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. 09- 3366

____________ H E N R Y R . S C H M IT S , 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 p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . N o. 08- cv- 01971) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e D enni s M . C avanaugh

____________ Subm i tt ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J ul y1, 2010 B e f o re : S L O V IT E R , B A R R Y a n d H A R D IM A N , C i r cui tJudges .

( Fi l ed: J ul y2, 2010)

____________ OPINI ON O F THE COURT

____________2

H A R D IM A N , C i r cui tJudge . H enrySchm i t s appea l s the D i s tr i ctC ourt ’ s s um m aryj udgm entaff i rm i ng the d e c isio n o f

a n A d m in istra tiv e L a w Ju d g e (A L J) d e n y in g h is c laim f o r S o c ial S e c u rity D isa b ili tyIn su ra n c e B e n e f its (D IB ) a n d S u p p lem e n tal S e c u rityIn c o m e (S S I). W e w ill a f f i rm. I. B ecaus e w e w r i t e forthe part i es , w e r ecountonl ythe es s ent i al fac t s and pr ocedur al h i s t o ry. T h e C o m m is s io n e r c o n s id e rs ap p lic a tio n s f o r D IB a n d S S I i n a f

iv e -s te p p ro c e s s . See 20 C . F. R . §§ 404. 1520, 416. 920. Schm i t s ’ s appl i cat i on w as deni ed atSt ep Fi ve, w h e n th e A L J f

o u n d h e c o u ld p e rf

o rm w o rk a s a s u rv e illa n c e s y s te m m o n ito r. See i d. § § 4 0 4 .1 5 2 0 (f

), 4 1 6 .9 2 0 (a )(4 )(v ). S c h m its tim e lyso u g h t re v iew b yth e A p p e a ls C o u n c il, w h ic h d e c lin e d to e x e rc is e ju ri s d ic tio n , a n d th e n in th e D is tr ic t C o u rt , w h ic h a f f irm e d . A l though hi s cl ai m w as deni ed atSt ep Fi ve of the A L J ’ s anal y s i s , Schm i t s cl ai m s the A L J err ed atSt eps T w o, T hr ee, Fourand Fi ve. L ik e th e D istric t C o u rt, w e re v iew th e A L J’s d e c isio n to d e ter m in e w h e th e r it is s upport ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence , 42 U . S. C . § 405( g) , w hi ch i s “l es s than a pr eponder ance of the evi dence butm or e than a mer e s ci nt i l l a. ” Jes ur um v. Sec’ y of U. S. D ep’tof H

ealth a ndH

um an Servs. , 48 F. 3d 114, 117 ( 3d C i r . 1995) ( ci t i ng R i chards on v. P erales , 4 0 2 U . S . 3 8 9 , 4 0 1 (19 7 1 )).3 II. A tSt ep Tw o, the A L J found Schm i t s had four“s ever e” i m pai rm ent s : l um barand r i g h te l b o w i mpa i rme n t s , a n x i e tyd i s o r d e ra n d s o c i a l p h o b i a . Sc h mi t s c l a i ms th e ALJ shou l d h ave f

ou nd add i t i on al ph y si cal and psy cho l og i cal i m pairm ents . A s f o r p h y sic a l p ro b lem s, S c h m its c laim s th e A L J s h o u ldh a v e f o u n d h im se v e re ly i m pai r ed bas ed on hi s compl ai nt s of pai n i n the r i ghthand, r i ghtfi nger s and r i ghtknee a s w e ll as h is c o m p lain ts o f v isio n p ro b lem s. T h e A L J d idn o t cr e d it th o se c o m p lain ts becaus e theyw er e notes t abl i s hed bym edi calevi dence , i ncl udi ng s i gns , s ym pt om s and l abor at oryfi ndi ngs ; r ather , theyw er e purport edl yes t abl i s hed bys ym pt om s al one, w hi ch are i nsuff

i ci ent. 20 C . F . R . §§ 40 4. 15 08 , 41 6. 90 8. T herefore, the A L J foun d thattho se injuries d id n o t si g n ifi ca n tl yli m itS ch m it s’s p h y sical ab il ityto p erf o rm b asic w o rk ac ti v it ies. 2 0 C . F . R . § 4 0 4 . 1 5 2 1 (a). S c h m its’s c laim s o f

