n a ly sis .” W e sta ted : R ather , the func t i on of B urnetti s t o ens ur e thatther e i s s uffi ci ent devel opm entof the r ecor d and expl anat i on of fi ndi ngs t o perm i tm eani ngful r evi ew . I n thi s cas e, the A L J ’ s deci s i on, r ead a s a w hol e, i l l us tr at es thatthe A L J cons i der ed the appr opr i at e fa ct or s i n r eac hi ng the conc l us i on that[the c la im a n t] d id n o t m e e t th e re q u ir e m e n ts f o r a n ylis tin g . . . . Jo n es, 36 4 F . 3 d at 50 5 (i n terna l ci tat ion o m itted). T hus , an A L J need nots peci fi cal l ym ent i on anyof the l i s t ed i m pai rm ent s i n or der t o m ake aj udi ci al l yr evi ew abl e fi ndi ng, pr ovi ded thatthe A L J ’ s deci s i on cl ear l yanal y zes an d ev alua tes th e re leva n t m ed ical ev iden ce as itrelates to the L ist ing req u ir em en ts. In thi s cas e, L i s t i ng 11. 19B fors yr i ngom y el i a i s pot ent i al l yappl i cabl e, and i tr equi r es

“ [ d ]iso rg a n iza tio n o f

m o to r f u n c tio n a s d e sc rib e d in 1 1 .0 4 B .” 2 0 C .F .R . P t. 40 4 , S u b p t. P, A pp. 1. L i s t i ng 11. 04B r equi r es “[s ] i gni fi cantand per s i s t entdi s or gani zat i on of m ot or funct i on i n tw o extr emi t i es , r es ul t i ng i n s us t ai ned di s turbance of gr os s and dext er ous5

m ovement s , orgai tand s t at i on. ” I d. T he A L J ’ s deci s i on r efl ect s adequa t e cons i der at i on of the “di s or gani zat i on of m ot orfunct i on” r equi r ementof Li s t i ng 11. 19B , des pi t e the fa ctthatthats peci fi c Li s t i ng is n o t h ig h lig h ted . T h e A L J re v iew e d a ll o f th e m e d ica l ev id e n c e a n d a c c u ra tely concl uded fr om the opi ni ons of D r s . A nthonyFr empong-Boadu and R i char d Si egfr i ed that , exce ptfordecr eas ed fi ne fi ngerm ovement s i n hi s l efthand and de cr eas ed s ens at i on i n hi s l eftupperextr emi ty , Scuder i has norm al m ot or , s ens ory , and r efl ex func t i ons i n the l ow erand upperextr emi t i es . T he A L J al s o not ed thatScuder i r eport s bei ng abl e t o dr i ve w hen nec es s aryand per form hous ekee pi ng t as ks i ncl udi ng m eal pr epar at i on, vacuumi ng, and s hoppi ng. T hus , the A L J found, i n a conc l us i on s upport ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence , th a t S c u d e ri d o e s n o t h a v e sig n if ica n t an d p e rsis ten t d iso rg a n iza tio n o f m o to r f u n c tio n in tw o orm or e extr emi t i es . T he A L J ’ s anal y s i s w as s uffi ci entt o perm i tm eani ngful j udi ci al revi ew of h er conclusi on atst ep thr ee of the sequ enti al analy si s. B . S tep F o u r: D ete rm ina ti o n o f R esid u a l F u n ction a l C a p a city S cu d eri also a rgu es th at th e A L J d id n o t pro v ide a n ad eq u ate e v iden ti ary foundat i on t o s upportthe R FC det erm i nat i on. T he A L J ul t i m at el ydet erm i ned that c laim a n t h a s th e [ R F C ] to lift lig h t o b jec ts, su c h a s th o se w e ig h in g u p to tw en typ o u n d s, an d sit , stan d , an d w alk a s n ee d ed , b u t can n o t perf o rm m o re th a n o c c a sio n a l re a c h in g , p u sh in g , p u lli n g o r ta sk s re q u irin g f e e lin g w ith th e lef t u p p e r e x tre m itya n d n o n -d o m in a n t h a n d . A d d iti o n a lly , as th e re su lt of hi s m edi cat i on, the cl ai m anti s unabl e t o engage i n compl ex ordet ai l ed ta s k s o n a s u s ta in e d b a s is . (A -2 1 .)6

