Pur s uantt o Fed. R . A pp. P. 43( c) ( 2) , M i chae l J . A s true i s s ubs t i tut ed for * J o A nne B . B arnhartas appel l ee i n thi s act i on. A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned ** unani m ous l yt o gr antthe part i es ’ r eques tfora dec i s i on on the br i efs w i thoutor al a rg u m e n t. See F ed . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (f); 10 th C ir . R . 3 4 . 1 (G ). T h e c ase is th ere fo re or der ed s ubm i t t ed w i thoutor al ar gum ent . T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t ent w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 2 .1 . 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Ju n e12,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT J I M M I E D . D A V I S, P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. M I CH AEL J . ASTRU E, * C o m m iss io n e r o f

th e S o c ial S e c u rity A dm i ni s tr at i on, D efe ndant - A ppel l ee. N o. 06- 7047 ( D . C. N o. 04 - CV - 50 7- S) (E .D . O k la .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T ** B efor e LU CE RO , M c KAY , and GORS UCH , C i rcui tJudg es. J i m m i e D . D avi s appea l s the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s or deraff i r m i ng the C om m i s s i oner ’ s deni al of hi s appl i cat i on forSoci al Secur i tydi s abi l i tyand s u p p l e me n t a l s e c u r i tyi n c o me b e n e fi t s . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r4 2 U. S . C. § 4 0 5 ( g ) a n d 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 . W e a ffi r m.M r . D avi s pr ot ect i vel yfi l ed a pr evi ous appl i cat i on forbenef i t s on 1 O ct ober15, 1998. A n A L J deni ed thatappl i cat i on on February22, 2000, and M r. D a v is u n s u c c e s s f u lly a p p e a le d to th is C o u rt , D avis v. B arnh art , 8 5 F . A p p ’x 170 ( 10th C i r . 2004) ( unpubl i s hed) . A s a r es ul t , t he r el evantt i m e fr ame for eval uat i ng the appl i cat i on forbenef i t s ati s s ue i n thi s cas e i s fr om February23, 2000, the dayaft erthe pr i oradj udi cat i on, t hr ough J ul y25, 2001, t he dat e of the C o m m is s io n e r’ s fin a l d e c is io n in th is c a s e .

- 2- I. O n February23, 2000, M r . D avi s pr ot ect i vel yfi l ed hi s curr entappl i cat i on for ben efi t s. H e al l eged an inabi l i tyt o w ork du e t o m y al gia, fat i gu e, dizzi ness,

1 co g n it ive d y sfu n cti o n , d ep ression an d an x iety , m alfu n cti o n ing h an d s, an d sev ere p a in in h is lo w e r b a c k , b u tto c k s, le g s, a n d fe e t. T h e a g e n c yd e n ied h is a p p lic a tio n in itia lly a n d o n re c o n s id e ra tio n . M r . D avi s then r ece i ved a de novo hear i ng befor e an a dm i ni s tr at i ve l aw ju d g e (A L J ), a t w h ic h M r. D a v is , h is w ife , a n d a v o c a tio n a l e x p e rt (V E ) t e s tifie d . T he A L J deni ed M r . D avi s benef i t s ats t ep fi ve of the appl i cabl e fi ve- s t ep s e q u e n tia l e v a lu a tio n p ro c e s s . See Wi l l i am s v. B ow en , 844 F. 2d 748, 750- 52 ( 10th C i r . 1988) . A ts t ep one, the A L J concl uded thatM r . D avi s had notengage d in su b sta n tial g a in f

u l ac tiv itysin c e th e b e g in n in g o f th e tim e f

ra m e re lev a n t to thi s cas e. A ts t eps tw o and thr ee, t he A L J det erm i ned thatM r . D avi s s uffe r ed fr om s ever e i m pai r m ent s ( m y al gi a and de pr es s i ve di s or der ) , butconcl uded that hi s i m pai r m ent s di d notm eetorequal anyi m pai r m entdes cr i bed i n the l i s t i ng of i m pai r m ent s . A ts t ep four , the A L J found thatM r . D avi s r et ai ned the r es i dual- 3-