rig h t h a n d a n d rig h t f

in g e r im p a irm e n ts a re su p p o rte d so lely bycl ai m s of pa i n an d a st at em ent i n the m edical recor d that“[m ]aki ng a t i gh tfi st e x a c e rb a te s th e p a in .” B u t p a in a lo n e is in s u f f ic ie n t to c re a te a s e v e re im p a irm e n t. Soci al Secur i tyR ul i ng 96- 3p ( “Sym pt om s , s uch as pai n, fat i gue, s hortnes s of br eath, w e a k n e ss , o r n e rv o u sn e ss , w ill n o t b e f o u n d to a f

f e c t an in d iv idu a l’s a b ili tyto d o b a sic w o rk a c tiv itie s u n le s s th e in d iv id u a l f ir s t e s ta b lis h e s b yo b

je c tiv e m e d ic a l e v id e n c e (i .e ., s i gns and l abor at oryfi ndi ngs ) thathe ors he has a medi cal l ydet erm i nabl e phy s i calorB as ed on thos e medi calfac t s , D r . Si cherm an conc l uded thatSchm i t s w oul d be 1 di s abl ed foran i ndefi ni t e t i m e. B uts uch det erm i nat i ons ar e r es erved forthe C o m m issi o n er. 20 C . F . R . § § 4 0 4 . 1 5 2 7 (e), 4 1 6 . 9 2 7 (e). 4 m ent al i m pai rm ent ( s ) and thatthe i m pai rm ent ( s ) coul d r eas onabl ybe expe ct ed t o pr oduce the a ll eg ed sym p tom (s). ”). T h e o n lym ed ical ev iden ce su p p o rt ing S ch m it s’s all eg ed ri g h t kn ee p ain is D r. Si cherm an’ s di agnos i s of pos ttr aumat i c chondr om al aci a w i th as s oci at ed pai n and l i m i t ed m o tio n . H o w e v e r, th e o n lym e d ica l tes t co n d u c ted o n th e k n e e w a s a n x -ra ysh o w in g it

1 t o be w i thi n norm al l i m i t s . A l l of the r emai ni ng evi dence i n the medi calnot es , i ncl udi ng e v id e n c e o f

p a in a n d lim ite d m o tio n , c o m e s f ro m S c h m its ’s s u b

je c tiv e c o m p la in ts . W i thouta medi calbas i s forthos e compl ai nt s , the A L J w as notr equi r ed t o gi ve them g re a t w e ig h t. Schaudec k v. C om m ’ rof Soc. Sec. , 1 8 1 F . 3 d 4 2 9 , 4 3 3 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). Schm i t s al s o ar gues thatthe A L J di d notpr oper l yw ei gh hi s compl ai nt s of vi s i on pr obl ems. B utthe A L J ’ s concl us i on i s s upport ed bys ubs t ant i al m edi calevi dence becaus e the doct or s concl uded thatSchm i t s ’ s vi s i on w as w i thi n norm al l i m i t s and thathe di d nothave l i m i t ed depth per cept i on orfi el d of vi s i on. A l though cons ul t i ng exami nerD r . O br otka found Schmi t s s uffe r ed fr om p h o to p h o b ia, S tate a g e n c yp h y sic ian D r. S p itz o p in e d th a t S c h m its’s p h o to p h o b ia c o u ld be cur ed byt i nt ed gl as s es . Schm i t s cl ai m s w e mustr el yon D r . O br otka’ s concl us i on becaus e he tr eat ed Schmi t s , w her eas D r . Spi t z di d not . A l though i ti s true thatthe opi ni on o f a n e x a m in in g p h y sic ian is e n tit led to g re a t w e ig h t, D r. O b ro tk a n e v e r o p in e d a s to5

w h e th e r tin ted g las se s c o u ldh e lp S c h m its’s p ro b lem , so th e re is n o c o n f lict b e tw e e n h is asse ssm en t and that o f D r. S p itz. T h ere fo re, th e A L J d id n o t err i n rely ing o n D r. S p itz’s c o n c lu sio n th a t ti n ted g las se s c o u ldre c tifyS c h m its’s p h o to p h o b ia. T h a t lea v e s S c h m its w i thoutanym edi calbas i s forhi s cl ai m ed vi s i on i m pai rm ent , s o the A L J ’ s det erm i nat i on w a s s u p p o rt e d b ys u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . See B urns v. B arnh art , 312 F. 3d 113, 129- 30 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). As f o rh i s p s y c h o l o g i c a l p r o b l e ms , Sc h mi t s c l a i ms th e ALJ e rr e d whe n th e ALJ f o u n d h e d idn o t su f