In C ott er v. H arr i s, 64 2 F . 2d 70 0, 70 5 (3d C i r. 19 81 ), w e held that an A L J m ust di s cus s notonl ythe evi dence thats upport s hi s orherdeci s i on, butal s o the evi dence that w as r ej ect ed. T he A L J di d s o her e. She anal y zed the opi ni ons of Scuder i ’ s tr eat i ng phy s i ci ans , D r s . Fr empong-Boadu, Si egfr i ed, M ot z, and Spi napol i ce, and the opi ni on of D r. W e b e r, a p h y sic ian w h o e x a m in e d S c u d e ri o n b e h a lf o f N e w Je rse y ’s D isa b ili ty D et erm i nat i on Servi ces ( “D D S”) . H erul t i m at e conc l us i on i s cons i s t entw i th the opi ni ons o f D rs. F rem p o n g -B o ad u an d W eb er. D r. F rem p o n g -B o ad u rec o m m en d ed that S cu d eri a v o id a ll h e a v yliftin g a n d a n yw o rk re q u irin g th e u se o f f in e f in g e r m o v e m e n ts w ith h is lef t h a n d . D r. W e b e r f

o u n d th a t S c u d e ri c a n n o t d o h e a v yliftin g , is lim ited in h is a b ili ty t o pus h and pul l w i th hi s upperextr emi t i es and i n hi s abi l i t i es t o r eac h and fe el , and s houl d avoi d haza r ds due t o l i m i t at i ons i n hi s abi l i tyt o bal ance . A notheras s es s m ent fr om an uni dent i fi ed D D S phy s i ci an r eport s s i m i l arl i m i t at i ons . A l l of thes e l i m i t at i ons and condi t i ons w er e t aken i nt o acc ounti n the A L J ’ s R FC det erm i nat i on. T o b e su re, th e A L J’s R F C d eterm ination is i n co n sist en t w ith the re p o rt s o f D r. M ot z and Scude r i ’ s ow n s t at ement s abouthow hi s i m pai rm entaff ect s hi s abi l i t i es . T he A L J explai ned , ho w ever, w hyshe rej ect ed these r epo rt s i n fav or of the repo rt s byD rs . Fr empong-Boadu and W eber , as r equi r ed byC ott er . I n addi t i on t o the l i m i t at i ons found b yD rs. F re m p o n g -B o a d u a n d W e b e r, D r. M o tz f o u n d th a t S c u d e ri h a da c o m p lete i nabi l i tyt o bal ance and a l i m i t at i on on hi s abi l i tyt o s t and orw al k m or e than 15 fe et . T he A L J e x p lain e d th a t sh e p lac e d les s re lian c e o n D r. M o tz’ s o p in io n b e c a u se D r. M o tz7

“pr ovi ded no s peci fi cs w i th r es pectt o the degr ee of l i m i t at i ons i m pos ed. ” ( A - 22, s ee M ot z’ s R FC r eportatA - 258- 61. ) I ndeed, D r . M ot z’ s r eportpr ovi des l i tt l e det ai l about S c u d e ri’s im p a irm e n ts a n d sta ted th a t itw a s “ u n k n o w n ” h o w m a n yp o u n d s S c u d e ri w o u ld be abl e t o l i ftorcarryand how m anyhour s Scuder i w oul d be abl e t o s t and orw al k i n an 8 -h o u r w o rk d a y . T h e A L J a lso e x p lain e d th a t, ba se d o n S c u d e ri’s c o n tin u e d a c tiv ity lev e l, his sta tem e n ts c o n c e rn in g th e in ten sity , d u ra tio n , an d lim iti n g e f f e c ts o f h is im p a irm e n ts w e re n o t e n tir e ly cr e d ib le . Scuder i ar gues , forthe fi r s tt i m e, thatthe A L J di d notgi ve ade quat e cons i der at i on t o hi s compl ai nt s of pai n. T he A L J ’ s deci s i on, how ever , s peci fi cal l ydi s cus s ed tr eatm ent r ecor ds fr om R onal d Spi napol i ce, D . O . , a pai n m anage m ents peci al i s t , w hos e mostr ece nt progress not es fr om 20 05 st at e that Scud eri w as “doing w el l [and ] offers no com plai nts , w ith g o o d p a in re lief