funct i onal capa ci ty( R FC ) fora w i de r ange of l i ghtw or k, butconcl uded thathe co u ld n o t r eturn to h is pa st r elev an t w o rk a s an elec tr ici an b ec au se th at w o rk r e q u i r e d e x e r t i o n b e y o n d h i s RF C. An d , a ts t e p fi v e , a f t e rc o n s i d e r i n g h i s RF C, age ( for ty - ni ne) , educa t i on ( tw el fth gr ade) , w or k exper i ence , the M edi cal - V ocat i onal G ui del i nes , 20 C . F. R . pt . 404, Subpt . P, A pp. 2, rul es 202. 20 and 202. 21, and the t es t i m onyof the V E , the A L J deni ed bene fi t s , concl udi ng t hat M r . D avi s coul d per form otherw or k thatexi s t s i n s i gni fi cantnum ber s i n the n a tio n a l e c o n o m y . T he A ppeal s C ounci l deni ed M r . D avi s ’ s r eques tforr evi ew , m aki ng the A L J ’s d e c is io n th e C o m m is s io n e r’ s fin a l d e c is io n . See Je nsen v. Ba rnha rt , 4 3 6 F . 3 d 1 1 6 3 , 1 1 6 4 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). M r . D avi s t hen fi l ed a c om pl ai ntfor ju d icia l re v iew in fe d e ra l d istric t co u rt, an d th e c a se w a s re fe rre d to a m a g istra te j udge. B eca us e the magi s tr at e j udge det erm i ned thatt he C om m i s s i oner ’ s deci s i on w as s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence and the C om m i s s i onerappl i ed the corr ect l egal s t andar ds , s he r ecomm ended thatt he di s tr i ctcourtaff i r m t he deni al of ben efi t s. T he d i stri ctcou rtado pted the recom m end at i on , and M r. D avis app eal s. II. M r . D avi s as s ert s that( 1) t he di s tr i ctcourtdi d notappl yt he pr oper s t andar d w hen rul i ng on hi s obj ect i on t o the magi s tr at e j udge’ s Fi ndi ngs and R ecomm endat i ons ; ( 2) the A L J err oneous l yfai l ed t o cons i deral l of the evi dence , l osi ng m uch of ittw i ce; (3) the A L J erroneou sl ydis regar ded t reat i ng ph y si ci ans’- 4-

di agnos es ; ( 4) the A L J err oneous l yi gnor ed obj ect i ve medi cal fi ndi ngs ; ( 5) the A L J fai l ed to m eethis bu rden atst ep five of the seque nti al evaluat i on process; ( 6 ) th e ALJ ’ s fi n d i n g r e g a r d i n g h i s c r e d i b i l i tywas u n s u p p o r t e d a n d th e ALJ fa iled to e v a lu a te th e c re d ib ili tyo f h is w ife ’s te stim o n y ; an d (7 ) th e T e n th C irc u it s houl d r emand foran i m m edi at e aw ar d of bene fi t s . “W e r evi ew the [C ] om m i s s i oner ’ s deci s i on onl yt o det erm i ne w hethers ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t s thatdeci s i on and w hetherthe appl i cabl e l egal s t andar ds w er e appl i ed c o rr e c tly.” Shepherd v. Apf el , 1 8 4 F . 3 d 1 1 9 6 , 1 1 9 9 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). M r . D avi s fi r s tcont ends thatthe di s tr i ctcour tdi d notappl ythe pr oper s t andar d w hen rul i ng on hi s obj ect i on t o the magi s tr at e j udge’ s Fi ndi ngs and R e c o m m e n d a tio n s. W e d isa g re e . A lth o u g h th e d istric t co u rt d id n o t ex p licitly stat e tha t i t had co n d u cted a d e n o v o rev iew o f th e m ag istrate jud g e’s r ecomm endat i on, “[w ] e as s um e thatthe di s tr i ctcourtper form ed i t s r evi ew funct i on pr oper l yi n the abs ence of evi dence t o the contr ary , ” G r een v . B r ans on , 1 0 8 F .3 d 1 2 9 6 , 1 3 0 5 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 7 ). In th is c a se , the c o u rt u lti m a telyb a se d its d e c isio n “ [ u ]p o n c o n sid e ra tio n o f th e e n tire r e c o rd a n d th e iss u e s [ t]h e re in ,” A p lt. A pp. , V ol . I at52, and w e ac ceptthi s expl anat i on as an ade quat e i ndi cat i on that th e c o u r tp e r fo r m e d i t s r e v i e w f u n c t i o n p r o p e r l y. M r . D avi s nextcont ends thatthe A L J di d notcons i deral l of the evi dence b e c a u se th e file fo r h is p re v io u s d isa b ili tyb e n e fits a p p lica tio n w a s lo st a n d th a t, al tho ug h m anyof the do cum ents w ere r eplaced byhis cou nsel , theyw ere “l ost- 5-