f e r f ro m a g o ra p h o b ia. A g o ra p h o b ia is n o t m e n tio n e d a n yw h e re in Schm i t s ’ s m edi calr ecor ds , how ever ; i ti s onl yr efe r ence d once, i n a l ett ert o the A L J fr om D r . Papow i t z, Schm i t s ’ s tr eat i ng ps y chol ogi s t . B utthatconcl us orys t at ement , w i thout anybas i s orexpl anat i on, i s nots uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h a s ever e i m pai rm ent . M or eover , as w e s hal l expl ai n, D r . Papow i t z r ar el ys aw Schm i t s and di d nothave abas i s t o concl ude thathe s uffe r ed fr om agor aphobi a. T her efor e, the A L J ’ s concl us i on thatSchm i t s di d not s uffe rfr om agor aphobi a i s s upport ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . III . A t S tep T h re e , the A L J f o u n d th a t n o n e o f

S c h m its’s im p a irm e n ts w a s m e d ica lly e q u iv a le n t to a n yo f

th e L is tin g s . See 2 0 C. F. R. § Pt . 4 0 4 , Sub p t . P, App . 1 . Th e ALJ f o u n d th a t S c h m its su f

f e re d f ro m o n lym ildlim itatio n s in h is a b ili tyto e n g a g e in d a ily l i vi ng and t o m ai nt ai n conce ntr at i on, per s i s t ence and pac e. 20 C . F. R . §§ 404. 1520a, 4 1 6 .9 2 0 a . T h e A L J a lso f o u n d th a t S c h m its su f

f e re d f ro m o n lym o d e ra te lim itatio n s in6

hi s abi l i tyt o m ai nt ai n s oci al funct i oni ng and di d nots uffe rfr om r epea t ed epi s odes of d e c o m p e n s a tio n . I

d. T he A L J expl i ci t l yr ej ect ed D r . Papow i t z’ s as s es s m entthatSchm i t s s uffe r ed “[e ] xtr eme” l i m i t at i ons i n al l of thos e func t i ons as w el l as “[c ] ont i nual ” epi s odes of decompens at i on, al l of w hi ch r es ul t ed i n the “c om pl et e i nabi l i tyt o funct i on out s i de of [Schm i t s ’ s ] hom e. ” I f cr edi t ed, thos e fi ndi ngs w oul d have s at i s fi ed Li s t i ng 12. 06. B ut th e A L J re

jec ted D r. P ap o w itz’s o p in io n b e c a u se it w a s n o t “w e ll-su p p o rte d b ym e d ica lly ac ce p table c li n ical an d labo ratoryd iagn o sti c tec h n iqu es.” 2 0 C . F . R . § 4 0 4 . 1 5 2 7 (d)(2 ). D r . Papow i t z exa m i ned Schmi t s onl ytw i ce ay earforpai n m anage m entand a d m itte d th a t h is d ia g n o s is w a s b a s e d s o le ly o n S c h m its ’s s u b je c tiv e c o m p la in ts . T h irteen y ea rs of

tr ea tm en t tran slat ed into less tha n sev en p ag es o f n o tes an d D r. Papow i t z’ s as s es s m entw as s ubm i tt ed w i thoutexpl anat i on on a che ck- the- box form . T he A L J as ked D r . Papow i t z t o expl ai n the bas i s of hi s concl us i on and cl ar i fythe det ai l s of the di agnos i s , i ncl udi ng w hen the extr eme l i m i t at i ons s t art ed. B utD r . Papow i t z’ s w r i tt en r es pons e ac know l edged thathe coul d notart i cul at e a medi calbas i s forhi s concl us i on, sa y in g h e “ h a rd lyk n o w [ s] h o w to re p ly ” b e c a u se h e se e s S c h m its “ b rie f lytw ice a y e a r to pr es cr i be medi cat i on” and “ know [s ] of hi s di s abi l i tyonl yfr om w hathe t el l s m e. ” T her efor e, D r . Papow i t z’ s concl us i on w as nots upport ed bym edi cal l yacc ept abl e cl i ni cal a n d la b o ra to ry d ia g n o s tic te c h n iq u e s , s ee 20 C . F. R . §§ 404. 1527( d) , 416. 927( d) ( 3) , and7