” f ro m th e m e d ica tio n s. (A -2 9 3 .) T h e A L J to o k S c u d e ri’s p a in in to a c c o u n t in h e r R F C d e ter m in a tio n w h e n sh e re c o g n ize d S c u d e ri’s n e e d f o r c o n sta n t p a in m e d ica tio n a n d f

o u n d th a t, du e to th e m e d ica tio n ’s s id e e f f e c ts, h e c a n n o t en g a g e in c o m p le x o r d e ta ile d ta s k s o n a s u s ta in e d b a s is . C. S t e p F i v e : Av a i l a b i l i t y o f J o b s i n t h e Na t i o n a lEc o n o my Fi nal l y , Scuder i ar gues thatthe A L J err ed ats t ep fi ve of the ana l y s i s w hen s he re lied o n tes tim o n yf

ro m th e v o c a tio n a l ex p e rt th a t, he a lleg e s, w a s g iv e n in re sp o n se to h yp o th e tic a ls n o t c o rr e s p o n d in g to th e R F C d e te rm in a tio n e v e n tu a lly re a c h e d b yth e A L J . Sever al hypothet i cal s w er e pos ed t o the voca t i onal expertbyboth the A L J and bycouns elA l though Scuder i ar gues t o the contr ary , the A L J di d m ake c l earw hi ch hypothet i cal 3 sh e w a s re ly in g o n b e c a u se sh e sta ted in h e r d e c isio n th a t, i n re sp o n se to th e h yp o th e tica l, th e v o c a tio n a l ex p e rt a n sw e re d th a t th e p e rso n w o u ld b e a b le to p e rf o rm th e re q u ire m e n ts of the “M arker ” occ upat i on, D O T 209. 587- 034. R evi ew of the tr ans cr i pti ndi cat es that th e v o c a tio n a l ex p e rt g a v e “ M a rk e r” a s a n a n sw e r to o n lyo n e h yp o th e tica l. 8 forScuder i , butthe hypothet i cal r el i ed on bythe A L J i nvol ved a pe r s on w ho coul d do 3 l i ghtw ork, w i th no fr equentpus h- pul l w i th the upperextr emi t i es , no l adder s , r opes , or s caf fol ds , onl yocca s i onal cl i m bi ng of r amps and s t ai r s , bal anci ng, s t oopi ng, kneel i ng, cr ouchi ng, and cr aw l i ng, no fr equentfi ne fi nger i ng, and no haz ar ds . T he voca t i onal expertr es ponded thata per s on w i th thi s R FC coul d w ork as a M arker , D O T 209. 587- 034, o r a s a S a les A tten d a n t, D O T 2 9 9 .6 7 7 -0 1 0 . T h e A L J th e re a f terc o n f irm e d th a t th is h yp o th e tica l p e rso n w o u ld b e e m p lo y a b le p ro v id e d th a t h e c o u ld c o n c e n tra te a t a s im p le le v e l, a n d if

h e c o u ld n o t d o s o , h e w o u ld n o t b e e m p lo y a b le . T hi s hypothet i cal compar es favor abl yw i th the A L J ’ s ul t i m at e R FC det erm i nat i on th a t c laim a n t h a s th e [ R F C ] to lift lig h t o b jec ts, su c h a s th o se w e ig h in g u p to tw en typ o u n d s, an d sit , stan d , an d w alk a s n ee d ed , b u t can n o t perf o rm m o re th a n o c c a sio n a l re a c h in g , p u sh in g , p u lli n g o r ta sk s re q u irin g f e e lin g w ith th e lef t u p p e r e x tre m itya n d n o n -d o m in a n t h a n d . A d d iti o n a lly , as th e re su lt of hi s m edi cat i on, the cl ai m anti s unabl e t o engage i n compl ex ordet ai l ed ta s k s o n a s u s ta in e d b a s is . (A -2 1 .) W h ile th e h yp o th e tica l d id n o t tak e in to c o n sid e ra tio n th e e f f e c t o f S c u d e ri’s p a in m edi cat i on on hi s abi l i tyt o do w ork- r el at ed ac t i vi t i es , the A L J di d fol l ow up on the h yp o th e tic a l to in c lu d e c o n s id e ra tio n o f S c u d e ri ’s a b ility to c o n c e n tr a te a t a s im p le le v e l.9

T h e re f o re , the A L J d id n o t er r w h e n sh e re lied o n th e v o c a tio n a l ex p e rt’s te stim o n yin re s p o n s e to th is h yp o th e tic a l. I V. F o r th e re aso n s set fo rth ab o v e, w e w il l aff irm the d ec isi o n o f th e D istri ct C o u rt af firm ing the d ec isi o n o f th e C o m m issi o n er.