agai n”; i n part i cul ar , w hathe i dent i fi es as E xhi bi t s 1F t hr ough 7F. A pl t . O peni ng B r . at22 ( ci t i ng A pl t . A pp. , V ol . I I at1- 4) . D es pi t e M r . D avi s ’ s gener al as s er t i on th a t E x h ib its 1 F th ro u g h 7 F w e re lo st, h e sp e c ifica llyre fe re n c e s p a rts o f E x h ib its 2 F a n d 7 F o n ly (“ [ e ]n tr ie s fo r 1 2 /0 3 /9 4 , 8 /2 7 /9 6 , 1 0 /2 5 /9 6 , a n d 8 /2 6 /9 9 ” ). See i d. at 23 , 2 5 . B u t th ese fo u r en tr ies, as th e C o m m issi o n er m ak es c lear, “a re cont ai ned” i n “the i ns t antadmi ni s tr at i ve tr ans cr i pt . ” A pl ee. B r . at19 ( ci t i ng A p lt. A p p ., V o l. II at 1 5 0 , 1 3 6 , 1 3 3 -3 4 , 1 9 7 ). T h u s, to th e e x ten t th a t M r. D a v is chall eng es the o m i ssi on of m at eri al otherthan the fo ur aforem enti on ed en tri es, w e , li k e th e m a g istra te ju d g e , are w ith o u t su fficie n t in fo rm a tio n “ to d e ter m in e if theyw er e al s o i ncl uded i n the r ecor d” and “ w hythes e r ecor ds w er e nec es s ary . ” A p lt . A p p . , V o l. I at 41 . W e the refo re rejec t th is al lega ti o n o f e rror. Iss u e s th re e , fo u r, fiv e , an d p a rt o f six (c o n c e rn in g M r. D a v is’s c re d ib ili ty onl y ) , come underthi s court ’ s fi r m w ai verrul e. M r . D avi s ’ s obj ect i on t o the m agi s tr at e j udge’ s Fi ndi ngs and R ecomm endat i ons r egar di ng thes e i s s ues w as concl us oryand non- s peci fi c: “C l ai m antr e- al l eges al l i s s ues of O peni ng B r i ef [s ubm i t t ed t o the di s tr i ctcourti n s uppor tof hi s compl ai ntforj udi ci al r evi ew ] . . . . O peni ng br i ef i s i ncorpor at ed her ei n byr efe r ence . ” Id. , V o l. I a t 4 5 . S u c h a n o bjec tio n is in su fficie n t. “[ O ]n lya n o bjec tio n th a t is su fficie n tlysp e c ific to fo c u s th e d istric t co u rt’s a tten tio n o n th e fa c tu a l an d leg a l issu e s th a t ar e tru ly in d isp u te w ill a d v a n c e th e p o licie s b e h in d th e M a g istra te’ s A c t th a t led u s to adopta w ai verrul e i n the fi r s ti ns t ance . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. O ne Parce lof R eal- 6-