the A L J di d noterri n r ej ect i ng D r . Papow i t z’ s concl us i on thatSchm i t s w as i ncapabl e of anys oci al i nt er act i on. H avi ng pr oper l yr ej ect ed the as s es s m entfr om the onl ytr eat i ng ps y chol ogi s t , the A L J w as fr ee t o r el yon the opi ni on of cons ul t at i ve ps y chol ogi s tD r . T hi m m ai ah. A ft er m e e tin g w ith S c h m its, D r. T h im m a iah c o n c lu d e d th a t S c h m its w a s c ap a b le o f re latin g to other s , w as al ertand or i ent ed, and compl et ed t as ks thati nvol ved both conce ntr at i on and m e m o ry . A d d iti o n a lly , S c h m its tes tifie d th a t h e re g u lar lyw e n t to th e su p e rm a rk e t, i nt er act ed w i th fami l ym ember s , and w entoutt o a di ner . D r . T hi m m ai ah’ s opi ni on and Schm i t s ’ s act i vi t i es cons t i tut e s ubs t ant i al evi dence t o s upportthe A L J ’ s concl us i on that Schm i t s ’ s s oci al phobi a di d notm eetthe r equi r ement s of Li s t i ng 12. 06. Schm i t s al s o ar gues thatthe A L J under s t at ed the s ever i tyof hi s l um barand r i ght el bow i m pai rm ent s . T he A L J found thatthe r i ghtel bow i m pai rm entw as notas s ever e as anyL i s t i ng and Schmi t s does notpoi ntt o anycontr arym edi calevi dence . A l though S c h mi t s c i t e s me d i c a l e v i d e n c e s h o wi n g i n f l a mm a t i o n a n d d i f

f i c u l tye x t e n d i n g h i s e l b o w, tho se probl em s do n ot r each the severi tyof the L i st i ng s. A s forthe l um bari m pai rm ent , the A L J found i tw as nots o s ever e as t o pr ecl ude w ork becaus e i tdi d noti ncl ude s i gni fi cants ens orym ot orl os s ordi m i ni s hed r ange of m o ti o n . S ch m it s claim s h e su ff ere d fro m n erv e d am ag e, w h ich w o u ld co n sti tute sen so ry m o tor l o ss an d there b ym ak e the im p airm en t m o re se v ere , p o ssiblyev en p rec lud ing w o rk a c tiv ity . B u t th a t cla im is n o t su p p o rte d b yth e m e d ica l ev id e n c e . In d e e d , the o n lyT he A L J al s o found thatSchm i t s ’ s dai l yact i vi t i es bel i e hi s cl ai m s of t ot al 2 di s abi l i tybecaus e he c oul d s t i l l go gr ocerys hoppi ng, per form s om e chor es i n the gar den and home, dr i ve a c ar , and tr avelbybus . A ddi t i onal l y , Schm i t s cont i nued i nt er act i ng w i th fami l ym ember s and one f r i end. B ecaus e thos e fi ndi ngs ar e al s o s upport ed by s ubs t ant i al evi dence , the A L J di d noterri n concl udi ng thatSchm i t s ’ s s ubj ect i ve compl ai nt s do notpr ecl ude hi m fr om w orki ng. 8 r e fe r e nc e t o n e rve da mage i s a n M RI r e po rtl i s t i ng “ i nv ol ve mentof the r i gh ts i de d S1 nerve r oot , ” nots i gni fi cantnerve damage. T her efor e, the A L J di d noterri n fi ndi ng that S chm i t s’ s four i m pairm ents w ere notsevere enou gh t o m eetthe L i st i ng s. I V. A t S tep F o u r, th e A L J f o u n d S c h m its h a d th e re sid u a l f u n c tio n a l ca p a c ity(R F C ) to “l i ftl i ghtobj ect s and s i t , s t and and w al k as neede d butcannotengage i n pus hi ng and p u lli n g w ith th e u p p e r e x tre m iti e s o r p e rf o rm w o rk in v o lv in g f

re q u e n t co n tac t w ith o thers.” S ch m it s claim s the A L J sh o u ld h av e f o u n d m o re se v ere li m it ati o n s. T h e A L J’s R F C determ i nati on , ho w ever, fl ow s fr om the p ri or fi nd i ng s. 2 T he onl yl i m i t at i on thatr equi r es anal y s i s i s the one pe rt ai ni ng t o Schm i t s ’ s s oci al p h o b ia— th e in a b ili tyto “ p e rf o rm w o rk in v o lv in g f

re q u e n t co n tac t w ith o th e rs.” T h e re is s ubs t ant i al evi dence t o s upportthe conc l us i on thatSchm i t s cannotfr equent l yi nt er act w i th other s fac e- t o- fac e, y ethe r et ai ns the abi l i tyt o i nt er actw i th other s per i odi cal l y . For exampl e, Schm i t s can s t i l l go t o the gr ocerys t or e, he j us tgoes atoff t i m es and l eave s q u ick ly . F u rth e rm o re , all o f S c h m its’s s u b

jec tiv e c o m p lain ts s h o w th a t h is s o c ial p h o b ia stem s fro m b eing in the sam e ro o m as o ther p eo p le at w o rk, at pa rt ies, an d at th e g roc ery store. T h ere is no ev iden ce that S ch m it s’s so cial ph o b ia st em s fro m co n tacti n g o thersT he onl yexce pt i on i s thatSchm i t s does notar gue thathe s uffe r ed fr om an 3 im p a irm e n t re q u irin g , o r th a t an yo f h is im p a irm e n ts re q u ire , h im to n ap tw o a n d a h a lf h o u rs a d ay . N ev erthe less, h e c lai m s the A L J erred b yfa il ing to relyo n the V E ’s t es t i m onythats om eone w ho needs t o nap tw o and a ha l f hour s a daycannotper form any jo b s. B e c a u se th a t li m itatio n is n o t in S c h m its’s R F C , the A L J d idn o t n e e d to c o n sid e r it atSt ep Fi ve. 9 o v e r th e tele p h o n e . H e n c e , the re is s u b sta n tial e v id e n c e th a t S c h m its’s s o c ial p h o b ia caus es m oder at e l i m i t at i ons thatpr eventhi m fr om engagi ng i n ext ens i ve fa ce- t o- fac e i nter act i on w i th o thers. V. A tSt ep Fi ve, the A L J hear d t es t i m onyfr om a voca t i onal expert( V E ) and conc l uded that Schm i t s coul d w ork as a s urvei l l ance s y s t em m oni t or . Schm i t s cl ai m s thi s concl us i on w as notbas ed on s ubs t ant i al evi dence . T he A L J r el i ed on the V E ’ s opi ni on, i n r es pons e t o hypothet i calques t i ons , that s om eone w i th Schm i t s ’ s i m pai rm ent s coul d w ork as a s urvei l l ance s y s t em m oni t or , as o u t l i n e d i n Di c t i o n a ryo f Oc c u p a t i o n a l Ti t l e s ( DOT) Co d e 3 7 9 . 3 6 7 - 0 1 0 . S c h mi t s c l a i ms the V E ’ s t es t i m onycannotcons t i tut e s ubs t ant i al evi dence becaus e i tdi d not“r efl ectal l of [the] cl ai m ant ’ s i m pai rm ent s thatar e s upport ed bythe r ecor d. ” R am i rez v. B arnh art , 372 F .3 d 5 4 6 , 5 5 0 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ) (in tern a l q u o tatio n m a rk s a n d c itatio n o m itt e d ). N e a rlya ll of the i m pai rm ent s he ci t es , how ever , w er e r ej ect ed atSt ep Tw o. 3 F o r e x a m p le, S c h m its c laim s h e su f f e rs f ro m a g o ra p h o b ia, re n d e rin g h im u n a b le to i nt er acts oci al l y . T he V E t es t i fi ed thats om eone w ho cannothave a nys oci al i nt er act i on coul d notw ork and Schmi t s ar gues the A L J s houl d have ba s ed the St ep Fi veT he s urvei l l ance s y s t em m oni t orneeds t o t al k and l i s t en “[ f] r equent l y , ” meani ng 4 1/ 3 t o 2/ 3 of the t i m e. B utm uch of thatt al ki ng and l i s t eni ng occur s overthe phone, inclu d ing ca ll ing p o li ce an d o ther a u tho ri ti es to rep o rtd isru p ti v e a cti v ity . B ec au se th ere i s no evi dence i n the r ecor d thatSchm i t s i s s oci al l yi m pai r ed w hen t al ki ng on the phone, the h ypo theti cal did not need to con t ai n such i nter act i on s. 10 d e ter m in a tio n o n th a t re sp o n se . B u t as w e d isc u ss e d p re v io u sly , the A L J d idn o t err in di s cr edi t i ng Schm i t s ’ s cl ai m thathe s uffe r ed fr om agor aphobi a, s o thatl i m i t at i on di d not n e e d t o b e i n c l u d e d i n th e h yp o th e t i c a l q u e s t i o n t o th e VE. A ddi t i onal l y , al l of Schm i t s ’ s s ever e i m pai rm ent s — l um barand r i ghtel bow im p a irm e n ts , a n x ie ty d is o rd e r a n d s o c ia l p h o b ia , a s w e ll a s th e ira tte n d a n t lim ita tio n s , i . e. , th e a b ili tyto lift lig h t o b jec ts, sit, stan d a n d w a lka s n e e d e d , b u t n o t to p u sh o r p u ll w ith th e u p p e r e x tre m iti e s a n d n o t to p e rf o rm w o rkin v o lv in g f