P r op. , 7 3 F .3 d 1 0 5 7 , 1 0 6 0 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 6 ); s ee als o Sol izv. C hat er , 82 F. 3d 373, 375- 76 ( 10th C i r . 1996) ( fi ndi ng gener al obj ect i on “nots uffi ci entt o pr es erve the mor e s pe c i fi c i s s ue s pl a i nt i ff a t t e mpt s t o r a i s e on a pp e a l ” ) ; Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 7 2 (b ) (re q u irin g a p a rtyto file “ sp e c ific” o bjec tio n s). W h ile “ [ t]h e w a iv e r ru le m aybe s us pended w hen the i nt er es t s of j us t i ce w arr ant , orw hen the aggr i eved partym akes the oner ous s how i ng r equi r ed t o demonstr at e pl ai n err or , ” War del lv. D uncan , 4 7 0 F . 3 d 9 5 4 , 9 5 8 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) (cit ati o n an d q u o tat ion o m itted), M r . D avi s has offe r ed no j us t i fi cat i on fori nvoki ng ei therof thes e exc ept i ons and n o n e a ffirm ati v elyap p ea rs fro m the c ir cu m stan ce s o f th e re co rd. W e the refo re decl i ne t o cons i deri s s ues thr ee, four , fi ve, and thatpartof s i x conce rni ng M r. D a v is ’s c re d ib ility. T hus , w e ar e l eftw i th thatpartof i s s ue s i x thatM r . D avi s di d notw ai ve and i s s ue s even. W e addr es s eac h i n turn. M r . D avi s cont ends thatthe A L J err oneous l ynegl ect ed t o eval uat e the cr edi bi l i tyof hi s w i fe’ s t es t i m ony , ar gui ng thats he “r evea l [ed] s ubs t ant i al lim itatio n s o f

C laim a n t, i n c lu d in g [ h is] a b ili tyto sit, h is p a in a n d c ra m p in g , h is embar r as s m entover[the] s m el l he emi t s , and hi s dai l yact i vi t i es . ” A pl t . O peni ng B r . at38. T he C om m i s s i onercount er s thatthe A L J w as notr equi r ed t o m ake a w ri tte n c re d ib ility d e te rm in a tio n re g a rd in g M s . D a v is ’s te s tim o n y . See A p lee. B r. at24 ( r el y i ng on A dam s v. C hat er , 93 F. 3d 712, 715 ( 10th C i r . 1996) ( not i ng that thi s courthas decl i ned “t o adopta rul e r equi r i ng an A L J t o m ake s peci fi c w r i t t en- 7-

fi ndi ngs of ea ch w i tnes s ’ s cr edi bi l i ty , part i cul ar l yw her e the w r i tt en dec i s i on r efl ect s thatthe A L J cons i der ed the t es t i m ony ”) ) . W hi l e the A L J di d not e x p licitlyd isc u ss th e tes tim o n yo f M s. D a v is, w e d o n o t b e liev e th is o m iss io n is g ro u n d s fo r re m a n d g iv e n th e n a tu re o f M s. D a v is’s tes tim o n y , w h ich w a s la rg e ly cu m u lat ive o f h er h u sb an d ’s t esti m o n y . F u rth er, w h ere , as h ere , the A L J’s deci s i on s t at es and demonstr at es thathe cons i der ed al l of the evi dence , “our gener al pr act i ce, w hi ch w e s ee no r eas on t o departfr om her e, i s t o t ake [ the] l ow ertr i bunal ati t s w or d. ” Hackettv. B arnh art , 3 9 5 F . 3 d 1 1 6 8 , 1 1 7 3 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ); s ee als o C l i

f t on v. C hat er , 79 F. 3d 1007, 1009- 10 ( 10th C i r . 1996) ( s t at i ng thatan A L J i s notr equi r ed t o di s cus s everypi ece of evi dence s o l ong as t he re c o rd d e m o n s tr a te s th a t h e c o n s id e re d a ll o f th e e v id e n c e ). Fi nal l y , M r . D avi s cl ai m s t hatt hi s cas e s houl d be r emanded foran im m ed iat e a w ard o f b en efit s. B ec au se w e u p h o ld the C o m m issi o n er’s d e te rm in a tio n , th is a rg u m e n t m u s t fa il. III . T h e re co rd c o n tai n s su b stan ti al ev iden ce to su p p o rtthe C o m m issi o n er’s fi ndi ng of nondi s abi l i tyand the corr ectl egal s t andar ds w er e appl i ed. T he j u d g me n to f

th e d i s tr i c tc o u r ti s AF F I RMED . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt M onr oe G . M cK ay C i r cui tJ udge