re q u e n t co n tac t w ith other s— w ere partof the hypo theti cal po sed t o the V E . C on si deri ng al l of those i m pairm ents and l i m i t at i on s, the V E con cl ud ed thatsuch a p ers on cou l d w ork as a su rve il lanc e sy stem m o n it o r. Forexampl e, the V E t es t i fi ed thatone coul d w ork as a s urvei l l ance s y s t em m oni t or i f he c oul d have “ l ow cont actw i th the gene r al publ i c and c ow orker s ” and e xpl ai ned that th e jo b in c lu d e d n o c o n ta c t w ith th e p u b lic a s w e ll a s m in im a l c o n ta c t w ith a s u p e rv is o r. Schm i t s i s s oci al l yi m pai r ed i n fac e- t o- fac e i nt er act i ons . T he A L J r el i ed on hypothet i cal ques t i ons thatcont ai n al l of the fa ce- t o- fac e i nt er act i ons of a s urvei l l ance s y s t em m oni t or . T her efor e, thos e hypothet i calques t i ons cons t i tut e s ubs t ant i al evi dence and the

4 A L J di d n ot err i n rel y i ng on the V E ’s res po nses t o co nclude that Schm i t s could w ork as a11

s u rv e illa n c e s y s te m m o n ito r. See R utherf ord v. Ba rnha rt , 3 9 9 F . 3 d 5 4 6 , 5 5 4 -55 (3d C ir . 2005) ( hol di ng the hypothet i calonl yneeds t o i ncl ude the l i m i t at i ons thatar e s upport ed by the e v iden ce , n o t al l of

the a ll eg ed b u t un su p p o rt ed li m it ati o n s). S ch m it s also claim s the A L J erred b yfa il ing to reso lve a co n fli ct be tw ee n the V E ’s te s tim o n ya n d th e D O T . R utherf ord , 3 9 9 F 3 .da t 5 5 7 (h o ld in g th e A L J h a s a d u tyto in q u ire w h e n th e V E ’s te stim o n yc o n f licts w ith th e D O T ). T h e D O T p ro v id e s th a t a s u rv e illa n c e s y s te m m o n ito r s p e a k s a n d lis te n s “ [ f ]r e q u e n tly.” D O T C o d e 3 7 9 .3 6 7 -0 1 0 . A ccor di ng t o Schm i t s , thi s confl i ct s w i th the V E ’ s t es t i m onythatthe j ob ent ai l s no c o n t a c twi th th e p u b l i c a n d mi n i ma l c o n t a c twi th a s u p e rv i s o ra n d c o - wo rk e r s . He c l a i ms the conf l i cti s es peci al l ypr onounced be caus e hi s R FC pr ecl udes hi m fr om “per form [i ng] w o rk in v o lving fre q u en t con tact w ith o thers.” B u t as w e e x p lai n ed p rev iou sly , S ch m it s’s R FC and the V E ’ s t es t i m onyr efl ecthi s l i m i t at i ons w i th fac e- t o- fac e i nt er act i on. T he fr equentt al ki ng and l i s t eni ng i n the D O T , i n contr as t , i s overthe phone. T her efor e, the V E ’s t esti m o n yd id n o t con fli ct w ith the D O T an d the A L J d id n o t err. F o rth e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s we wi l l a f f i rm.